Ass-Backward Nation

I recently read an article in Time Magazine about how Americans tend to “live dangerously,” which in retrospect makes you really think about how blind we are to the world around us. Americans and people in general (especially those in the industrialized world), tend to weight short term risks in higher standing than long term risks, especially risks that have a direct bearing on our health. The article does indeed raise some incredibly valid questions about our life styles and why we as people, tend to self destruct. Now I am not saying that every American is guilty of this habit. But I would bet a fair amount of money (which I don’t have) on the fact that some of us are guilty of these habits.

According to this article, the cause of our lapses in judgment occurs because of how our brains are wired. The brain is wired in what the article calls a “prehistoric” manner, which was a vital asset to our ancestors. These individuals weighed risk in terms of survival, hence being able to pass their genes along to the next generation. That does not mean that prehistoric humans did not take risks; most had to. How would you feel about killing a mammoth with a spear instead of your trusty elephant gun? Chances are that no competent individual in the modern world would attempt such a feat without the assistance of alcohol (mammoths are extinct by the way). The question is then, how does out prehistoric brain wiring effect us in the modern world?

Gamblers are masters of calculating probabilities. They know their exact chances of success and failure based on what cards they received in the deal, for example. Your average Joe, on the other hand is not exactly a Vegas casino attendee. Take smoking for instance. Over 30 million Americans smoke or use some form of tobacco, which results in over 1200 deaths a day and over 650,000 in a year. In the short term, yes, smoking will probably not kill you, hence why people start in the first place. Fast forward 20 years later, that very person is still smoking (if they made it that long). There is a good chance that their health is suffering immensely from smoking in some form. That first cigarette did not kill the person, but the 6,000th very well may put that person in the lung cancer category.

A better example in this case is AIDS and diabetes (or some other nasty disease). I am not saying that AIDS is something that everyone should go out and get, because it will kill you eventually. But if treated in its early stages (HIV), there is a good chance that the individual will go on to lead a normal life span. Diabetes on the other hand is a bit different from AIDS. I understand that some people inherit it or are simply unlucky. But what about those that cram thousands of calories of pure “crap” down their gullets each day? Are they not thinking about the risk that unhealthy foods will pose to them down the road? It is a fact that better nutrition reduces the likely hood that someone will develop a degenerative disease down the road.

The article pointed out that after 9/11; more people were driving to their destinations instead of flying (which was understandable). But what many people did not know is that even though countless people perished in the attacks, especially aboard the planes (in this case), that the likelihood of perishing in a plane crash were still considerably less than being killed in a car accident. You still have a better chance of being struck by lightening that dying in a plane crash. The simple fact of the matter is that we are more concerned with short term risk and not the things in everyday life that will affect us down the road. Steroids may help an athlete right now, but liver tumors are not exaclty a pleasant thing to deal with down the road.