|
Americans Favor Limiting Sale of
Unhealthy Food in Schools
|
Americans support setting
nutritional standards for all food served at public
schools, even food served at snack bars and bake
sales. However, most oppose prohibiting students from
bringing packed lunches from home to school.
|
|
Read more at GALLUP.com.
|
I found this interesting...
WHERE do you draw the line on personal freedoms...
There is a wicked problem emerging @BS around personal
freedoms and how much of those are awarded when largely
personal freedoms and the abuse of them are in fact PAID for
by society...
IF society picks up the bill for personal freedoms gone
astray, then morally what is the obligation of society to
constrain...
There are interesting parallels occurring, as our society
becomes tighter, personal freedoms become a societal burden
that people are asked to shoulder...
The morality of constraining personal freedom emerges
differently as a society becomes tighter...
example:
In a country that is loose, personal freedom is not
constrained and society doesn't pay for people who exceed
limits per se, in fact, the justice system is "pay as you go"
so to speak, nor shoulder the burden, people suffer.
In a tight country, personal freedom is more constrained and
society pays for people who exceed limits per se, as society
shoulder's increasing burdens for limits of personal freedom
exceeded.
An emerging question @F-L-O-W surrounds the trajectory of
personal freedoms in cultural development.
How much personal freedom should be granted in a society?
MORE than likely, this question doesn't have "A" answer
(grammar aside).
This is also a "case" for a society with variety, to match up
with differences in people and more than likely, makes a case
for fractionalization, the preservation of certain freedoms to
be, do, have, become and contribute according to kind, values
and notions about reality, rather than being amalgamated by a
centralizing set of conventional principles?
I don't have an answer for this wicked, or knarly problem as
some might call it, but I believe we are going to face
increasingly levels of dissonance, as noted in the implicit
assumptions provided in my "kick-off" quote.
It's ok to say what people can do at school, in a meal
provided by the "government" but people remain free to package
whatever crap for their kids that can be stuffed into a paper
bag-->more than likely influenced by SES (socio-economic
status) and the consequential media targeting.
As I currently reside in a country where there are few fat,
and most skinny, and even perhaps 1/3 malnourished, and also
in a country where there are few skinny, most fat, and 1/3
malnourished in the other direction--knowing what I know about
human nature--it appears that both freedom and culture are
playing a huge role in circumstance for most.
What I also notice is that affluence in any form produces the
same effect in all places...and we get back to a question
about freedoms.
Is it ok for people to have the freedom to promote "crap" even
if it's done very professionally that by and of its nature
colludes with human nature to produce ill effects which must
then be largely born by society...?
And if so, then where do you draw the line about freedom in a
personal, professional, business or network (culture)?
Enter WICKED.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
"Wicked problem" is
a phrase originally used in social planning to
describe a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve
because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing
requirements that are often difficult to recognize. The term
‘wicked’ is used, not in the sense of evil but rather its
resistance to resolution.[1] Moreover,
because of complex interdependencies,
the effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal
or create other problems.
C. West Churchman introduced the concept of wicked
problems in a "Guest Editorial" of Management Science (Vol.
14, No. 4, December 1967) by referring to "a recent seminar"
by Professor Horst Rittel, and discussing the moral
responsibility of Operations
Research "to inform the manager in what respect our
'solutions' have failed to tame his wicked problems".
I recorded this quote from Wikipedia because more than likely,
this formalization of the problems of conventional existence,
more than likely designated the formalization of second tier,
where the existence problems give way to being problems
because existence becomes inordinately complex and one
realizes one can no longer solve all problems of existence and
the fear which has driven that question, including survival,
begins to give way to a new quantitatively and qualitatively
DIFFERENT set of fears based on "living with" rather than
solving existential fears.
As likely, is the current situation to suggest a
quantitatively and qualitatively different set of conditions
that after particular people experiencing this set of new
fears, we are beginning the journey into the new problems of
being, and thus a question like personal freedoms and how far
does it go before we breach the line of morality driving
freedoms--creating a new dialogue. |
