Job 24:9–11

In the current issue of NewScientist there's an article by an "inventor and futurist." (Disclaimer: I haven't much respect for "futurists," especially since hearing one on an NPR show about what's coming in the next millienium state that it's "really easy!" to predict the future. All whom I've heard seem to be uncritical technophiles, with no evident sense of social or economic history. Yes, if the global economy remains pretty much as it is, then those folks might have a case. But that's an enormous 'if.') This guy said that a pill that allows one to each as much as one wishes without gaining weight is less than a half-century away.

When discussions of the disconnect between technology and ethics occur, it usually seems to be in the context of a hot-button issue (cloning, e.g.). This one isn't, though, so it should be easier to consider objectively.

Now, granted, I expect that there would be some caveats to such a pill: it probably wouldn't be so weight-gain-limiting as he made it sound; it probably wouldn't reduce the non-weight effects of excessive consumption of sodium, saturated fats, or the like; it would probably be developed for overweight people who cannot get or keep weight off by other methods. And, of course, it would probably be a prescription drug.

But, market forces and American (at least) appetites (in both senses) being what they are, once it entered the public domain, as long as it were safe, I think it would pretty quickly become an OTC drug. It would make a lot of money for pharma and ag companies (directly and indirectly). This is where the ethical disconnect would come in. We in the developed world (myself included) already consume more than our share of global food resources, which is largely responsible for the problem of excess weight. Is it justifiable to enable our further indulgence while there are so many tens of millions who need food and cannot get it?

Even from the selfish perspective, there is the matter of health. Weight is visible. High blood pressure is not. It's much easier to adjust one's behavior to achieve visible results. I've already mentioned Na and sat fat — what about exercise? It does more than keep weight off, but for many, weight is by far the principal motivation. The less 'weighty' the need, the less likely the exercise. As average health declines, the cost of health care will rise, and our system is already heading for disaster.

And then there are the ecological/climatological considerations. Greater demand for food will drive greater investment in food production, meaning more extensive agricultural 'development.' At the same time, if global warming is real (and, anthropogenic or not, the fact itself seems to be incontrovertible), per-unit-area agricultural productivity will decline — which, if GW'ing is anthropogenic, would further increase pressure for agricultural 'development,' just adding fuel to that lovely feedback-fire. The Maya and the pre-Columbian puebloans essentially farmed themselves 'back to the stone age' during a period of environmental change. Just because we have more complex technology doesn't mean we're immune. And then there's the additional burden that would place on the people in east Africa who have a hard-enough time as it is — only we'd be less able and even less inclined to provide aid than we already are.

Individual responsibility isn't a panacæa in a mass-market world. But if we don't change our ways (in both respects), we may very well end up with a world in which it can be once again. I don't think that would be a whole lot of fun.

(P.S. For those of you who, like me, haven't memorized the Bible, Job 24:9–11 can be read here).