The Global Economy Cannot Be Based On Population Growth!

Isaac Asimov makes a crucial point about over population at his Queen's Park Lecture in Barbados, on Feb. 6, 1976. This photo was part of a write-up in The Barbados Advocate newspaper.

There is a good reason why most physical scientists consider the majority of economists to be blockheads and simpletons: they don't use rational or testable models. One of the most irritating aspects of market economics posits that population growth is essential for future economics growth. This simpleton proposition was expressed yet again in today's Wall Street Journal (p. A1, 'Population's Flagging Growth Undermines Global Economy')

The author, Greg Ip, writing:

"Previous generations fretted about the world having too many people. Today's problem is too few. This reflects two long-established trends: lengthening lifespans and declining fertility.

Simply put, companies are running out of workers, customers or both. In either case economic growth suffers"


Which is total, unadulterated balderdash which no serious rational person should buy. It is merely PR and propaganda for a world we simply cannot afford.  See, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/earth-day-alert-biggest-problem-remains.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/bret-stephens-as-ill-informed-on.html

As noted therein, there's an 80 percent probability that world population - now 7.3 billion - will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion by 2100.  This portends a basically unlivable world featuring assorted life-destroying forms of blowback (new diseases, mass starvation, antibiotic failure, disasters, wars) .

As Isaac Asimov bluntly put it in a magnificent lecture delivered in Barbados in February, 1976:

"We can either control our numbers, or.....let nature increase the human death rate"

A serious marker is the fact we humans are currently consuming the equivalent resources of 1.5 Earths per year, which is clearly unsustainable. In fact, it is now approaching 1.6 Earths because of the added humans - more than eighty million per year (1 million added every 4.5 days according to Alan Weisman).   The excellent BBC documentary last year on the Earth's population (hosted by Richard Attenborough) entitled: 'How Many People Can Earth Hold?' also provided much needed realistic insights on sustainability and the planet's bio-support capacity.

Attenborough didn't pull punches or mince words, noting that every current major societal, environmental problem:  from clogged highways, to overflowing hospital ERs to crowded schools, as well as scarcity of commodities (reflected in their much increased prices) to fouling of our water and atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, can be laid at the feet of too many people on this planet - each needing food, air, water and energy from the time it's born.  The more people generated the more CO2 produced as a result of their gobbling resources and assorted carbon footprints. While the latter are greatest in the West, because our societies are based on consumption,

By the same token, Greg Ip's idiotic complaint that the global economy will suffer from flagging population growth is based upon the market economy's over reliance on consumption - as opposed to services. It is also flat out wrong in its claims!

For example, Ip claims companies are "running out of workers". Absolutely not so!  There are an estimated 93 million unemployed or under-employed workers in toto in all the industrial (G 20)  nations and that may well be an underestimate. There are an estimated 150m - 250m unemployed workers world wide all with marketable skills. Why aren't their talents being put to use?  The answer is that capitalist market economies demand higher unemployment numbers - called the "employment rent" - a barometer used by the Federal Reserve to stave off inflation. (Alan Greenspan once stated that every 1 million unemployed workers lowers inflation by 1 percent).  Then there is the general tenet that too few unemployed workers  will drive up wage pressure. Also a goodly pool of "surplus workers" is supposed to strike fear into the existing workers not to complain too much about their jobs or one of the next 20 in line will take them. In other words, unemployment is based on FEAR in market economies.

This simply cannot hold and this attitude is unsustainable! This also applies to healthy, older workers - of whom there are tens of millions in the U.S. alone, who want work and are willing to work - not just sit in recliners watching reruns on TV all day! Why aren't these older workers being hired instead of being let go? Because of rampant ageism which the AARP has repeatedly exposed!  (This goes back to a Fortune 500 white paper that appeared in 1996 claiming that keeping workers past age 50 threatened companies with "diminishing returns". What utter bullshit!)

Hence, Ip's claim is palpable bullshit!

He also insists that companies are "running out of customers". In fact, the truth of the matter is too few companies are producing the service-based artifacts and devices that most people really need. Matching that, current wage levels don't generate the salaries needed (even for existing workers) to provide the disposable income to buy most of the durables  on offer without going into serious debt. (Subprime car loans are now among the fastest growing - totaling $30b according to the WSJ) . Hence, existing customers go for the low hanging more affordable toys such as HDTVs and Ipads etc, available on Black Fridays or at major sales.

Elderly people, since Ip complains about "lengthening life spans" -also need more and varied medical and other services. A recent AARP Bulletin report ('Caregiving in America 2015', Nov. p. 6) notes:

"An invisible army of 40 millions heroes sacrifice their days and nights to care for loved ones. It's time the nation recognized their work"

Indeed! So where the hell are the additional service workers to take over those stressful jobs or at least help them to make lives easier. THAT IS WHERE THE JOBS ARE NEEDED AND CUSTOMERS!  The piece notes that a total of "37 billion hours of unpaid caregiving worth $470 billion" is administered. Why can't companies do it and for a decent price?

Thus, Ip's whining that there is a "shift toward demand of services such as health care"  and away from durable goods - like cars and TVs - is understandable. Can't these stupid capitalists grasp that most Americans already have enough 'stuff'? What they need are more services of every variety, especially in the caregiving realm. (Not just for the elderly but also disabled younger citizens and those ravaged by serious cancers and/or cancer treatments.) There is plenty of work to go around and millions of "customers". And there will be no end to either going forward!

Ip admits (p. A14) that the population increase is indeed more than ample - up 32 percent by 2050- but the "working age" population (ages 26-64) "will only have increased 26 percent". Well, then "working age" needs to be redefined! He admits this means "working longer" or encouraging people to do so, but has absolutely no prescriptions, none, for getting companies to escape their ageist mold and hiring them.   It is obviously one thing to say people should work longer, another to ensure they can get the chance and not be discriminated against.

Contrary to Ip's obsession with durables production, we certainly don't need more stuff in our homes to end up in the massive trash piles and landfills for which we are already running out of space.  Already the inventories of unpurchased durables are so great that warehouses may not be cleared out in 2 years even if there's no further production. What we need, therefore, is a total re-orientation of jobs -including fixing our mangled infrastructure - as opposed to generating more crap to sell:  more Ipads, more Barbies, more X-boxes etc.

Besides all this, economic growth imperatives are toxic by their very nature.

As Charles Reich poignantly notes in his book, Opposing the System, Crown Books, p. 103:

"When society itself comes to be modeled on economic and organizational principles, all of the forces that bind people together are torn apart in the struggle for survival. Community is destroyed because we are no longer 'in this together' because everyone is a threat to everyone else. "

In such a capitalist-driven, consumerist organizational economic model, wherein the resource “pie” for the non-wealthy elite grows ever smaller, the young are threats to us oldsters, as we are threats to them, as neighbor is to neighbor. It can't be otherwise. This capitalist model has seen fit, in other words, to destroy our areas of commonality and common cause, replacing neutral civic space with demeaning commercial space and commercialist, market values.

Reich then describes the visceral 'dog-eat-dog', endless economic warfare that ensues between people in the never ending quest to 'make it' and not be left behind. A tragic game wherein every one, every man, woman and child has a 'market value' and all abiding principles, social or moral, are reduced to economics. Alas, the cost resides in devastated marriages, families and communities.

The capitalist driven “rupture” can occur as quickly as when your neighbor builds a large recreational pool, or puts in a hot tub, and you can’t afford one. Or when he makes a great home improvement add-on while you are left to humble by with the status quo.

By comparison, the endemic socialist, communitarian structures of Barbados or Norway (for example) promote a healthy growth of the social commonweal and the belief that what is done for the benefit of one, or a few, redounds to the benefit of all. Hence, the imperatives for government subsidized low cost housing, national health insurance for all, free education through college. The result is no one becomes hyper-rich (by virtue of the progressive, leveling tax scales), but no kid is starving when he goes to bed at night either, as shown on one CBS '60 Minutes' piece several months ago.

In the U.S. capitalist system, it is more rank commercialized competition that prevails - and that engenders a perpetual creative destruction that ravages precious resources.

IN a world in which already we are consuming the equivalent of 1.6 Earths a year, we simply can't afford more consuming inhabitants. The aim must be to continue toward a stable population policy and adapt economics to suit. Endless growth can no longer be part of the conversation or on the table. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/44-trillion-in-deficits-by-2024-minus.html

And here is a more useful template for our economist friends (or economics journalists)  like Greg Ip to go by:

1) The definition of economic assets must be extended to include ecological resources, including virgin forests (what is left!) fresh, potable water, and arable land.

2) The definition of growth must be expanded to include entities/activities that are not resource-intensive. For example, let's look at reading and writing poetry, giving singing classes or physics tutorials.

3) Time must be fully exchangeable for money, thereby allowing workers to have more of it via a reasonable monetary exchange. This is especially geared to the 40 million- odd caretakers in the U.S. who currently receive no remuneration for the 37 billion hours of time they invest caring for loved ones - saving the gov't $470 b a year.

Alzheimer's: A Mensa Bulletin Perspective - On Avoiding It, Recognizing It

For those of us over 65s, the specter of Alzheimer's disease stalks us as if from the shadows. - as we understand that after the age of 65 the incidence of the disease doubles every five years.  The most recent relative actually diagnosed with it was Janice's cousin Desmond - once a man of quick wit and endless curiosity, especially about astronomy and cosmic physics. In the photo image shown we'd just been discussing dark energy and he attended a lecture I gave that evening at the Harry Bayley Observatory. Of all the  30 or so attendees, he asked the most percipient questions. 

By the time we visited Barbados in May, 2010,  we were told Desmond was in a "home" - where he was being cared for. We went to see him, unable to believe a man of such intellect could be reduced to little more than a babbling baby - but it was true. The experience shocked us both and made us even more wary of the disease. Little lapses in memory somehow transmogrified into real fears of disease onset, not to mention other lapses - i.e. such as in a blog post two days ago putting "Frogs" in the header instead of "pigs".  Alzheimer's? Or just a transitory brain fart arising from overload?

Fortunately, a Mensa Bulletin article, 'Understanding Alzheimer's', by Edna R. Tynes (February, 2014, p. 18) sheds much needed light.  Perhaps the most important contribution is the recognition of the disease apart from normal aging.  The lapses in memory, in particular, are well -explained:

"Normal aging is what happens when your brain gets overloaded. It's not so much that your brain can't collect and store memories, it's the fact that the mechanism in the hippocampus that indexes your memories and decides where to store them gets overloaded. It's the overload of this index that slows down your ability to recall and use a particular memory - also known as 'senior moments'."

This makes eminent sense given people who've lived 60 or more years have millions of memories stored, far more than a high school or college grad. As each new experience unfolds, including learning, more and more 'blocks' of memory are added to the hippocampus' indexes.  One can in some ways think of it as a "register problem".  As registers become overloaded with gigabytes of information and past events they become ever more difficult to access. This is why seniors take longer at many different tasks, because even when they are thinking them through to answer questions -  they are going into the vast store of prior learning. This is also why, as the author observes, "the ability to learn new things and retain that knowledge tends to decrease with age."

This is one reason I blog, and do diverse posts on many different topics apart from my specialty areas of astrophysics, modern physics and advanced math. Writing a blog post on a topic in economics, or medical research, or politics forces one to become familiar with it by doing research, or reading specific articles. Also, having written a blog post on some topic, all I need to do is recall the gist of it or a keyword to immediately bring it up via Google. In that way I can keep the memory of what I wrote fresh in mind.

I am still able to do the same with most books. Although I may not be able to recall a specific issue, or what was discussed in a particular text, I am able to immediately find the book in my library and locate the page of interest.

There are other ways the author suggests for delaying or avoiding the disease:

-  Frequent use of puzzles or games, particularly strategy games (GO, Chess)

-  Reading, especially non-fiction (history, politics, economics, science)

- Socializing, especially in venues where the conversation is stimulating.

- Traveling and learning a new language (or keeping up with one you took in college)

- Taking classes in something new, either in a classroom setting or online - anything to exercise your mind.

- Eating more fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy diet

- Maintain low cholesterol and blood pressure

- Avoid Type 2 Diabetes

All of these are quite doable but clearly some more so than others. The point is that at all costs one want to keep one's mind active and sharp. Some may do it by working out calculus problems from one's college textbooks, while others may read and research historical topics, or venture into the realms of deep politics or quantum physics.

What about the warning signs of Alzheimer's? A number of them are listed in the article and which those who note them might wish to attend to:

1- Memory loss. Not senior moments, but forgetting recently learned information and major events. (I.e. you forgot that the U.S. was planning an attack on Syria last July-August)

2- Decreased Problem solving skills - watch out if you take longer to complete common tasks or have difficulty with math problems you once found easy.

3- Time and date confusion: difficulty understanding the passage of seasons, not knowing the year or why events don't happen immediately.

4- Difficulty with familiar tasks: Beware if you no longer remember the way to work, can't remember a problem protocol - or how to play Hearts.

5- Vision and spatial understanding: Difficulty judging distances, color contrasts or even reading.

6- Communication issues: Difficulty with joining or maintaining conversations - repeating the same points all the time - or expressing oneself. Including in expressing your ideas in writing.

7- Losing items: Everyone misplaces keys or pens on occasion but putting things in odd locations (e.g. the car keys in the fridge) is a red alarm. (Also accusing others of taking the lost items).

8- Abnormally bad judgment: Being frivolous with money, i.e. buying 150 Publishers Clearinghouse magazine subscriptions a year to win their 'sweepstakes', or 100 lotto tickets a day. Making unsafe decisions or lapsed grooming habits.

9- Withdrawal. Pulling away from family and friends is a warning sign, as well as foregoing hobbies and beloved activities.

10- Mood changes: Becoming paranoid or abnormally suspicious about others' behavior - or becoming angry,  depressed or anxious for no reason.

Of course, there is now a blood test to identify Alzheimer's with relatively high probability (AARP Bulletin , 'Would You Want to Know?', May, p. 20)  but with no clear means of effectively addressing the disease or treating it, what would be the point?  Craig Klugman, a bioethicist quoted in the article, observes:

"A positive result on a test like this could be devastating. It could change people's outlook on life, making them anxious, depressed and withdrawn. Suddenly, you find yourself living with this sense of doom that can effect every dimension of your life."


Image from Mensa Bulletin, February, p. 21.

Those who test positive could also suffer the added burden of feeling stigmatized or ashamed. You know you have this defect of the brain and now that you have this knowledge which eats away at your confidence, choices and words. As each new lapse, or faux pas occurs, the stigma is reinforced and the affected person becomes more withdrawn. Soon he identifies with the disease and it becomes his very manifestation. 

Nor is this empty speculation. A recent study cited in the AARP article (ibid.)  looked at the effect of telling people that they carry a genotype that puts them at high risk of developing Alzheimer's. Those who tested positively judged their memories more critically as well as every lapse. They also performed worse on memory tests than those not informed.

Get a blood test to identify Alzheimer's bio-makers ahead of time? Nope. Until viable treatment options exist there's no point in knowing.  But at least articles such as the one in the Mensa Bulletin make one more aware of the disease - recognizing warning signs without a blood test and how one might try to avoid becoming a victim by being pro-active.

Another Medical Reversal - This Time On Niacin

"No more niacin for you!"

Reversals on key medical issues are causing many of us to wonder if it makes any sense to use medical guidelines at all, given they seem to change with each passing week.  The latest turnaround is on Niacin, which had been advised to control HDL - the high density lipoprotein cholesterol that wreaks havoc in arteries. It also had been found to lower triglycerides.

I had been faithfully taking it the past five years for these reasons - and had found that my last lipid panel last year yielded the best results ever (though granted, a role may have been played by other factors such as eating more fish, avocados, good fats in general). But what caught my attention was a medical brief in the most recent AARP Bulletin (September, p. 4) entitled 'Nixing Niacin'.  It noted:

"For 50 years, doctors have recommended high doses of the B vitamin niacin to lower cholesterol and improve heart health. But two large new studies show that niacin not only doesn't reduce deaths from heart disease, it puts patients at risk for serious side effects including infections and diabetes. 'This is no longer a drug for routine use' says Northwestern University preventive cardiologist, Donald Lloyd Jones."

Since I'd only just purchased some $35 in niacin a few days before I was curious to learn more about how the whole issue changed.  It turns out  the National Institutes of Health sponsored an American study, and the drug company Merck funded a large international study. One tested extended-release niacin, and the other evaluated a combination of extended-release niacin and laropiprant, an agent designed to make the niacin more tolerable.  Both studies failed to show that niacin reduced the risks of heart disease, stroke and death.

More sobering, researchers stopped the American study prematurely because the possibility of finding any benefit became so remote that its continuation seemed futile. Additional follow-up analyses conducted in both studies did not show that niacin provided a convincing benefit to any group of patients. 

 

 

But the worst news was that niacin caused  multiple side effects, many of which are serious.

 

It was learning about this that got me to (reluctantly) toss the 250 count  re-supply bottles I'd just purchased. As wifey said: "You can't continue to take it knowing what you know now."  And, of course, I will have to inform our family physician when we see her tomorrow.  One disturbing aspect of these recent studies is that in addition to the discomfort (i.e. flushing, random itching) that many patients have, they show that niacin can cause more serious side effects. In the international study, niacin increased the risk of gastrointestinal events such as diarrhea and ulcers by 28 percent; as well as musculoskeletal problems such as muscle damage and gout by 26 percent; rashes, skin ulcerations and other serious skin-related problems by 67 percent. Worse, increased infections by 22 percent; and gastrointestinal bleeding or other bleeding by 38 percent.

 

In addition, patients on niacin were 32 percent more likely to receive a diagnosis of diabetes than those not on the drug, and in those with diabetes, niacin increased the risk of serious problems with disease management by 55 percent. Safety problems were also apparent in the American study, in which those taking niacin had a higher risk of gastrointestinal problems and infections than those taking a placebo. It was the concordance of these studies in showing harms that is so convincing and which doubtless led to the AARP Bulletin notice - which I suspect many will now take to heart.

 

SO, without niacin in the cardiovascular arsenal what can be done? As I noted above, eating more good fats - such as found in avocado and fish like salmon. Also, it is possible that my consistent consumption of those alone may have been responsible for bringing my HDL and triglyceride numbers more in line - much more than the 500 mg of niacin I'd been taking every day.

 

Stay tuned, more medical turnarounds are bound to come!

Ezekiel Emanuel and Wanting to Die At 75: What The Media Gets Wrong - And Emanuel!

All kinds of kerfuffle has now blown up over Ezekiel Emanuel's  Atlantic Monthly piece entitled 'Why I Hope To Die At 75?" , e.g.

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/09/why-i-hope-to-die-at-75/379329/

Most of those who oppose his thesis, like David B. Agus two mornings ago on CBS, admit to being "optimists",  which is understandable. They all share the typical, pie-eyed American conviction that we are all on track to live to 100 and will carry a high quality of life with us. All of which is balderdash.

As Dr. Emanuel pointed out in a segment on 'Morning Joe' 2 days ago, all the stats back up his arguments in the Atlantic piece. Alzheimer's will continue to claim more elderly brains, and medical treatments in the last years will create enormous costs while delivering few good results. (Most elderly will die in hospitals, often at the mercy of the medical-industrial complex which only sees life extension or preservation as its goal.)

His central point about bad aging is unarguable:

"But here is a simple truth that many of us seem to resist: living too long is also a loss. It renders many of us, if not disabled, then faltering and declining, a state that may not be worse than death but is nonetheless deprived. It robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world. It transforms how people experience us, relate to us, and, most important, remember us. We are no longer remembered as vibrant and engaged but as feeble, ineffectual, even pathetic."

So why would you not want to go out before you slide into total physical weakness, forgetfulness, or feeble thinking? Are you really ok with letting others take care of you, change your diapers and clean you for the rest of your days? Obviously no, but most Americans brainwashed by the media can't see themselves as older and infirm -  only re-invented "semi-youthful" types who can hike on the Swiss Alps at 75 and do integral calculus.

But that's largely a myth. The boffo, well-lived quality elder years only happen to the relative few. The few who manage to escape debilitating cancers, or injuries or diabetic collateral damage and Alzheimer's.  The proportion of such lucky ones is maybe 5 percent, if that. Even my hale  and hearty sister -in-law Krimhilde, see below, is now experiencing more and more frequent memory deficits and problems. She was 80 in August and has kept herself as mentally and physically fit - including eating a vegetarian diet-  as anyone could. If SHE can experience problems with what she's done then any of us can.

Dr. Emanuel, who has been misquoted in the media - which portray his piece as suggesting we all need to off ourselves at 75 - is clear this is not what he means:

"Let me be clear about my wish. I’m neither asking for more time than is likely nor foreshortening my life. Today I am, as far as my physician and I know, very healthy, with no chronic illness. I just climbed Kilimanjaro with two of my nephews. So I am not talking about bargaining with God to live to 75 because I have a terminal illness. Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. People who want to die in one of these ways tend to suffer not from unremitting pain but from depression, hopelessness, and fear of losing their dignity and control. The people they leave behind inevitably feel they have somehow failed. The answer to these symptoms is not ending a life but getting help. I have long argued that we should focus on giving all terminally ill people a good, compassionate death—not euthanasia or assisted suicide for a tiny minority."

This is a fair précis of his position but I have my quibbles, most especially with his opposition to euthanasia. This is especially when the more consistent position would be to embrace it given his willingness to abandon extraordinary measures to prolong life, say be getting special treatments or preventive tests. If you are willing to eschew those measures - say like  getting chemo for an incurable pancreatic cancer (or as he later suggests - doing without colonoscopies after age 65) you should be willing to allow euthanasia under specific conditions. His take that most people seeking it are "depressed" is also flat out wrong. In the case of pancreatic cancer the pain can be devastating. The outlook grim. Most "good, compassionate deaths" are only possible if those suffering are allowed to curb the extreme pain, for example,  by the suitable dispensing of enough morphine - as is done in Barbados. There is NO reluctance there to alleviate patient pain, and the result is a speedier death - though not technically "euthanasia". But this is what most pain paranoid doctors in the U.S. fret over. They shouldn't.

The more controversial case for euthanasia is Alzheimer's disease, and euthanasia ought to be allowed as a rational option if the person desires it. (In Switzerland now, many people  - including those diagnosed with Alzheimer's - are arriving for "tourism euthanasia" to be accommodated by a group called "Dignitas")   The rationale may not necessarily be pain here, or depression, but the realization the person faces a long, degrading  and dependent path toward an inevitable end which s/he desires to terminate. Is it anyone's place to say "No, you can't! You need to tough it out, lose all your identity and perish!"  No, I don't believe so.

Janice's cousin Desmond, when we caught him in one lucid moment, back in 2010,  see e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/05/an-alzheimers-blood-test-would-you.html

He understood the track he was on and agreed that if he could have foreseen what was going to happen to him he would have elected euthanasia in a country that allowed it. It is not for any of the rest of us to question that or make moral pronouncements.

Where Emanuel is spot on is when he excoriates the American obsession with perpetual youth - "exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible."   As he observes, this fetishism has become so pervasive  "that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal."

The issue then becomes exactly when Americans are prepared to grow up and face their mortality. I suspect, somewhat like Dr. Emanuel, this is when more health problems accumulate than one's financial resources can accommodate or time allows. (It's a notable stat often circulated, e.g. in the AARP Bulletin, that most medical expenses occur in the last two years of life and the mean life extension for all that expense - about 200 grand- and effort- is a measly 6 weeks.)

Thus, if one simultaneously should be diagnosed - say at age 74 - with bowel, pancreatic and metastatic prostate cancer- I'd say it's time to throw in the towel and move thyself into hospice care. Forget about going to the hospital so the medical-industrial complex can turn you into their latest life extension zombie experiment.  (Interestingly, to reinforce this, though most Americans aver they wish to die at home, fewer than 1 in 4 actually do - because of medical interventionism and people being brainwashed to accept it)

So, let's let Emanuel again restate his argument and position:

"By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life. I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life’s projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations. Dying at 75 will not be a tragedy. Indeed, I plan to have my memorial service before I die. And I don’t want any crying or wailing, but a warm gathering filled with fun reminiscences, stories of my awkwardness, and celebrations of a good life. "

All well and good, but let's bear in mind the acceptance of each person's mortality should be his alone to make. For some like Emanuel that may be at 75, for others it may be at 80 or 85 Each person's acceptance will largely depend on the quality of life at that point, and how caregivers respond to that life quality. In the end, there is no one size fits all answer, and though "dying at 75" when he has met all his life accomplishments may work for Emanuel  - it may not work for someone else.

As a footnote: wifey will be 75 next week and she has no intention to die! This is irrespective of how much she's already accomplished with her life - because heck, her Ravens still have another Super Bowl to win and she wants to be around cheering when they do!

Low T Therapy For Bigger Muscles? Blame This "Remedy" For Medical Interventions You Don't Want!

Kristen was still distraught after losing her hubby Rob, a year earlier. What had been planned as a trip for two to Barbados this year ended up a trip for one. The saga isn't new and will likely unfold in many more households as low T mania continues unabated. How bad is it? According to the article, 'Low T: Real Problem or Ad-driven Fad?' in the AARP Bulletin (July-August, p. 18):

"A 2013 study in JAMA Internal Medicine found testosterone prescriptions grew more than threefold between 2001 and 2011. Data from IMS Health shows T sales rose from $324 million in 2002 to nearly $2.3 billion in 2012. Sales could hit $5 billion by 2018."


As the article also notes, most of this increase isn't based on any genuine medical issue. It is based on ads shamelessly playing to male insecurities. The loss of muscle mass , sex drive or energy -  once described as "getting older" -  suddenly was transmogrified into a condition dubbed "low T" by the Madison  Avenue Ad makers. Thus were unleashed a torrent of print and TV ads from the makers of testosterone replacement meds and gels. One ad actually advised: "Millions of men 45 or older may have low T so talk to your doctor!"

Really? Gimme a break!

In Kristen's husband's case, Rob (then 47) felt he needed an edge at work so began the low T prescription solution. He did feel his energy rebound, his muscle mass increased and his renewed sex drive pleased Kirsten. Only she worried about taking increased testosterone which as a medical person (urology RN) she already knew provided a fuel for prostate cancer.

According to Dr. Mark Scholz, in 'Invasion of the  Prostate Snatchers', p. 42:

"testosterone fuels prostate cancer growth  and prostate cancer is the only type of cancer susceptible to testosterone inactivating pharmaceuticals"

Alas, Rob dismissed all such concerns, according to Kristen, and even increased his testosterone use. If some is terrific, more got to be better, right? Not quite. Within a year Rob's PSA had doubled, and six months later tripled. Finally, under pressure from his wife he reluctantly submitted to a prostate biopsy and prostate cancer was found in five cores with Gleason scores 4 + 5, and two with 5 + 5. The urologist pronounced "advanced prostate cancer" and recommended radical prostatectomy in combination with female hormone treatments.

The next year or so was 'hell' as he descended into depression following the surgery which left him incontinent, his penis shrunken, zero sex drive and with large breasts - arising from the hormone treatments.  Kristen confided that at least he hadn't ended up like another T-using patient who - after his operation around the same time - experienced a vesicularectal fistula-   farting through his penis and saddled with other complications before having to get a colostomy.

Despite all the horrific side effects Rob had to endure, the prostate cancer spewed secondaries into bones and lungs - and he died 6 months ago.  Kristen said if she had one wish it would be to "get men to back off from this silly, idiotic non-solution".

She may well have a point. Even if by some miracle prostate cancer isn't spawned, other negative medical impacts abound. According to Dr. John La Puma, quoted in the AARP article,

"When you take testosterone your body shuts down production. As a result the testicles shrink and you could be using supplementation indefinitely."

He noted this circumstance meant "expense, inconvenience and  worst of all, possible catastrophic health consequences."

Think aggressive prostate cancer. But as the AARP article also pointed out:

"A study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported a 30 percent jump in the risk of stroke, heart attack and death among men undergoing testosterone therapy."

It would seem that any guy seriously thinking of aspiring to be muscle-bound  and energetic using T, would be advised to watch the video below first and pay close attention! Note the particulars of treating low testosterone, including the fact: a) testosterone can vary during the day so the time you get the blood test is critical, and b) the low testosterone can be due to multiple other causes than natural, including stress, fatigue, diabetes or other hormonal imbalances.


http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/video/testosterone-replacement-prostate-cancer

The AARP article also adds (ibid.):

"But what is a healthy T level for an older man? Doctors can't agree. Many laboratories use wildly varying reference numbers based on the average testosterone levels of young men, anywhere from 300 to 900 nanograms per deciliter."

The Bulletin adds that,  incredibly, just about any purported "symptoms list" will ensure a low -T diagnosis.

The fact is, as Dr. La Puma observes,  most men (maybe 80%) don't need this "therapy" at all, period.  As he puts it:

"All men need to do is eat a healthier diet and be more active."

To reinforce that, "it's found that when obese men shed an average of 17 pounds,  testosterone levels climb 15 percent."

This in addition to quality sleep and regular exercise can help any guy improve his energy and muscle mass as well as sex drive.

Trouble is, too many guys want the "quick fix".  For those who want the T-quick fix to “muscle up” to look better or get more energy, I'd say just be prepared for what’s coming later. It might also help to imagine yourself long past the cancer treatment stage when your dick is U-shaped, your breasts are bigger than Mariah Carey’s (so much you want to hide from your wife) and you have to wear giant diapers just to go to the corner 7-11.

An Alzheimer's Blood Test: Would You REALLY Want to Know the Result?

Janice's cousin Desmond was once a man of quick wit and endless curiosity, especially about astronomy and cosmic physics. When I saw Desmond in 2003 at the family vacation beach house, we had a long  conversation and debate about the mass limits of stellar black holes and also the estimated mass of the galaxy-gobbling hole at the center of the Milky Way. In the meantime, I was preparing to give a lecture on dark energy at the local observatory, and so Desmond also wanted to know everything about that: How could it be detected? What specific data did one look for? What would be the long term consequences to Earth, and any sentient beings inhabiting planets? Could it affect the expansion of the universe, and if so, how? How much of the universe did dark energy comprise and how much in relation to its counterpart, dark matter?

Desmond (as shown in the photo) was the epitome of a bright, curious and probing mind. Merely seven years later, he was reduced to a hollow shell of a man, and his intellect only a faint wisp. He could barely recall even basic events, far less engage in a conversation about dark energy or stellar black holes. Worse, the prognosis was that his condition would surely degenerate, to the point he wouldn't even be able to wash himself or use the toilet. Within a year or so, he might be reduced to a babbling baby, even as he continued to avoid eating much. He was in the personal Hell of Alzheimer's disease.

By 2013, the disease had extracted the ultimate toll and Desmond died of asphyxia, in his sleep. Our last partial conversation with him was in 2010, when he'd drift in and out of coherence and even briefly recalled an ASTRONOMY magazine I'd lent him three years earlier. Three quarters of the time, however, he spent in incoherent babble.

I recount this story because the scourge of Alzheimer's disease is on just about everyone's mind these days - well, okay, at least on the minds of those of us over 65. You see, every five years past the age of 65 the number of people with Alzheimer's doubles. No one knows up to now how this disease, which will eventually bankrupt the country, can be stopped.

However, the AARP Bulletin in a recent piece ('Would You Want to Know?', May, p. 20) noted researchers in the field have announced a promising new blood test that could let people know if they have the telltale Alzheimer's markers.  As noted by a professor of neurology at Georgetown Medical Center,  quoted in the article:

"The main problem with treating Alzheimer's disease today is that the medicines are probably given too late to do much good."

He went on to state:

"Our research reports a bio-marker that will allow us to select patients who have very early disease, and we can determine whether medicines are more effective if given earlier."


While this blood test "offers important clues", it isn't perfect. It has about a 90 percent accuracy rate. But the test offers important clues nonetheless. For example the changes observed are believed to be due to the breakdown of brain cell membranes in people destined to develop the disease. The researchers are also continuing to look at other molecules in the blood that could provide a more detailed view of people at risk.

Assuming this test is made generally available and improved, would anyone really want to know if Alzheimer's is lurking? Please note this isn't the same as getting a psa test. The latter - say if it reveals high levels of psa and cancer is confirmed by a biopsy - can at least be treated. Alzheimer's is the only one of the top ten killer diseases that can't be prevented or treated.

This means any result from a test that predates a useful treatment regimen would be sterile, and even have negative impacts on the person. Craig Klugman, a bioethicist quoted in the article, observes:

"A positive result on a test like this could be devastating. It could change people's outlook on life, making them anxious, depressed and withdrawn. Suddenly, you find yourself living with this sense of doom that can effect every dimension of your life."

Those who test positive could also suffer the added burden of feeling stigmatized or ashamed. I mean, you know you have this defect of the brain - never mind it wasn't by choice - and now that you have this knowledge it eats away at your confidence, choices and words. Is this the Alzheimer's talking or me?  Worse, every little memory lapse is now magnified to a major calamity. "Jeezus Peace, where did I leave my keys? Omigod, it IS Alzheimer's!"

As each new lapse, or faux pas occurs, the stigma is reinforced and the affected person becomes more withdrawn. Soon he identifies with the disease and it becomes his very manifestation. 

Nor is this empty speculation. A recent study cited in the AARP article looked at the effect of telling people that they carry a genotype that puts them at high risk of developing Alzheimer's. Those who tested positively judged their memories more critically as well as every lapse. They also performed worse on memory tests than those not informed.

Get a blood test to identify Alzheimer's bio-makers ahead of time? You want me to take it?

Nope, I don't think so! Until viable treatment options exist there's no point in knowing.

What PEW's Paul Taylor Doesn't Get: NO Social Security or Medicare Cuts Are Needed!

  Paul Taylor is a scribe and authority attached to the Pew Research Center. Taylor is conferred a rousing set of kudos in a recent AARP Bulletin piece (April, p. 12, 'Battle of the Ages')  noting Taylor's role in babysitting for his grand kids, and his wife providing elderly care for her parents - not to mention having one adult child live at home until 30 - and the thrust is that Taylor is "living the next American life".

That is, one in which the generations are actively involved in caring for each other rather than warring with each other for scarce societal resources. Taylor himself is quoted as saying:

"A lot of this is the fruit of good news. More Americans are living longer, healthier lives. Who can be against that?"

Hmmmmm......well, perhaps Taylor himself!

Because when we then turn to the PARADE magazine of this past Sunday we behold the article 'Bridging the Generation Gap' in which Taylor has no problem -  not one - proposing benefits cuts that could hurt ALL generations whose cooperation he so lovingly extols in the AARP piece.

While praising the inter-generational connections (emphasized in the AARP piece) he then goes on to write:

"All those intergenerational good vibrations might help with the hard political bargaining ahead. Social Security and Medicare are the purest expressions in public policy of the idea that, as Americans, we are all in this together. But the programs need to be brought into synch with the new demographics of the 21st century-  and that means some combination of benefits cuts and taxes. Every generation will have to share in the pain."

But this is a false conclusion, since NO generation needs to "share in the pain".  In addition, if Taylor's proposal to cut Social security and Medicare benefits was to get legs, all generations would be in a world of pain! Consider: as the AARP piece notes (ibid.) those benefits monies support nearly a quarter of preschoolers cared for by a grandparent and 1 in 10 who live in a household headed by a grand parent.  Those benefits also help to support 4 in 10 Millennials who - for whatever reason - have to live at home because their job (if they have one) doesn't allow independence.

What the hell does Taylor think will happen if benefits cuts go through? What does he think will happen additionally to the 33 million receiving S.S. benefits who also are caregivers for sick or disabled children, or elderly parents? 

In fact, Taylor has his "bringing in synch to the 21st century"  prescription exactly opposite to what it ought to be: expanding both Social Security and Medicare benefits!

"But wait! Where's the money gonna come from?"

It's going to come from where neither Taylor or the other nattering Neolib nabobs like Robert Samuelson (pilloried in the AARP piece)  have looked: The Military- Security state. While the nabobs bitch that Social security and Medicare are "gobbling" 38% of the annual budget, they are oblivious to the military-defense - security state gobbling up 58%.  A graphic excerpted from an AARP April 2012 issue encapsulates what I am about:

Now, focus on that figure! With seven fewer F-35s that is what could be delivered:  a tablet for every 1st grader. Now consider that the militarists want to build 2,335 of those F-35s at an individual cost now estimated at $150m each and rising - because of cost overruns.

Imagine - if you will - just the money we'd have available if assorted administrations, both Dem and Reep, hadn't plundered the Social Security Trust Fund the past ten years to conceal the size of deficits, so they could squander it on military bullshit (or the security state).  In a previous blog post I did a year by year accounting from 2001 on the monies raided each year-  up to 2008, e.g.

2001    -  $163 billion

            2002   - $159 billion

2003   -$155.6 billion

2004   - $151.1 billion

2005   -$173.5 billion

2006   -$185.5 billion

2007   - $186 billion

2008   $180.2 billion

-----------------------------

TOTAL:  $1.353 trillion

 

 

It is estimated that over a trillion bucks of that went just for the neocon-inspired wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,  with the Bushie architects trying to conceal the size of the actual deficits by raiding Social Security. NO, he (Bush) didn't think of this tactic on his own, he took a page out of Ronnie Reagan's play book.   The total cost for both occupations, meanwhile, will likely come to $4 trillion. Think of what that money could have done! 

 

It would not only have ensured the longevity of Social Security and Medicare through the end of the century, but enabled us to expand benefits to more effectively help all the generations that depend on it.  Think also of the money (perhaps $800m) that will  get wasted if the U.S. remains in Afghanistan for another ten years - and then contemplate the savings if the national security state was paired down.

 

All of this constitutes the sharpest rebuttal to Taylor's claim that the generations need to "sacrifice" via benefits cuts.   It also exposes his next comment for the codswallop it is:

 

"The longer political leaders shrink from this challenge the more the burden of any solution will fall on the young, who are already fated to get the worst deal of any generation from Social Security and Medicare. In tomorrow's America yesterday's math won't work."

 

Really, Paul?  If that is so why are you not processing the cancerous malignancy of military spending run amuck, even as it uses Social Security monies to hide the size of deficits?  Not to do so, is to portray a dishonest solution - that the only alternative is benefits cuts to seniors who are already struggling with multiple demands, including caring for preschoolers as well as college students who must live at home.

 

Taylor is correct that in tomorrow's America yesterday's math won't work, and by that I mean the math for military spending - as the inset box above shows.

 

Basically then, Americans have one of two choices: continue supporting a massive military interventionist and security state, or preserve future social insurance benefits. The math simply doesn't cover both unless Americans are also prepared to bring back tax rates of 50 percent or more.

 

As for the math as it pertains to Millennials and Social Security - Medicare, the solution to change the negative outcome is simple: stop raiding Trust Fund monies to spend in general revenues - and what you have taken,  pay back!

 

And don't use it for the next ten years to support a stupid extension of U.S. presence in Afghanistan!  

Could Cuts to Social Security Lead To Another Recession? Probably!

While the Neoliberal, free market hacks (like Robert J. Samuelson and John Kass) continue to harp on "entitlements" - and the Tea Bagger terrorists holding the gov't up to ransom have made it clear Social Security and Medicare cuts are on their chopping blocks too (along with the ACA) it appears none of them realize what would happen if granted their wishes. That is, if they get their cuts we could see a progressive reversal of economic growth leading to another recession, or even depression.

How so? First, know that we remain in a parlous, low aggregate demand economic environment which means too little spending to support the financial flows, markets and overall economic vitality. This was made clear in a new report published by the AARP Public Policy Institute and appearing in The AARP Bulletin ('Social Security's Impact', Oct., p. 34).

The report notes that contrary to some myths circulating, seniors receiving Social Security aren't hoarding their money or saving for a rainy day. Instead, they're spending it on goods and services- which means pumping it right back into an ailing economy. They're buying groceries, prescription drugs, paying the 20 percent for medical treatments that Medicare won't, purchasing the dental care that Medicare won't, buying airline tickets for vacations, as well as booking hotel rooms - and helping put grand kids through college. If they have enough left over, they also remodel assorted rooms in their homes, like kitchens or bathrooms (as we just got done doing).

Given this, businesses then use this influx of income to purchase more goods and services, and to hire more employees. These employees, in turn, spend their wages on more goods and services which creates more aggregate demand by more and more people. In other words, Social Security money doesn't just terminate its effect at an elderly person's bank, it has a multiplier effect with ramifications throughout the whole economy.

How much of an effect? The AARP report found that for every dollar in Social Security benefits paid out, roughly $2 in output is generated for the whole economy. In hard numbers, that translates to roughly $1.5 trillion in economic output (adding in the derivative spending by businesses.) This in turn supports more than 9 million jobs in the national economy, with 4 million of them created in ten industries with the major impact accruing to: food services, real estate, health care, and retail industries.

As the author of the AARP piece notes, given Social Security inputs also helped 21.4 million Americans  including 1.1 million children, and 5.8 million adults under 65, it means lawmakers in D.C. can't look at the program through a narrow lens of "spending cuts". Indeed, even imposing something as seemingly benign as a chained CPI could have devastating corrosive effects down the road. Major cuts or privatization, meanwhile, would likely usher in a new recession or depression.

Are any of our "patriotic" legislators aware of these stats? Do they even care? Will the Tea Baggers, who purport to be so very concerned about the economy process them? We will have to wait and see.