Shirley Skeel over at MSN has apparently never met logic.
There’s an article today on MSN titled “What if no one were fat?” I am not linking to it, because I refuse this kind of thinly disguised hate-speak any traffic whatsoever. It’s running on MSN’s front page, so it is getting enough traffic already.
Ms. Skeel is playing a little game of what-if, in this case, imagining a world with no fat people. Apparently, in her mind, fat people are to blame for all the ills of society. She’s pretty creative with the blame, actually.
Her thesis:
Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
Interesting concept, no? The extra $4000 particularly intriguing. Here’s a problem though – she has two variables in the equation that she has combined into one. Any 10th grade Biology student can tell you that in a well designed experiment, you can only test one. So for this little scenario to be feasible, we need to test what happens if everyone is (a) “lean” OR (b) “healthy”. Ms. Skeel has opted to combine the two, clearly assuming that the two are synonymous. Logical fallacy #1.
Some of the theoretical benefits of no fat people…
We’d save billions of dollars in gas. Airlines would double their profits. A dearth of diabetes and other diseases would save billions of dollars more — and put thousands of doctors on the street. McDonald’s would sell not Big Macs but little steamed chicken snacks — or watch its profits melt away. Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more jobs or higher wages all around.
Add up the savings up on health, food, clothing and efficiencies, and you could buy a professional home gym for every U.S. household — or hand each $4,270 in cash.
Fallacy #2 — Only fat people eat junk food. She’s pulled out one of my very favorite fallacies here, along with the fat-hater’s favorite scapegoat, McDonald’s. The idea, of course, is that only fat people eat junk food, and without all us fatties buying big macs all the evil fast food restaurants would fade away. It’s pretty clear from this statement that Ms. Skeel has never actually been in a fast food restaurant, or she would be well aware that the distribution of body composition in the average McDonald’s bears a striking resemblance to the distribution in the general population. In fact, I have no evidence, but I would argue that the patrons of fast food restaurants is more heavily weighted toward the THIN segment of the population, since a higher percentage of fat people in the general population are on a diet at any given moment.
Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top $5 billion, according to industry studies. Researchers say each overweight driver burns about 18 additional gallons of gas a year, or just under a billion gallons altogether… As for oil imports, they’d be dented by less than 1%.
I have no idea how that 18 gallons per year figure was derived, so I can’t argue against it. It does seem, however, that since the overall impact on oil imports would be the very tiny less than 1%, that fat people do not have any significant impact on energy use. Fallacy #3
Plus-sized clothing costs 10% to 15% more, so shoppers would save $10 billion on shirts, pants and dresses…Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip and bust sizes, rather than asking every woman to squeeze into an hourglass shape.
Fallacy #4 — fat people are responsible for the high price of clothing. I don’t think Ms. Skeel has ever taken an economics class, or she would understand that prices are heavily influenced by competition. There are fewer companies in the plus-size clothing market, therefore there is less competition, therefore prices are higher. The easier solution would be to expand the industry so that there were more clothing options for ALL women, benefiting people of all sizes.
Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the way, America’s 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many. That’s 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald’s past four years of sales.
Fallacy #5 — 3,500 calories = 1 pound, anytime, anywhere. This is based on the simplistic calories-in, calories-out model that any doctor, biochemist, or tenth grade bio student could tell you is not accurate, and yet people still insist on using it. Every person’s body uses food differently, and two people could easily eat the same diet and be of very different body composition. Math is a beautiful thing, but humans aren’t bunsen burners.
If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%, or $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers’ sales (assuming no extra exports). Bob Young, the American Farm Bureau’s chief economist, says farmers would cope. They’d switch some land from fattening seed oils and sugar beets to fruits and vegetables. Or they might grow corn for ethanol, or even open a hunting resort.
See above re: calories in-calories out. Also, since when are fat people the only ones who eat seed oils and sugar beets? This is a nice combo of #2 and #5.
The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6% of all health-care costs.
Fallacy #6 — Correlation equals causation. The assumption here is that obesity causes those diseases, when in fact it may be the other way around, or the two might have a single unrelated cause that results in their correlation. Unless elimination of obesity involves the elimination of all people who exhibit a disposition thereto, it is fallacious to infer that elimination of obesity would automatically result in a reduction in correlated diseases. There’s a little of fallacy #1 in here too, the idea that thin = healthy.
On a side note, that might be the most obnoxious sentence I have ever written.
Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and spent less time at work feeling unwell.
Fallacy #6 rears its ugly little pointed head again. Ms. Skeel fails to account for any other reason fat people might take sick days or be less productive (if that is in actuality the case), like, say….dealing with bigoted fat-hating jackasses and discrimination at work?
“Jenny Craig would be very unhappy” if everyone were slim, says Rand’s Sturm. And so she would, along with the rest of the $55 billion weight-loss industry.
If everyone were genetically predisposed to be thin, then this would be the case. But if the “slimness” were due to constant societal pressure to be thin, then the diet industry would probably become even more of a giant money-sucking vortex of evil than it is now.
On top of these savings would be billions of dollars more. Manufacturers and builders wouldn’t have to make doorways bigger, car seats wider, furniture stouter. Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite, as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle decreased.
Fallacy #2 again, this time saying that only fat people eat beef.
The other problem with this statement is its incredible bigotry. Since getting rid of all the fat people would do such wonderful things, why stop there? How about we eliminate every single person on Earth who has unique needs to save money?
Ooops. That’s all of us.
Research has shown that people who are not obese marry more, are paid more, are promoted more, sleep better and have better sex lives. We don’t yet know whether people earn less because they’re fat, or whether they’re fat because they earn less. Researchers suspect it is the former because there’s some evidence of discrimination against the obese.
I am impressed that Ms. Skeel admitted that discrimination is a possibility, because it interferes with her use of fallacy #6 again. She is of the opinion that obese people marry less, make less, etc (if those statements are even true), simply because they are obese, and never seems to make the connection that the reason for that correlation might just be the kind of idiotic hateful stereotypes she is herself perpetuating.
Here’s a little game of what-if — what if writers bothered to do some research, rather than dumping a bunch of old, tired stereotypes into an article and calling it news? What if people thought about what they were saying before they said it? What if we learned how to accept one another and stop marinating in hate?
Forget a world without fat people — I like my idea better.