T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Life Expectancy
34 Answers
There is an intriguing map in this article on differing life expectancies throughout the country - not sure how seriously we are to take that, but there does appear to be some cause for concern in this respect.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In other areas of life much effort is placed into arguing that the right of a choice made is sacrosanct, that to suggest there perhaps might be reason to pause for a reassessment is heresy, that to take the public pulse more than once is undemocratic, that those who are dissatisfied with the direction of a nation's travel are beyond the pale and deserving of encouragement to expel themselves from the society they live in.
The not at all unexpected results in the article linked in the OP suggest that, in the way advocated in other important matters, nothing should be done. Those who acquire a life expectancy as much as 18 years less than average and have significantly more children than average, leading to more distress than average in a coming generation should be allowed to, unhindered and without any discouragement at any point. No effort should be made to change the situation now or in the foreseeable future. They should be allowed their detrimental choices. They should be allowed to die early after prolonged bad health. Accordingly, thoughts of concern over the effects on many children are misguided. Anything else is a foreign concept, we are making it clear that we intend to be in full charge of our own lives (and our dependants) for better or for worse, and so it shall be for all.
The not at all unexpected results in the article linked in the OP suggest that, in the way advocated in other important matters, nothing should be done. Those who acquire a life expectancy as much as 18 years less than average and have significantly more children than average, leading to more distress than average in a coming generation should be allowed to, unhindered and without any discouragement at any point. No effort should be made to change the situation now or in the foreseeable future. They should be allowed their detrimental choices. They should be allowed to die early after prolonged bad health. Accordingly, thoughts of concern over the effects on many children are misguided. Anything else is a foreign concept, we are making it clear that we intend to be in full charge of our own lives (and our dependants) for better or for worse, and so it shall be for all.
Eating healthily needn't be particularly expensive, just change the manner in which you cook foods is a good start, like eat jacket spuds instead of chips. Change out doorstep bread for thin sliced. Cut out sugar heavy soda for diluted fruit juice. You can make a vegetable stew for 6 people for literally £2, mushroom risotto costs roughly the same, plus if he gave up smoking his disposable income would increase dramatically. I am sympathetic to him but he does need to make some adjustments to help himself.
Kvalidr/Auntlidia are spot on......eating can be healthy on a low income .
Rich...tend not to smoke, tend not to be obese, exercise more and have access to private health care.
Poor....smoke more, tend to be obese at a younger age, exercise less and have a poor standard of health care, generally.
That simple.
Rich...tend not to smoke, tend not to be obese, exercise more and have access to private health care.
Poor....smoke more, tend to be obese at a younger age, exercise less and have a poor standard of health care, generally.
That simple.
Latest Posts
Business & Finance3 mins ago
Tory Donor Lord Bamford Funds The Reform...
News12 mins ago
Jokes15 mins ago
