Complex Numbers

Too Much Like Work

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/03/why-exercise-alone-wont-save-us

Article's a year old now, but it refers to New Years resolutions, so it's cycled back again.

Why exercise alone won’t save us

Our relationship with exercise is complicated. Reports from the UK and the US show it is something we persistently struggle with. As the new year rolls around, we anticipate having the drive to behave differently and become regular exercisers, even in the knowledge that we will probably fail to do so. Why do we want to exercise? What do we expect it to do for us? We all know we are supposed to be exercising, but hundreds of millions of us can’t face actually doing it. It is just possible the problem lies at the heart of the idea of exercise itself.

Well, duh. It's a pain in the ass and always takes longer than you think, what with having to change clothes twice, probably shower, and maybe get to the gym or back. Like, I always think, "30 minutes on the treadmill and then some weight-pumping" and I end up being gone for nearly 2 hours.

Evidence about bone strength and density gleaned from fossils of early humans suggests that, for hundreds of thousands of years, normal levels of movement were much higher than ours today.

You know how I'm always bitching about evolutionary arguments? Specifically, there, I'm bitching about wild speculation about how psychological, not physical, traits evolved. The former is guesswork; the latter is revealed by some physical evidence. Whether they're interpreting the evidence reasonably is another issue.

After two centuries of trying, we should accept that exercise is not working as a global fitness strategy while it remains an addition to the working day. In the long view, it is starting to look a lot like a fad. Government guidelines in the UK and other countries that encourage sport and exercise are failing. These strategies struggle because we are trying to get people to give up what little leisure time they have to pursue activities that require substantial additional effort.

I have a different take on it.

First of all, technology got us to this point because it kept inventing things to make our lives easier, as the article points out. Consequently, the obvious solution is technology that keeps our bodies from falling apart if we don't exercise. I think I've posted stuff before decrying the common idea that failing to keep oneself fit is considered a moral failure, a failure of will, whatever - basically, YOUR FAULT. Instead, if we really cared about this sort of thing, we could put all of our efforts to developing a Leisure Pill - something that allows us to sit around all day with no ill effects. You may dismiss this idea as the "easy way out," but the "easy way out" is apparently what got us here; it works for us, and we're really, really good at it, so why not extend the concept?

Second, maybe we're looking at all of this the wrong way. The hidden assumption underlying all of these health articles is that the goal is to live longer. Of course, few people want to die, but after seeing two parents live into their 80s and beyond, both dying of mental degeneration, I'm not sure that a longer life is necessarily better.

There's something to be said for living life the way you want to. Sure, you could stay active, eat no more than 1100 calories a day, don't drink, don't smoke, breathe filtered air, never climb a mountain, avoid driving, etc., and science says you could live a lot longer. And hey, if that's how you want to live your life, great. But if it's not, if you're more of a hedonist like me, does it really make sense to give up the pleasures that make life worth living, for the possibility - not the guarantee, but the possibility - of a few more years of elderly frailty?