Lower Air Pollution Means Longer Life

thefickler writes "A new study by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) has found a strong link between air quality and life expectancy. The researchers looked at air pollution, deaths and census data for 51 metropolitan areas between 1978 and 2001, and what they found was a direct correlation between improving air quality and extending life expectancy. People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution."

Comments

Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

I fart in your general direction.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...

Which is why it's a good idea to keep away from the University of Waterloo Computer Science club. If you value your life ... expectancy.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[perryizgr8]

in other news: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/study_multiple_stab_wounds_may_be

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[jandersen]

Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...

Science is sometimes about proving (or occasionally disproving) the obvious.

However, in this case it has a lot to do with the fact that certain elements - those who earned big money on pollution being allowed to happen - for many decades did everything they could to stop the government from taking appropriate action. Just like for climate change now, there were "pollution sceptics" and people advocating "common sense" and "freedom".

Another thing is that the harm caused by pollution has been hard to quantify, and therefore it has been hard to come out and say "This industry produces this amount of pollution, which causes this amount of extra death and disease, which costs society this amount of money" - if we can put a clear cost on pollution, we can justify things like pollution taxes or economic sanctions.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[hey!]

Well, the point about the people earning money by using the atmosphere as a cesspool is valid, but that's not why this is science.

Science often proves the obvious because the "obvious" has to be tested from time to time to keep it honest. Yes, it's obvious that pollution is bad. It's also obvious that radiation is "bad". You do not want to sleep on top of an unshielded nuclear reactor core, for example, even if you could avoid getting cooked. But at some point the effects of radiation aren't worth bothering about.

The same goes for pollution. It's a valid question to say, at what point does reducing air pollution become irrational? This study shows we haven't passed that point yet.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[commodore64_love]

>>>Science is sometimes about proving (or occasionally disproving) the obvious.

In this case, nothing has been proved. Correlation/coincidence is not the same as causation. It's entirely possible the extra 2.7 years was caused by less stress thanks to country living, not less pollution. We don't know for sure.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

This also attributes about 4 extra months of life to better air quality. Is that really THAT much of an improvement?

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[radtea]

However, in this case it has a lot to do with the fact that certain elements - those who earned big money on pollution being allowed to happen - for many decades did everything they could to stop the government from taking appropriate action.

And yet it is worth remembering that these data also show that AIR QUALITY HAS IMPROVED in the past couple of decades in major American cities.

That's something that the "everything is always getting worse" crowd don't generally want us reminded of, because it makes it harder to pass more legislation that has nothing to do with protecting the environment but everything to do with power.

Unfortunately environmental arguments often come down to a fight between egregious profiteers who want to rape the Earth on the one hand and crypto-fascists on the other. The public would actually be more supportive of environmental protection legislation, and the environment would be better off, if there wasn't a deep-seated and quite deserved distrust of most "environmental" organizations, which are nothing more than authoritarian political organizations that have found they can use the environment as a motherhood issue.

Ever principled person is in favour of cleaner air. Not everyone agrees on how to make it cleaner (pollution taxes, cap-and-trade, technology mandates...) Politico-environmental organizations tend to try to frame the debate as "our way or no way" whereas the public would be better served by focusing the debate on different solutions. But that's less susceptible to stirring partisan sensibilities, as it is much harder to demonize your opponents, and so much less interesting to those who want to use "the environment" on one side and "the free market" on the other as tools of a partisan narrative.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[hey!]

Yes, it is. Because as I pointed out elsewhere, the four months are not distributed evenly. Most people probably lose a lot less than four months. It could be that most people lose less than a months, fair number of people lose a year, and few lose a decade or more.

Plus, the run-up to slightly early death can be quite protracted and unpleasant. You might get yourself to within spitting distance of your natural lifespan by repeated rounds of chemotherapy, for example.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[dwye]

> Pollution is bad for you. Well Duh...

Hey, at least they didn't take one and a half (big!) volumes to prove that 1+1=2, like Whitehead and Russell.

Re:Wow, that's informative and interesting....

[pcolaman]

Good to see that taxpayer money is being well spent.

They needed a study?

[areusche]

They needed a study to correlate the relationship between heavy coughing and longevity? Being a doctored researcher must be a great life.

Re:They needed a study?

[Davemania]

Yes, pollution concentration and contents changes over times and you need a methodology to keep track of these things. If common sense was a viable guide to life than we wouldn't need science.

Re:They needed a study?

[Architect_sasyr]

If common sense was a viable guide to life than we wouldn't need science.

Or most warning labels...

Re:They needed a study?

[overzero]

It's more than that. While "lower air pollution equals longer life" is a safe assumption at this point, "A decrease in air pollution amounting to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of of (sic) particulates in the air led to an additional .61 years of life" is not so obvious, nor is it even obvious how direct or significant the correlation would be.

Re:They needed a study?

[Anthony_Cargile]

Or most warning labels...

Oblig. bash quote:

"I'm not saying we should kill all of the stupid people in the world, but maybe if we just removed all of the unnecessary warning labels the problem would correct itself"

Re:They needed a study?

[no-body]

It's an old story - 20 year or older - correlation between air pollution and life expectancy - Riversite CA is one of the worst on the West Coast.

Why is it still happening, who benefits and who looses if it stays that way?

Re:They needed a study?

[Schemat1c]

"I'm not saying we should kill all of the stupid people in the world, but maybe if we just removed all of the unnecessary warning labels the problem would correct itself"

That would just ensure the survival of more lawyers. Ah hell those bastards would figure out a way to survive anyway, parasites are like that.

Re:They needed a study?

[mysidia]

Good scientific method doesn't permit practitioners to make just any conclusion they want, especially not conclusions like that one which are unfounded and can easily be wrong. You have the benefit of their study to reach your conclusions, they didn't.

Without the study, there is no evidence to support the contention that there is a degree of correlation between 'heavy coughing' and longevity, or pollution and 'heavy coughing' or pollution and longevity.

In fact, to a large extent, they might be fairly unrelated, or only remotely related.

If a causal relationship is not logically provably true, and not shown clearly by other studies, then it really can't be safely assumed.

Commonly held beliefs and things like 'common sense' are frequently actually commonly held myths, and common errors.

Re:They needed a study?

[mh1997]

"I'm not saying we should kill all of the stupid people in the world, but maybe if we just removed all of the unnecessary warning labels the problem would correct itself"

What if you are not smart enough to realize that you are one of the stupid people?

Re:They needed a study?

[Anonymous Coward]

*pats you on the back*

Re:They needed a study?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, of course, did not RTFA, but, could this "life expectancy" thing just be correlated to population? Where there is more population, there will, in general, be more pollution. It would then be difficult to separate a correlation to population from a correlation to pollution.

Re:They needed a study?

[dasunt]

I don't have the time, but I'd like to see how they did the study.

In the US at least, exposure to more air pollution is probably directly correlated in how car-centric a city in, and I could easily see the decrease in exercise being the driving force for most of the reduction in life expectancy.

Comparing it worldwide gets even iffier -- lax air pollution standards probably correlates quite well with a poorer economy and lax standards in other areas.

Re:They needed a study?

[firmamentalfalcon]

The methodology may not have been trivial, but the GP was saying how the conclusion that breathing in opaque air decreases life expectancy is trivial. It is true that people do not gain much insight from learning about such a conclusion.

However, the thing that GP and P miss is that the silver lining to all this is the "2.72 years longer". You are given a number that makes a very solid connection between two previously weakly connected ideas.

Before, the weak connection was that breathing opaque air is bad for you. Now, the strong connection is that breathing opaque air shortens your life by 2.72 years.

Re:They needed a study?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. It's called natural selection. If you're dumb enough to huff gasoline you're not fit enough for the species - unfortunately we've decided you no longer have the right to be stupid enough to die.

Re:They needed a study?

[Retric]

Air pollution probably directly reduces exercise. Exercising in highly polluted air is extremely unpleasant, so when there is lot's of somog in the air I am far less willing to go for a walk outside let alone go biking ect.

Re:They needed a study?

[mdielmann]

"I'm not saying we should kill all of the stupid people in the world, but maybe if we just removed all of the unnecessary warning labels the problem would correct itself"

What if you are not smart enough to realize that you are one of the stupid people?

Here's a simple test: ask yourself what you would have done if you hadn't seen that warning label. If the answer leads to a massively scalded crotch, looking at the laser with remaining eye, or trying to find a way to hold the guard on the circular saw blade back while trying to stop the blood flowing from your off hand, well...the problem will correct itself.

Re:They needed a study?

[Schemat1c]

IAAL, and you Schemat1c, are a mother-fucking pedophile, though not necessarily at the same time. Oh and the job you "work" at, a complete waste of time, money and societal resources. Hopefully you will soon be made redundant (I mean given the current economic conditions you probable will).

No hard feelings buddy, I just don't like to be insulted by some random stranger for no reason whatsoever.

Funny, I'm a geek and I hear insults directed toward my kind often yet I just laugh them off. As do most of the lawyer friends I know when they hear a lawyer joke. You seem a little to thin skinned to be an actual lawyer but who can tell with you safe behind your anonymous shield and all.

Grow a pair and don't be such a baby.

Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a libertarian like me, you want no regulation of pollution.

Frankly, air quality is for those goddamn socialists states - like Singapore, or Denmark.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Forrest Kyle]

Yes, please throw us all together and stop hampering us with your giant government. That way, by the time we destroy our little area with the evil of doing business, we will have built giant space-faring pleasure yachts and you can watch us fly away into the galaxy from your little government issued mud hut.

But hey, you'll live 5 months longer than me. Whooptee doo.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[clarkkent09]

Just leave it to the government, it knows best: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-69781.html

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.

And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.

Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.

Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.

But I am used to it.

• Some hate me for being a MAN.
• Some hate me for being intelligent.
• Some hate me for my dermal chromatics.
• Some hate me for being an Atheist.
• And now some hate me for loving FREEDOM.

Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

Just leave it to the government, it knows best: http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-69781.html

Yes, the government is truly your friend. The government always has your best interests at heart. The government would never do anything to harm you. You can trust the government. You need not worry. Government will tuck you in bed and say "Good Night".

The question is, of course, if you are able to wake up the next morning...

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[JoshuaZ]

I can't tell if the post I'm responding to was meant to be a trolling or flamebait comment but it certainly seemed that way. Pollution is the textbook example where even a libertarian needs to compromise to some extent. Pollution is an externality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality. That is, the harm created by it is highly diffuse and applies to people not involved with the original transactions that created it. Free markets solve for pretty much everything but externalities. This is because transaction costs (the cost of making deals) easily outweighs the benefit to not having the negative externality from any given single pollution source. So it isn't in anyone's incentive to make individual deals with each polluter to reduce pollution even if it is in everyone's best interest to reduce the pollution level. In such circumstances, the only solution is central regulation of some form.

Furthermore, there is a philosophical reason that pollution doesn't apply in the standard libertarian framework. The central philosophical idea behind most forms of libertarianism is that if I'm not harming anyone then I should have a right to do whatever I please. This is a strong argument. Unfortunately, pollution does harm other people. It isn't as direct or as obvious as murder or theft but it is harming people. It is again, just more diffuse and harder to pin down exactly who is harmed by which bit of pollution. For both economic and philosophical reasons even a hard-core libertarian should be ok with regulation of pollution.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[keeboo]

Uh... perhaps you didn't check the link?
The GP was actually being critical towards the government.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[lennier]

"And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM." ... to kill the environment and abuse your employees, load down nations with debts they can never pay back, and gain exclusive monopoly control over land, air and water - and then watch those die who can't pay. Or shoot them with your own hand if they try to 'steal' 'your' 'hard-earned' resources.

At least that's the kind of 'freedom' most anarcho-capitalists I've seen dream about. And unrestricted, unregulated, corporate iron fist and death to the teeming masses.

The absolute freedom to take everything you want and give nothing back.

If you're not into that kind of 'freedom', we have something in common.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Why do they hate our freedom?

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[jaxtherat]

And that gives us a solution to the libertarian problem. Throw them all together in a small area, let them regulate themselves, and the destruction the wreck on the land and air will kill them all off.

And you hate and despise us Libertarians why? All we want is FREEDOM.

Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.

Remember, noble lofty ideals can always be twisted one way or another, and exploited, including your lofty libertarian ideal of freedom. Incidentally, the closest things we have to libertarian societies are the wartorn and corrupt african republics that you hear about on CNN. Just how FREE are they? Well:

Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.

It just goes on...

Of course, I can understand perfectly well if you would rather have fascists control your life instead.

No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.

Of course, I am wondering what this has to do with air quality.

But I am used to it.

• Some hate me for being a MAN.
• Some hate me for being intelligent.
• Some hate me for my dermal chromatics.
• Some hate me for being an Atheist.
• And now some hate me for loving FREEDOM.

Well, I guess you just can't please everybody. Sigh.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Zencyde]

As a libertarian I would like to agree with your point.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[iminplaya]

...we will have built giant space-faring pleasure yachts...

BAH! You will have built Ferengi Marauders and will be selling planetary time shares.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others.

This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.

So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.

So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.

Government would also be out of the business of policing families, except where there is *real* harm being done, etc.

Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty. Moreover, others will know you are not too trustworthy and will refuse to do business with you.

I thought this was all obvious. Because we can't have mutual freedom unless we also have mutual respect.

And the era of "big government", with all the collusion and corruption that entails, would be over.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Thank you. I really don't understand why the issue of pollution seems to bring out the corporatist bootlicker in so many ostensible libertarians.

Pollution, except in the unusual cases where it is actually properly contained, involves the polluter putting harmful compounds into other people's persons and property without their consent. The notion that state interference with pollution is anti-libertarian is about as silly as the notion that state interference with assault or trespassing is anti-libertarian.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[EvolutionsPeak]

Mod parent up. I consider myself to have strong libertarian leanings, and I couldn't agree with you more.

The governments only legitimate role in the market is one of regulating externalities and ensuring everyone operates legally.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

Sigh, we don't despise Libertarians, many of us have just lived happened to have lived in some coutries that are libertarian (read lawless), and shudder to remember them.

Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.

Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.

Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.

No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.

You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

So you're a liberal?

I mean, if my freedom ends where my nose is, and yours is too, then you're not free to enforce your freedom on me, because it infringes on my freedom. What's the solution?

A GOVERNMENT.

Libertarianism is one logical step away from liberalism but ideologically similar to conservatism.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Martin Blank]

Libertarianism is not anarchism; they are very different concepts. One sees a need for minimal government, and one eschews government entirely. I don't think there are or recently have been any countries that have a libertarian system of government.

Libertarians do not find the police and judicial system to be "restricting annoyances." They are absolutely necessary to the enforcement of the law. Libertarians do have a use for laws against things like theft, rape, and murder, as these cover the 'unwanted harm' categories that flajann mentioned in another post.

The Libertarian philosophy also sees roads being constructed by those that need them. Similar to the early railroads, which were funded almost entirely by corporate money, the road system would be funded by private money, paid for by tolls. (I have some doubts as to whether such a system would work, but it's never really had a chance to be tested outside of the railroads.)

Finally, someone may take a shot at you, but they risk being shot in turn, either by you and/or by someone else that chooses to carry a firearm. You are also free to wear body armor if you have a fear that someone will take a shot at you. (Incidentally, rates of homicide by rifle haven't changed much since the sunset of the assault weapons ban. They've remained in the same range of 4% to 4.5% of all firearm homicides since 2003, the number of which has been pretty flat from 2005-2007.)

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

But I am used to it.

• Some hate me for being a MAN.
• Some hate me for being intelligent.
• Some hate me for my dermal chromatics.
• Some hate me for being an Atheist.
• And now some hate me for loving FREEDOM.

Well, I for one hate you for being a whinny self-centered Drama Queen.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[jaxtherat]

Arrrgh! Libertarianism does not equal lawlessness! How these two get confused is beyond me.

Easy: I've never had it explained to me how you would go about preventing the former from sliding into the latter pretty quickly. That is, in a way that didn't sound inhumane (well, if they can't defend themselves they probably weren't going to survive anyway), farcical (oh, everyone will just get along and not hurt one another because everyone will just love having freedom so much), or sociopathic (I'll defend myself with strenght and weapons).

Firstly remember that FREEDOM often means FREEDOM to get shot by a guy who is FREE to have an assault rifle, and FREE to kill you because there is little of the FREEDOM restricting annoyances like police and judicual system you seem to dislike. You are also FREE to not pay taxes, but then again you are also FREE to not have decent roads as no-one wants to build and maintain roads for FREE.

Again, this is perversion. The FREEDOM I speak of is FREEDOM to do whatever you want -- including owning guns -- as long as you don't unduly and unjustifiably harm someone else. But some fear this freedom and seek to paint libertarianism in a bad light, including trying to equate it with lawlessness. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Again, how would you stop someone from "unduly and unjustifiably harming someone else" without hurting someone else? What about gray area situations, like abortion, euthenasia, soft crimes, the death penalty etc...

What exactly is your practical libertarian method of maintaining social order in a modern society the size of, say, Canada?

No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.

You may, and that is your choice that you are free to make, just as long as you don't make that choice for me. I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.

Sorry to say buddy, but you already do. The government controls the lives of most people. Sure that may suck when you have to pay taxes, or you get a ticket for speeding, but on the other hand, that bored borderline sociopathic teenager from the rougher sides of town will actually think twice about breaking into your house, because the executive branch of the law will probably catch up with him and he will be in shit.

Anyway, I don't actually want to control your life. You'll find most socialists don't either. They're just happy to vote the way they feel things should go.

Incidentaly, did you vote Ron Paul? If so, good on ya for at least putting your money where your mouth is. If not...

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[jaxtherat]

Thank you for a lucid and informative post. I actually do support a more minimal form of government as well, and am appaled by what the government in my country is doing now (OZ) to erode our civil liberties.

I just feel that most of the libertarians I've met or had dealings with when get into a deep discussion (read: argument) just end up making it about hating having to pay tax, and nothing more lofty than that.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Wellington Grey]

Pollution is the textbook example where even a libertarian needs to compromise to some extent.

You, Sir, have not had a conversation with a libertarian. Their One True Idea knows no compromise.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're having the classic problem of any follower of an -ism...not seeing the forest for the trees.

The day you can recognize what's wrong with your advocacy is the day you won't be hated and despised.

You aren't talking about Freedom in a reasonable sense, you're talking about it like someone who doesn't recognize the concerns of others. Try seeing what other people are saying.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Cassius Corodes]

Note that most forms of anarchism favour a small local government (ie community based) rather than a central government - so neither really calls for complete lawlessness.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[ChrisMaple]

I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach. Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages, and it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution. Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated. Diffuse pollutants hurt everyone, and can be applied to the general tax base. Concentrated pollution (like an oil spill) should involve payments to the actual victims. The result is an economic incentive to do the right thing, rather than an arbitrary application of inflexible power implied by the word "regulation".

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

In your rush to make insults, you forget the core argument of anarcho-capitalists: The "Corporate Iron Fist" comes from the alliance between the state and the CEO, rather than from capitalism itself. Rather than serve its goal as the big "Protector", the state itself is the reason why these things happen.

It goes kinda like this.

Employee Abuse happens because minimum wages cause artificial unemployment, so you either deal with it or go without a job (and food on the table).

Environmental destruction happens because the state props up the industries that do it harm.

Monopolies occur either when the single company or cartel really is doing the best for the customer, and thus no one can compete with them, or because regulations strangle any new players.

The theory is things like Big Pharma, Massive Telco monopolies, Big Media, and Big Oil wouldn't survive in a truly unhindered, free market. You're free to disagree with them, and the validity of these arguments is a debate for another day, but please at least make the attempt to understand a political philosophy before you start attacking it.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy hell, some people are are amazingly capable of just completely ignoring whatever they don't want to see! Would you perhaps happen to be religious as well? ;)

We all love the idea of Utopia where everyone acts nice and there is no need for police, courts and jails. A society where common sense and empathy prevails and everyone is a happy camper.

But do you really see this happening? Ever heard of human nature? Without a Law and someone to uphold it, you'd go from your beloved "Libertarianism" to complete Anarchy in.. oh, just anbout a day or so. Noone's there to tell druggies they can't go in your house and just take what they need (or simply take over the entire house). The creepy guy down the street now has nothing restraining him from taking off with your son/daughter and when he does, there is noone to go find your kid.

Actually, what I see happening is: after a while people seek out the most powerful gang for protection and thus eventually spawn a myriad of poorly regulated, violent, primitive mini-governments in constant war with neighbouring mini-governments.

Sounds swell.. -__-' *cough*

PlastBox, too lazy to sign up

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[dryeo]

You live in a big country, if you really don't want anyone controlling your life why don't you move to a place where your life won't be controlled? Do it right and you won't have to pay taxes or be a hypocrite by using the things those taxes payed for.
Just pick a random spot on the Alaska highway and head into the bush.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[dryeo]

The railways came about by the government stealing land and giving it to the railway corperatins as a grant. Much easier to borrow money when you own a strip of land right across the country and much easier to raise money by selling land when someone stole it and gave it to you.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

One sees a need for minimal government, and one eschews government entirely.

I see a need for 'minimal government' - but there are areas like limiting abuse of money/power, pollution/environmental issues, social mobility (ie ensuring there is a system for people who are born into poverty to not be too hindered by the status they were born into) are essential facets of that government.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Burpmaster]

Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.

But that contradicts the individual freedom you're advocating. Why should I be required to do something, just because I wrote my name on a piece of paper with some formal text saying I'd do it? Why should the government have the power to penalize me?

Be careful when you answer. If you say that it's justified because contracts are a beneficial social institution... Well that argument is a whole Pandora's box of problems for libertarians.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[khallow]

Or maybe it won't. I'm in favor of such an experiment just to see what happens.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Poorcku]

omg. anarcho-capitalist != libertarian. the air quality problem from a libertarian pov can be solved by creating a market for air quality products. end of story.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[SecondHand]

This "small" area is called the US.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.

And everyone will drive flying cars to and from their space port on the moon, and every little girl will have her own pink unicorn.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Libertarianism involves a set of ideals (like safety in one's own person and possessions), and argues that only the slightest government intervention is required to implement these. (Whether this enforcement is practical or not is a separate matter from the one you are addressing.) So in a libertarian society, you would not get randomly shot, but neither would you have publically-funded roads.

Anarchy, on the other hand, means roughly "Let's get rid of the government and see what happens.". And then you get lots of little governments, and you don't have anarchy any more.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[ildon]

No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France) controlling our lives. Big difference.

The difference between France and the USA is supposed to be that the people control the government, and the government does not control the people. The more this fades away, the less unique and important the USA is to the world, and the less incentive people have to live here instead of somewhere else.

If you're an American, you're not supposed to want anyone controlling your lives. Someone controlling your life is fascism. If you do want someone controlling your life, I kindly suggest you move to one of those other countries you mentioned, so that those of us who don't want it will have somewhere on earth we can live. Don't you think it's fair to give people the option between socialism A or capitalism B, instead of just socialism A, B, C, or D?

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[bobbuck]

You know that the most government controlled societies have the worst pollution and environmental messes, right? Look at China and Russia. While the USA was reducing carbon emissions over the recent years the socialist polluters of Europe kept increasing their output. A libertarian based government discourages real environmental problems through civil suits.

Remember, the lowest hourly government employee can ruin your day more quickly than the biggest corporation.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Cro Magnon]

Sorry to say buddy, but you already do. The government controls the lives of most people. Sure that may suck when you have to pay taxes, or you get a ticket for speeding, but on the other hand, that bored borderline sociopathic teenager from the rougher sides of town will actually think twice about breaking into your house, because the executive branch of the law will probably catch up with him and he will be in shit.

Problem is, we get the worst of both sides. We still have to pay taxes and speeding tickets, and the government still wants to seize our guns, downloaded movies, and pron, but doesn't have time/money to stop the bored borderline sociopathic teenager from the rougher sides of town.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.

Good luck with your life as a hermit in Antarctica.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[TuringTest]

Breaking news, the government adding taxes to pollutants is a form of regulation. If to you "regulation" implies "arbitrary application of inflexible power", you should review your preconceptions.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[jvkjvk]

And here on your left, folks, is an example of Libertarianism in it's prime:

I am a libertarian, and I still say that regulation is the wrong approach.

Yes, the standard rant.

Pollution creates identifiable and specific damages...

Good so far. We could, in practice, identify all polluters and properly force them to cover the true costs of their activities. FOrce them to cover their externalities.

...it is the responisibility of the state to use its proper available mechanisms (courts and taxing powers) to add costs to the entities causing the pollution.

Wow. That, but not regulation. Hmm. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Provable pollutants (and that means b.s. like CO2 as a pollutant is not included) are charged according to the quantity generated.

Right, just the things that *you* think are pollutants. The "provable" pollutants. How many decades fight was it before cigarette manufacturers agreed that their products were "provably" harmful? What's that? They still say that cigartettes aren't harmful? Hmm.

The result is an economic incentive to do the right thing, rather than an arbitrary application of inflexible power implied by the word "regulation".

Um, hello? Do you know what most "regulations" entail? Try this - they generally define an accepted and acceptable method of doing business with economic incentives (such as fines) for not doing so.

Congratulations, on having decided that regulation is the best method for dealing with pollution. Oh, only just don't call it "regulation" - that's a bad word, even if it describes the approach you wish to take.

More Kool-aid?

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[jvkjvk]

and this, kids is why you should preview.

Although there should probably not be a regulation forcing one to do so.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[kabocox]

Furthermore, there is a philosophical reason that pollution doesn't apply in the standard libertarian framework. The central philosophical idea behind most forms of libertarianism is that if I'm not harming anyone then I should have a right to do whatever I please. This is a strong argument. Unfortunately, pollution does harm other people. It isn't as direct or as obvious as murder or theft but it is harming people. It is again, just more diffuse and harder to pin down exactly who is harmed by which bit of pollution. For both economic and philosophical reasons even a hard-core libertarian should be ok with regulation of pollution.

Nah, you've not got any actual libertarian systems. You'd have private military groups and those that you believe are harming your interests you'd hire a military group do go after them. Libertarians have nothing against buying/sending/using deadly force against those that they don't like.

If you had pollution in a true libertarian system, no one would care until it was proved that the pollution was causing harm. That's when those in the inflicted areas who thought that they were being harmed would buy military contracts against the various polluters. Heck, even those that just disliked "pollution" in general would fund these groups whenever any form of pollution showed up on their radar.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Stiletto]

One typical libertarian response to the pollution problem is that if you cared about stopping pollution, you could individually donate to a charity that goes around cleaning up pollution. Not saying I agree with it, but that's pretty much a standard response to the question "Without government, how does that $(ALTRUISTIC_PUBLIC_SERVICE) get done?"

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Rary]

So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals.

So if, for example, a corporation is harming individuals by, say, polluting the environment those individuals live in, what exactly is supposed to prevent this? Consumers "voting" with their wallets? You do realize that, unlike voting with ballots, voting with wallets is a form of "democracy" that not everyone can afford, right? Therefore what you're talking about, from the consumer perspective, is really freedom for those who can afford it. As for those who can't afford to vote with their wallets, you want to diminish the effect of voting with their ballots.

So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.

Right. That works really well. That's why we have nothing but entirely ethical corporations in the world. After all, any corporation who does anything unethical (ie. harming the environment, harming workers, etc) will be "voted" into nonexistence by all the ethical consumers.

Modern libertarianism is mostly a wonderful idea combined with utopian ideology that fails the "Real World Test", spurred on by the false dichotomy of minimalist, impotent, barely-recognizable government vs. enormous, bloated, control-everything-you-ever-do government.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[mdalal97]

I enjoyed your post... your naivety is so sweet :)

The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others.

It is a great ideal!

So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals. Iron Fists are excluded. And the free consumer is educated as to what the corporations are doing, and will "vote" with his wallet where he wishes to do business.

So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.

This assumes perfect knowledge. Unfortunately, there are people who take advantage of the system and we, the people, do not have anyway to find out about their shenanigans unless there is someone looking out for our interests. I would argue, the most efficient way to take care of this is via government oversight. I'm not saying it will work, but it seems like the best way to go.

You are making a lot of assumptions on the time people invest in researching a company before buying their products or using their services. I'd say most users of a company's products/services base it solely on price.

So everyone is free to do what he or she wants. Free to marry and engage in consensual relationships, free to do drugs, free to have sex, free to do whatever as long as it does no harm.

These freedoms do sound reasonable, but how do you quantify harm? Fine, take LSD. But then what happens if you end up schizophrenic? I would say you are now doing me harm because, we the people, as taxpayers, have to pay for your medical care. (I do _believe_ we have an obligation to assist)

There are good things and bad things with "big government" and regulation. You can't just assume "big government" == bad.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[lennier]

"The kind of freedom I am into is freedom for the individual. You are free to do whatever you want as long as it does no unwanted harm to others."

I respect that.

The complication is that when you take into account all the social impact of one's decisions, it is actually impossible to do *anything* without it having an effect, negative or positive, on someone. There's no such thing as a company which does *no* harm to anyone; it's just a matter of mitigated harms, offset costs, and calculated risks.

Breathe out, or light a fire, and you're increasing the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. You can ignore this for one person; it gets harder to ignore if it's one person owning a factory, or a herd of cattle, and suddenly it starts to become non-trivial.

The libertarian answer to this dilemma of freedom vs responsibility seems to be lots of individual contracts. But individual contracts are extremely frictional: very time-consuming to manage and enforce. Not to mention that most individuals are not in any good position, time- and training- wise, to negotiate effectively with the owners of large resource pools.

The standard answer to the problem of economic friction is to pool resources, create collective organisations with collective contracts. That's how unions and companies were created.

And that's what a government is: just a collective contract. We take all those individual contracts and collapse then down into a single unified relationship called 'citizenship' which starts at birth or the filing of suitable papers and is bounded by the geographical reach of the contract's delegated enforcement authorities.

It's more efficient for everyone and it accomplishes the same end. Increasing efficiency and reduced overheads are what libertarians claim to support, right? So how can you have any philosophical objections to the *idea* of a government, as opposed to perhaps certain specific implementations? It seems to me that you'd have to reject the idea of both contracts and associations themselves, and even the most extreme libertarian or anarcho-capitalist (heck, even the left-anarchists) don't do that.

Now: I do think that in order for a government to count as a valid collective contract, you need a way of leaving if you decide you don't want to abide by the 'terms of service' - just like, say, an internet service agreement. Obviously if you decide you don't want to continue to use a society's resources, you need to stop doing so, so you'll need to leave their physical realm. Ie, emigrate. So I'm not in favour of governments which restrict emigration.

But even beyond this, I believe that a contract - any contract - ought to provide some way for the parties to *renegotiate* their agreement while still inside it. In societies, we accomplish this by various forms of democracy - voting - balanced with forms of currency, because we believe neither votes nor dollars are perfect 'scoring' systems in themselves.

One problem I believe we have with our society at *all* levels is that many of our institutions - both companies and public departments - are not internally democratic, out of a misguided belief that it's 'more efficient' to have a tiny cadre of 'managers' who make top-down, military-style command decisions based on what information filters up through the ranks to them. And the bigger these nondemocratic institutions get compared to the democratic ones, the more entrenched that military-style command governance gets into our society. That means a lot of information and creative freedom is getting lost.

To the extent that we can devolve power to small, self-organising groups, I believe we should. But I think those groups should not have an ethos of 'we can do anything we want because we're FREE' but more 'we have freedom in order to serve the best interests of the wider community'.

There is a delicate balance between 'private enterprise' which is internally undemocratic and potentially exploitative, but has a laser-like focus on 'increasing wealt

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Just Another Poster]

No, we would like social democrats (like the ones in Finland and France)

Or Zimbabwe.

controlling our lives.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

This is the old adage that "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

So you're a liberal?

I mean, if my freedom ends where my nose is, and yours is too, then you're not free to enforce your freedom on me, because it infringes on my freedom. What's the solution?

A GOVERNMENT.

Libertarianism is one logical step away from liberalism but ideologically similar to conservatism.

Again, you do not understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. There is a government, but it has a limited role. It's role is to defend the land, and to make sure there is consequence for one person slamming another person in the nose. Beyond that, it should do little else. Enforcing contracts agreed upon by mutual consent and understanding is another limited role a Libertarian Government should have.

In fact, what is now called Libertarianism used to be called Liberalism, and what is now Liberalism is really Socialism.

Even Anarchy is misunderstood, but I'm not going to bother with those details here.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

Firstly, I live in New Hampshire, and there is a high degree of gun ownership here. The sociopathic teenager will think twice about entering my house, or natural selection shall take its course. Just heard that New Hampshire has one of the lowest crime rates per capita of any State in the Union. Nevada, another state similar in population to New Hampshire, has one of the highest. I betcha gun ownership there is much lower than here! :-)

Secondly, taxes at gun-point is a bad thing, because there is rarely any accountability as to how they are used. We should be on the basis of pay-as-you-go. And yes, I've heard all the stuff about the so-called "haves vs. have-nots", but I don't buy those arguments, because, today we have compulsory taxes and the have-nots are still have-nots. Funny that. There has to be an emphasis on personal responsibility, and there should be a consequence for doing things irresponsibly. One should not grow to rely on Mommy-Government for everything, because Mommy-Government cannot support irresponsible people in a sustainable manner.

Thirdly, to answer your "Again, how would you stop someone from 'unduly and unjustifiably harming someone else' without hurting someone else? " is where gun ownership comes into play. Where guns are owned by a wide percentage of the population, wayward criminals will be far less likely to bother you, whether you choose to own a gun or not. And natural selection will be in place for those few criminals that don't seem to "get it." They will cease to being a problem before long.

From what I understand about Canada, BTW, there is high gun ownership there.

The mess we have in the United States now? Cops who violate the rights of citizens, and shoot innocents, lie under oath, plant evidence to excuse a false arrest, and the list goes on. And I personally have been unfortunate to experience the darker side of cops. We have a real problem here, and there is no good way to defend yourself against a rouge cop. Women have been raped by rogue cops on pullovers. And what's such a woman to do to defend herself against that? Mace the cop? Yeah, that'll work...

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

You're having the classic problem of any follower of an -ism...not seeing the forest for the trees.

The day you can recognize what's wrong with your advocacy is the day you won't be hated and despised.

You aren't talking about Freedom in a reasonable sense, you're talking about it like someone who doesn't recognize the concerns of others. Try seeing what other people are saying.

I know what the other people are saying, and these are old issues for me. There is much confusion, perversion, and misunderstanding. I am spending a good percentage of my time on this thread explaining that FREEDOM and LIBERTARIANISM is not the same thing as "lawlessness" and "no government". Mention the words FREEDOM and LIBERTARIAN and you get all kinds of knee-jerk reactions.

Perhaps the others should take some time to understand what those words REALLY mean. It does not enhance my freedom to punch my neighbor in the nose -- unless, of course, I am defending myself. It does enhance my freedom to have good relationships with my neighbors, that we work together in a community to help and support one-another so that we all gain a synergistic benefit. We do business with each other to enhance our mutual wealth. Chaos kills wealth, and violence kills freedom. One cannot be free if one is taking away the freedom of others. This is implicit in my definition of FREEDOM. And honestly, I thought this was obvious. Apparently, I am wrong.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

Such fatalism.

Why is it that every time someone mentions the possibility of a better society it is immediately slammed down as "Utopian"?

We have the mess we have today *precisely* because so many have given up on a hope for something better.

And yet, what we have today may have been considered "Utopian" by societies that existed 500 years ago. I am sure many in those times probably considered improvements to be impossibly out of reach.

I am a pragmatist. I am a realist. But I am also capable of "thinking outside of the box" to see better possibilities. I am also aware that we have the annoying problem of transitioning.

But if we care, we'd consider these possibilities. Because with the way things are right now, I question if the human species will still be around 1000 years from now. The way I see it, either we achieve something better or we won't be. And too many today have no hopes for the continued existence of the human race.

So, keep the status quo, or consider something better. The choice is yours.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

You live in a big country, if you really don't want anyone controlling your life why don't you move to a place where your life won't be controlled? Do it right and you won't have to pay taxes or be a hypocrite by using the things those taxes payed for. Just pick a random spot on the Alaska highway and head into the bush.

You don't understand.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

Government's other role would be to enforce contractual arrangements. You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.

But that contradicts the individual freedom you're advocating. Why should I be required to do something, just because I wrote my name on a piece of paper with some formal text saying I'd do it? Why should the government have the power to penalize me?

Be careful when you answer. If you say that it's justified because contracts are a beneficial social institution... Well that argument is a whole Pandora's box of problems for libertarians.

You have an overly-simplistic view.

If you don't agree with the contract, then don't sign it. Plain and simple. If you sign the contract and breach it, then you are acting dishonorably. You are free to make or not make a promise. But if you make a promise, you are obligate to follow through.

Sigh, I must say it again. Libertarian != Lawlessness.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

I want NO ONE controlling my life but ME.

Good luck with your life as a hermit in Antarctica.

Actually, I do just well in Southern New Hampshire.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

So corporations are also free as long as they do no harm to individuals.

So if, for example, a corporation is harming individuals by, say, polluting the environment those individuals live in, what exactly is supposed to prevent this? Consumers "voting" with their wallets? You do realize that, unlike voting with ballots, voting with wallets is a form of "democracy" that not everyone can afford, right? Therefore what you're talking about, from the consumer perspective, is really freedom for those who can afford it. As for those who can't afford to vote with their wallets, you want to diminish the effect of voting with their ballots.

Huh? Do you really think voting at the ballot amounts to anything? Not going to get into that discussion here. But recall that voting with one's wallet was highly effective during the civil right's struggles in the 50s and 60s -- by the very people you might say "could not afford it".

So corporations who violate these principles will find themselves out of business before long.

Right. That works really well. That's why we have nothing but entirely ethical corporations in the world.

What we have today in the world are corporations that have been granted a title of unaccountability by the very governments you love so much. If corporations were more accountable, and I mean the INDIVIDUALs who own and run them, this world would be a much better place, I think!!!!

After all, any corporation who does anything unethical (ie. harming the environment, harming workers, etc) will be "voted" into nonexistence by all the ethical consumers.

Modern libertarianism is mostly a wonderful idea combined with utopian ideology that fails the "Real World Test", spurred on by the false dichotomy of minimalist, impotent, barely-recognizable government vs. enormous, bloated, control-everything-you-ever-do government.

Again, you do not understand. In the "real world" of today, governments give corporations the green light to do whatever they want with no accountability to the citizen. So they pollute and wreck the environment until citizens start screaming LOUDLY to the GOVERNMENT, and then the government may or may not do something. It's all backwards. And even if the government does something, the individuals responsible are never held directly responsible. Has anyone at Phillip Morris ever gone to jail for producing a product that has killed countless? Government spends all its time going after the small-fry drug pushers on the street and slams them hard for selling product that may kill a few people, but big corporations like Philip Morris still sells their killer product to many the world over and that's perfectly OK.

Am I the only person on this planet that sees something wrong with this?

Or how about how the US government spending billions, snipe our freedom and privacy, and harass everyone at airports to "save" us from some vague threat of "terrorism" when only a handful are ever killed by, yet 41,000 people or so die on our roadways every YEAR without a concern?

Sorry. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I am going nuts. Maybe I am insane. But it seems to me that your beloved government has its priorities severely misplaced.

And Obama has wound up being one big disappointment. Still won't bring those troops home. Welcome to the new boss....

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

There are good things and bad things with "big government" and regulation. You can't just assume "big government" == bad.

I don't have to assume. The record speaks for itself.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

You make many good points.

The problem I have with the existing system is that it concentrates too much power into the hands of too few, and the Individual needs and concerns are lost. It's a "winner takes all" system where the Majority grants power to a handful to beat up on the Minority -- and everyone else.

These systems are old, sluggish, and extremely unfair to the Individual. The Individual is not given many choices to redress these issues, as the System itself have become too entrenched and tenacious.

I actually have something quite a bit different in mind, something that does not have a name yet, something that is similar to Libertarianism, but is kinda on another "dimension" for lack of a better word. A part of it has to do with what I call "Fractalization of Power". Another component has to do with having "Virtual Nations" -- that is, a means to break the geographic monopoly of our existing government infrastructures, which is really an extension of ancient human tendency -- tribalism. But I am still working out the details.

The truth is today that, yes, you can expat if you don't like your home government, but where do you expat to? Another government that's just as broken -- or worse? That is the problem.

The ultimate freedom would be the freedom of citizenship without ties to geography. Governments should have to *compete* for our citizenship. At that point, the governments will be more likely to serve the needs of us Individuals, rather than forcing us Individuals to serve its greed for power and control. Those who like the way US does things can remain a citizen of it. Those who disagree can renounce citizenship and associate with a different country -- without having to physically relocate there; or better yet -- create your own and invite people in.

Well, I know many here are going to slam me for these ideas, so slam away!

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand about Canada, BTW, there is high gun ownership there.

No, there isn't. I grew up in Canada and very few people had guns. However, that is anecdotal, so I grabbed some numbers from Wikipedia. There are 1.9 million gun licenses, which are mandatory for all firearms. With a population of over 30 million, this is about 1 in 16 people or about 6%. In the U.S. 25% of adults own guns with 50% living in a household with a gun.

So, Canada has 1/4 the firearm possession rate as the US. In fact, since children need a license to use a firearm, and the U.S. stats are only for adults, the actual ratio is even less than that.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Rary]

Again, you do not understand. In the "real world" of today, governments give corporations the green light to do whatever they want with no accountability to the citizen. So they pollute and wreck the environment until citizens start screaming LOUDLY to the GOVERNMENT, and then the government may or may not do something. It's all backwards. And even if the government does something, the individuals responsible are never held directly responsible. Has anyone at Phillip Morris ever gone to jail for producing a product that has killed countless? Government spends all its time going after the small-fry drug pushers on the street and slams them hard for selling product that may kill a few people, but big corporations like Philip Morris still sells their killer product to many the world over and that's perfectly OK.

So your answer is to take away the government's ability to do anything about this, aside from prosecuting individuals for individual crimes (note: no one at Philip Morris has committed a crime in selling their product), and simply rely on the magical free market to grant people the ability to fix this problem by voting with their wallets (something that we're perfectly capable of doing right now, and yet still people the world over are buying cigarettes, smoking, getting cancer, and dying)? Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

Of course modern democracy is flawed. Of course voting seems to accomplish little. Of course corporations have too much power. Of course individuals, particularly in corporations, are not held accountable for their actions enough. And of course ridiculous things like the "War On Drugs" are causing more problems than they solve, and completely missing the real problems. We're in agreement on that.

I just don't buy the ridiculous libertarian notion that if we just leave it all alone and let the market rule, with people "voting with their wallets" — something that far too few can be bothered to do in this day and age — that everything will be just perfect.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Burpmaster]

But contract enforcement is coercive. Aren't libertarians against coercion?

I could start ranting that contract law is unnecessary, and people will be honorable out of their own self-interest, to preserve their reputation and livelihood. I could then continue on about how the non-enforcible contracts will have greater value due to people learning personal responsibility from the deregulation of contracts. Oh, and the markets will thrive under these new conditions and we'll all be wealthier.

And if you say that's nonsense and argue that contracts are justified because they're opt-in, well it's all opt-in. Nobody is forcing you to live in this country. You can leave if you don't like it.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Burpmaster]

Just heard that New Hampshire has one of the lowest crime rates per capita of any State in the Union. Nevada, another state similar in population to New Hampshire, has one of the highest. I betcha gun ownership there is much lower than here! :-)

Gun Ownership by State:

30% of households in New Hampshire have guns. 33.8% of households in Nevada have guns.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

One could argue easily that the liberal/environmentalist/Democratic party view of charging a carbon tax is a charge for pollutants, which in turn enhances the libertarian view of free markets by controlling externalities.

[return troll]So once again, libertarianism will win in the end.[/return troll]

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

"At least that's the kind of 'freedom' most anarcho-capitalists I've seen dream about. And unrestricted, unregulated, corporate iron fist and death to the teeming masses."

That's because you (and I do mean YOU) are sheep.

In a true anarchy-capitalistic world, those workers could also walk away from the job to compete against it. Those workers could band together without restriction as long as physical property rights were followed. Those workers could pick up en masse, take their knowledge, pool it, and kick the original company's ass.

But I do understand. Because YOU are sheep, you have to hate those that gave you a job and blame them for your short-sightedness and faults. After all, you couldn't even think for 2 seconds how such an anarchy-capitalistic world would benefit you. Yes, you could pool the resources of the masses, which follows many liberal groups such as labor unions.

Now baa. Bend over. I need some animal love. Why are you complaining? You've been doing this your whole life, maybe you just didn't realize it. You have either been *ucked by your free market capitalists, and now your government with your whines for regulation, but don't worry, we'll take care of you.

Or you can learn to stand up for yourselves, band together as a herd, and kick the crap out of the wolves.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Again, you do not understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. There is a government, but it has a limited role. It's role is to defend the land, and to make sure there is consequence for one person slamming another person in the nose. Beyond that, it should do little else. Enforcing contracts agreed upon by mutual consent and understanding is another limited role a Libertarian Government should have.

So educate me.

So how would Libertarianism deal with things like spectrum disputes or unfair trade practice complaints? Under a libertarian society, how would a seller of homeopathic remedies be dealt with when it's shown that they're selling sugar pills? Or when it turns out some device is jamming a wide array of consumer devices?

Under a 'liberal' Government you'd have the FTC, the FAA and the FDA. How would a theoretical Ron Paul administration do this? Coase theorem?

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

Ok, I stand corrected.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

So your answer is to take away the government's ability to do anything about this, aside from prosecuting individuals for individual crimes (note: no one at Philip Morris has committed a crime in selling their product),

I personally consider it a crime to promote killer products, especially to children, as Phillip Morris has done actively in the past. I am just old enough to recall the Phillip Morris candy cigarettes.

Also, Government defines what is a "crime" and what is not, and it generally has no rhyme or reason outside of the flexing of power, control, and a appeal to populism.

and simply rely on the magical free market to grant people the ability to fix this problem by voting with their wallets (something that we're perfectly capable of doing right now, and yet still people the world over are buying cigarettes, smoking, getting cancer, and dying)?

Or at least stop busting the street drug pusher for selling his killer products.

Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

Anymore ridiculous than the current state of affairs?

Of course modern democracy is flawed.

So let's fix it instead of settling for the flaws.

Of course voting seems to accomplish little.

The entire concept of Voting is flawed at a fundamental level, nevermind all the games that are played.

Of course corporations have too much power.

As do governments.

Of course individuals, particularly in corporations, are not held accountable for their actions enough. And of course ridiculous things like the "War On Drugs" are causing more problems than they solve, and completely missing the real problems. We're in agreement on that.

I just don't buy the ridiculous libertarian notion that if we just leave it all alone and let the market rule, with people "voting with their wallets" — something that far too few can be bothered to do in this day and age — that everything will be just perfect.

Nothing will ever be perfect. We must work toward perfection.

The system must be allowed to properly evolve. Currently, it does not. Evolution entails elimination of the failures. Current-day governments, by their very nature, have eliminated this component entirely. Government agencies, ministries, and departments keep growing by leaps and bounds, even when they have outlived their usefulness. This is not evolution in the Darwinian sense, but a cancer.

Governments of today continue to employ supperannuated systems of thought and governance, international policies, and the like. Those running the show have little understanding, usually, of how to deal with complex dynamical systems. They do not understand about emergence, perpetual novelty, or the concept that you can't have unlimited growth in a limited environment.

We need a change -- a change far greater than the governments of today will ever allow. And hence lies the dilemma.

I find it supremely ironic that everyone understands that there's a problem, yet so many are so willing to throw up their hands in the air and allow the problem to continue. And when it all comes crashing down like a house of cards, I hope I am not around to be able to tell you, "I told you so". But somehow, I don't think I'll be so lucky...

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

But contract enforcement is coercive. Aren't libertarians against coercion?

I could start ranting that contract law is unnecessary, and people will be honorable out of their own self-interest, to preserve their reputation and livelihood. I could then continue on about how the non-enforcible contracts will have greater value due to people learning personal responsibility from the deregulation of contracts. Oh, and the markets will thrive under these new conditions and we'll all be wealthier.

And if you say that's nonsense and argue that contracts are justified because they're opt-in, well it's all opt-in. Nobody is forcing you to live in this country. You can leave if you don't like it.

Why should I have to leave the country? That's not "opt-in", that's OPT-OUT. I was born here giving no choice as to the way things are, and I have to choose to opt-out by leaving?

What is wrong with this picture?

Besides, not all libertarians think alike. In fact, just the opposite is true. But that's besides my point.

There are non-coercive means to enforce contracts. But really, this is about mutual honor and respect. You create a network of those you can respect and trust, and carry out business with them. You check references. You avoid those that don't measure up. It's that simple. Then the system becomes self-enforcing in a passive way.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a libertarian like me, you want no regulation of pollution.

Damn straight libertarian brother. The market will decide if we want pollution to kill us.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[Rary]

The real problem with this discussion is that you seem to be operating under the assumption that I am arguing for the status quo. I tried to stress in my last post that I agree with you about what's fundamentally wrong with the world today. My point was that our disagreement isn't in you wanting to fix it and me wanting to leave it as it is, but rather in how to fix it.

Some points we agree on:

Or at least stop busting the street drug pusher for selling his killer products.

Agreed.

So let's fix it instead of settling for the flaws.

Agreed.

The entire concept of Voting is flawed at a fundamental level, nevermind all the games that are played.

Well, the implementation is definitely flawed. This is an area that needs significant work.

Of course corporations have too much power.

As do governments.

In some areas, yes. In other areas, governments have too little power. The issue is more that governments have their priorities all out of whack.

Nothing will ever be perfect. We must work toward perfection.

Absolutely agreed.

I find it supremely ironic that everyone understands that there's a problem, yet so many are so willing to throw up their hands in the air and allow the problem to continue.

I'm sure it feels good to think that you're the only one willing to do anything about the problem. I just don't think that taking power away from individuals is the right approach — and, whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what you are proposing. You want the power of the individual to be manifest in spending power. I want the power of the individual to be manifest in a strong community with a useful representative organization (which doesn't preclude also having the power to effect change through spending habits — I'm personally a big believer and practitioner of consumer activism). We already have that organization, we've just disconnected it from the community it's supposed to represent. I want to restore that connection, while you want to take away the organization's power.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

In New Hampshire, you may own a gun freely, without having to register it or anything. So the actual figure may be higher than reported. Not everyone here is open to letting everyone know they own a gun.

I have no idea what the situation is in Nevada.

Re:Air quality is for socialists.

[flajann]

I'm sure it feels good to think that you're the only one willing to do anything about the problem. I just don't think that taking power away from individuals is the right approach — and, whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what you are proposing. You want the power of the individual to be manifest in spending power. I want the power of the individual to be manifest in a strong community with a useful representative organization (which doesn't preclude also having the power to effect change through spending habits — I'm personally a big believer and practitioner of consumer activism). We already have that organization, we've just disconnected it from the community it's supposed to represent. I want to restore that connection, while you want to take away the organization's power.

I do NOT want to take power away from the Individual, but give more power to the Individual. For those things that directly affect us, like water, air, food, electricity, we all as individuals should have as much power over those things as possible. Currently, we do not. All that power rests in the hands of the handful that controls them.

We do seem to have a general agreement, so that's good. And no, I don't think I'm the "only one", though it certainly feels that way sometimes.

-Flajann
Only YOU can save Mankind. If not you, then whom?

Stressed....

[Down8]

Or, maybe ppl in these areas (which likely aren't metro areas) don't live as stressful a life and get some extra life expectancy from that.

Or smog sucks.

Both?

-bZj

Re:Stressed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Lower air quality correlates with metro areas which opens up a whole number of alternate causes for the data that they captured. Metro areas have more restaurants, so maybe these people are eating out more often. Your stress explanation could be another reason. It could even be that communicable diseases spread faster in metro areas that in places where people don't live in such a close proximity to each other. Lower air quality may also correlate with lower incomes since people with more money can use air quality when determining where they want to live.

In reality, each of these things is likely to have had some effect on the result that was observed. And without controlling all other variables, we can't know how much of the effect noticed can be attributed to smog in the air and not the other contributing factors. The point to make here is that they've discovered a correlation, not a cause for the lower life expectancy. It's a common refrain around here, but needs to be said whenever a study or experiment is reported as if a cause has been determined...correlation is not causation.

FLASH! Humans live longer

[Anonymous Coward]

if they don't shit in their cage.

Film at eleven...

Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-(

[spineboy]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - it's better than the pure acid that was present in the 1970's, but the air still ranks worst in the country.
Worst yet is that there is little/no public transportation to speak of, and something like 40% of the population here drives a truck, SUV, or minivan.
But apparently China is much, much worse.

Re:Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-(

[PhrostyMcByte]

Are you in the same LA as me? The bus system around me has been nothing short of fantastic.

Re:Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-(

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I'd kill for some of the pure acid that was present in the 1970's.

Re:Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-(

[RudeIota]

Fantastic is an overstatement.

True, there are tons of buses and you can to most places using public transportation. The problem with LA public transit is it can be impractical to do so. This isn't a failing of the transit system necessarily, but because LA is the poster child for urban sprawl.

To get to work (an 18 mile drive) takes me just under 2 hours on the bus and I'd have to catch multiple buses. I can drive it in 30 mins -- with traffic.

Similarly, there are MANY miles of tracks for the Metro rail system too, but again, LA is too big and the accessibility of the rail system is limited at best. For example, the rail almost completely ignores West LA (where I live).

Re:Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-(

[spineboy]

Sorry - while busing is available, sitting in traffic along with the other cars doesn't really help. Buses are meant to fill in gaps in a rail/subway system. On the Westside of L.A. the coverage is miserable.
Again bus coverage is reasonable in the rest of L.A., but it will take me over 2 hours to go 15 miles - that's just plain ridiculous.

Re:Great! - I live in Los Angeles :-(

[CompMD]

"Worst yet is that there is little/no public transportation to speak of"

I can see why, what with the buses that explode if they go faster than 55mph and then slow down.

common sense...

[xushi]

its called common sense.....

Pollution, pollution,

[iminplaya]

Wear a gas mask and a veil.
Then you can breathe, long as you don't inhale.

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

A complete tobacco ban worldwide would not only eliminate the many health problems caused by second hand smoke, it would also greatly reduce the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

Re:Simple Solution

[JoshuaZ]

Tobacco is not a major contributor to the overall pollution level. Moreover, tobacoo smoking isn't adding that much in the way of greenhouse gases. Burning oil and gas adds carbon dioxide because the carbon would otherwise be trapped in the earth. Burning tobacco doesn't do much of that because the tobacco is coming from new plants which are constantly taking in new carbon dioxide to grow.

Re:Simple Solution

[Vectronic]

Your house, just sitting there, not even including your furnace, air conditioner, or toilet and septic, are putting off far more toxins per day than a smoker. Think about all the plastic, the paint on the walls, the shingles on your roof, the insulation and tar-paper, the chemicals in the treated wood, got a paved driveway?...

The amount of power your PC used during your comment, is probably indirectly equal to 1 cigarette, via the power station, even if it's hydro, the damn because of the raised water level is allowing all sorts of chemicals to seep out of the ground, the trees and plants that were killed in the process, gas to run the bulldozers, etc, even if you use a solar cell to power your PC, the mining to get the minerals in it, the manufacturing of it, the plastic on the wires...etc etc etc.

Besides, tobacco by itself isn't very toxic, the major problem with second hand smoke and the likes, is commercialized tobacco which has hundreds of additives in it, benzene, formaldehyde, acetone, hydrogen cyanide, etc... so even in some sort of agreement with you, cutting down on those additives would almost have the same effect as stopping smoking entirely, by going back to natural tobacco.

Re:Simple Solution

[Vectronic]

"...the damn because..."

Dam* ...lol

Re:Simple Solution

[Xenna]

Yeah, I've noticed this argument before. "Natural tobacco is perfectly safe, because it's pure".

Pure hogwash, you mean...

Don't forget oil is natural too. Problem is, the gases it produces when you burn it are toxic.

Same problem with all natural plants and woods. When you burn them, you create lots of complicated carbon based molecules and many of them are toxic.

Sap from the natural taxus tree kills you dead. They even use it to treat some forms of cancer. They call it chemo-therapy then...

Your ideas about 'natural' things need some adjustment. Some people have a borderline religious attitude towards nature. It's almost unnatural... ;)

X.

Re:Simple Solution

[Vectronic]

"...cutting down on those additives would almost have the same effect as stopping smoking entirely..."

What I meant was that pure tobacco, especially secondary, would be about the same as your normal intake of toxins, if you are around someone who is smoking, for say a couple cigarettes, then it would be about the same as another day, when your neighbours chimney smoke happened to drift your way, or you burnt off the dead grass in the spring, etc.. I never said it was healthy, only that it was immensely more so by comparison, especially since some of the intentionally added toxins are specifically there to aid in its toxicity, to increase the amount that reaches your blood stream, to pacify or neutralize your lungs abilities to cleanse themselves, etc.

Why is it that various indigenous people, who smoke raw/pure tobacco on a daily basis, still live into their 80's, I'm not saying that if you smoke it it's going to cure you or something, only that it's impact seems almost insignificant, granted, "indians" also don't eat fast food, and eat far less sugar, etc, etc... it's just a single improvement of many that would be needed.

Re:Simple Solution

[Xenna]

The difference is that you take extra special care to take as much of the delicious tobacco smoke in your lungs as possible. Your neighbour's chimney was designed specifically to keep the smoke out of his lungs. And when you're burning grasses you get out of the way of the smoke.

So, yes, in theory natural tobacco smoke is probably not more toxic than any other organic smoke, but in practice smokers and people who stay in the same rooms tend to inhale much more of the latter. Sniffing smoke from your neighbour's chimney 20 times a day would probably also be very bad for your health.

X.

Re:Simple Solution

[bobbuck]

Yes, and we can outlaw candles and carbonated beverages, too!

Re:Simple Solution

[value_added]

Tobacco is not a major contributor to the overall pollution level.

No matter. Few would object to even more tobacco legislation, and the "feel good" payoffs for nearly everyone are substantial enough.

Getting people to drive/use less or pay more, on the other hand ...

15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[imikedaman]

So cleaning the air for 70 years gives someone an extra 5 months of life? I was expecting something a little more significant than that...

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[JuzzFunky]

No, actually, giving someone an extra 5 months of life makes the air cleaner.
XKCD - Correlation

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[gandhi_2]

This isn't a bad idea. With 5 extra months of filtering the air with your alveoli, the air is bound to be a little cleaner.

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[Anonymous Coward]

So cleaning the air for 70 years gives someone an extra 5 months of life?

It's a lot more significant than that. It gives everyone an average of 5 months, which is hugely more significant.

Multiply the work output if even one of those extra months goes towards a working month of that person's life, and the economic impact is quite easy to see.

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[JimboFBX]

Retired people don't work.

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[hey!]

It doesn't work that way. It's more like adjusting the odds on the lottery. Most people breathe crap faithfully every day of their lives yet still up dying of something unrelated like pancreatic cancer at age 80. A relatively small number of people win the air pollution fatality lottery and get to check out at age 50.

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[Anonymous Coward]

They do now.

Re:15% of 2.72 years? 5 months?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because everyone retires at the same age, right? Because poor people never have to go on working through their retirements. Because people never die before they reach retirement age. Hopefully the point is made.

People living longer doesn't mean that all of the time they live longer is spent in retirement. While it might be hard to determine exactly how much time gets added to what part of life, it's not hard to believe that even 1/5th of that time gets added to the time an average person spends working and thusly creating economic impact.

Correlation is not Causation

[sneilan]

I had to say it. :) There's probably way too many variables in this study.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[rockNme2349]

I used to think that Correlation implied causation; then I took a statistics class. Now I don't.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[mastershake82]

I really hate this phrase. The more I see it used, the more I'm convinced it's just people trying to sound smart.

If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.

Sure you can take something and twist facts any way you want to make something correlate to something else, and in that case, sure correlation does not imply causation. And perhaps an initial correlation does not imply causation, but typically warrants further investigation and studies. But when you have a studies that take years of data, good, large, samples, and some generally smart people doing it, saying "correlation is not causation", especially without any argument or justification, is just silly.

Parent is either +1 Funny or -1 Troll.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.

Correlation does not PROVE causation.

A high degree of correlation may imply causality. It can indicate that further study is worthwhile. It is not proof.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[sneilan]

Parent is either +1 Funny or -1 Troll.

NO! That's MY karma you're talking about!

Gosh darn it... I will never get good karma at this rate.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[phantomfive]

Yeah, true, it might be that when people die .61 years earlier they release the equivalent of 10 micrograms of per cubic meter of pollutants into the air. What? Did you even read the article? There's probably way too many variables in the study? Are you saying the scientists don't know what they are doing? Because, unless you have a reason to believe that they made a mistake, they haven't exactly come up with something startling and unusual here. It's pretty much straightforward a confirmation of what we already knew. There's too many variables in the study? Did you read exactly how they accounted for the other variables? They did, so unless they made a mistake (which you seem to be accusing them of), then the study is ok.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[timmarhy]

learn to paragraph, for the love of god.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[sneilan]

Actually, your right. I didn't read the article. Ah well, I should probably keep my mouth shut now.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hate this phrase. The more I see it used, the more I'm convinced it's just people trying to sound smart.

Of course smart phrases tend to be used by people just trying to sound smart. But still, this doesn't invalidate every smart phrase.

If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.

Certainly not. Not every study falsely claims that correlation equals causation.

But when you have a studies that take years of data, good, large, samples, and some generally smart people doing it, saying "correlation is not causation", especially without any argument or justification, is just silly.

But still, correlation is not causation. To demonstrate a causal relationship takes more than just statistics, no matter how smart the people conducting the study are and how sound the study as a whole is.

Parent is either +1 Funny or -1 Troll.

Then, I take it, your comment is 100% Troll?

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[nomadic]

I really hate this phrase. The more I see it used, the more I'm convinced it's just people trying to sound smart.

It's a useful phrase on slashdot. If someone uses it at the beginning of their post, I can safely assume they don't know what they're talking about and ignore the rest.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

To make the meaning of my above comment clear, I didn't criticize the study actually presented in any way (and of course, I didn't RTFA, this is /., after all ;)), I just criticized the comment I responded to, because the author falsely believes that correlation can possibly equal causation, which is complete hogwash.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Max Littlemore]

What? Did you even read the article?

You must be new h

*looks at uid*

... never mind.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Repossessed]

Actually, I can see one big way that there may not be causation, namely that places with a lot of pollution (big cities) tend to be higher in crime and traffic accidents.

I didn't read the study, so I can't say if they accounter for this or not.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[phantomfive]

Ah sorry

I will

try. I'm working

                                                                                                                          on it

but sometimes it's so

hard. I do my best. :)

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Nyeerrmm]

And, even in cases when correlation is not causation, there's still usually pertinent information.

Take, for instance, the classic case of pirates and global warming. Clearly, any logical person can see that a lack of piracy has no direct effect on releasing greenhouse gases. However, if one knew a lot about pirates, and nothing about global warming you could figure some of it out. Caribbean piracy was largely motivated by getting around the mercantilist policies of the European powers. However, the industrial revolution began ~1800, and this put an end to mercantilism, to be replaced by rampant laissez-faire capitalism, and thus the economic basis for Caribbean piracy ended (other factors like recent revolutions helped too).

You, as a piracy expert, know this, and after researching the many causes you hit upon the unfortunate fact that all of the factories and energy production involved in the industrial revolution tend to release lots of nasty stuff, and with enough research you learn that releasing the carbon in many of the fuels used can increase the heat retention of the planet.

So even though the correlation is not indicative of causation here, the correlation is relevant and can teach you new things, so long as you don't make blind assumptions. Just to expand on your point.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Scrameustache]

I really hate this phrase. The more I see it used, the more I'm convinced it's just people trying to sound smart.

If correlation never implies causation, then every study ever done is invalidated.

Well, maybe http://xkcd.com/552/

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[MrHanky]

'Correlation is not causation' causes stupidity.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[ildon]

The reason people say it so much is because people constantly take a correlation and purposefully deduce incorrect causation relationships from it.

Take this study as an example. Does living in air with less pollution increase your life span? Probably. But to narrow it down to a statement like "A decrease in air pollution amounting to 10 micrograms per cubic meter of of particulates in the air led to an additional .61 years of life." is total idiocy. There is no way there is a direct relationship between the PPM of shit in the air and the exact duration of your life. The pollution may cause your neighbor to die 10 years earlier but may not impact your life span at all. You can't take a big average of millions of people and try to boil it down to an actual, direct relationship like that. That should be obvious to anyone yet people still make statements like that in news stories and slashdot posts all the time. And this is only an example of people incorrectly interpreting the data when there is likely a real causal relationship in the data. Now take this and apply it to a situation where there is no direct causal relationship.

Let's make up a pretend scenario since I don't feel like thinking of a real one. Let's say that someone did a study on number of pigeons in a city and life span of people in the city. Now there could be a hundred things that affect pigeon population in a particular city such as climate and presence of predatory birds, etc. But it turned out one contributing factor was air pollution, but this wasn't mentioned in the study. Now someone says: "An increase in pigeon populations amounting to 10 pigeons per capita led to an additional .61 years of life." They are now trying to assume a direct, implicitly causal relationship between the pigeons and life span, even though the real reason was the air pollution which drove the pigeons off in some areas. So your pigeons start decreasing due to an increase in predatory birds in the area (say an introduced species). Due to everyone believing this study, they start legislating that we kill the predator bird to try and increase the pigeon population to increase the lifespan of people in the city. Yet it was the pollution that was the connecting factor, and so it actually has zero effect on lifespan. Millions of dollars and time and effort wasted on bird exterminators with zero effect on human lifespan because it was a third factor that was affecting both.

People look around and see this type of idiocy and misrepresentation of data and mis-use of a study every day. Whether it's some climate change thing, a study on videogames and violence, or autism and vaccines. Somebody somewhere is misinterpreting data, assigning causal relationships where they don't exist, and at best wasting people's time and money, and at worst killing them indirectly. Until we lose the cargo cult science, that phrase is not going to go away.

And yeah, the GPP was just joking. :P

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[ljw1004]

And also...

Correlation is *correlated* with causation!

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[ColdWetDog]

I can safely assume they don't know what they're talking about and ignore the rest.

You do realize that you can (and should) do that irregardless of that opening phrase.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Rary]

I used to think that Correlation implied causation; then I took a statistics class. Now I don't.

Sounds like the class helped.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[maxume]

Yeah, he should learn to right.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[rockNme2349]

well, maybe.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

No. A properly designed experiment can differentiate between a simple correlation and a causal relationship. Think about it.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[nomadic]

Well played, sir, well played.

Re:Correlation is not Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, sounds like the class helped.

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

... living in a cleaner environment means your body doesn't have to expend as much energy and resources on dealing with all manner of toxins, and so you ummm, last longer.

No big revelation here folks - just look at the air cleaner on your car. If it's clean, you get better gas mileage... If it's not, the car runs like shit.

If you run it without an air filter, then your engine doesn't last very long does it?

Why should a biological body be any different?

It's not the heat...

[gandhi_2]

...it's the stupidity.

No shit, there I was. Getting out of my prius (i actually just like the car..it's not a political statement), i noticed a dude staring at me as he got out of his 4-door F350. He kind of chuckled to himself a little. I said, "You think that's funny? Your kids are breathing your exhaust. Now THAT'S funny".

Wasn't there something like 4000 deaths in a few weeks in Victorian-era England due to coal smoke and a bad inversion? Like mother nature stuffing your underwear in your mouth...that's so hot.

Re:It's not the heat...

[MadUndergrad]

More recently than that, actually. The Great Smog of 1952. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_smog

Re:It's not the heat...

[Paua Fritter]

Wasn't there something like 4000 deaths in a few weeks in Victorian-era England due to coal smoke and a bad inversion?

You're probably thinking of "Great Smog of London" which was actually in 1952! Not all that long ago really.
4000 people were killed during the smog event itself, but it's thought that about twice that number died from it even after the smog cleared; a total of 12k deaths.
This event definitely spurred on regulation of air quality in Britain.

Re:It's not the heat...

[fm6]

Wasn't there something like 4000 deaths in a few weeks in Victorian-era England due to coal smoke and a bad inversion?

I think you're confusing the Victorian coal smoke problem with the killer smog during the 1950s. Though all those coal fires must have put out enough particulate to kill a lot of people, I doubt if there are any hard numbers.

An ironic detail: London used to be famous for its fog. A good way to add atmosphere to movies and fiction. There's even a brand of raincoat (American, of course) called "London Fog". Alas, the London Fog is no more: it was caused by that same particulate that killed so many people.

Re:It's not the heat...

[BlackPignouf]

Thanks for the link.

One more example to give to anti-nuclear people that wouldn't see any problem heavily relying on coal!

Re:It's not the heat...

[Locklin]

"You think that's funny? Your kids are breathing your exhaust. Now THAT'S funny".

The sad thing is, so are you, and your kids. Maybe that's why he's chuckling.

Re:It's not the heat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, the London Fog is no more: it was caused by that same particulate that killed so many people.

Except on November 6th and January 1st. The particulates from the previous evening's fireworks almost always cause a morning fog with a distinctive smell. I rather enjoy it. Though it probably won't happen this year with the country being broke.

Don't jump the gun yet...

[flajann]

Correlation does NOT prove causation. And I think most on /. can fully appreciate that.

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[EvolutionsPeak]

People on /. only fully appreciate that when the conclusion being jumped to is one they disagree with.

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[flajann]

People on /. only fully appreciate that when the conclusion being jumped to is one they disagree with.

Shame. I thought better of the people here!

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[RudeIota]

True, but how does causation ever get proven? Every day life doesn't exist in a lab and not all (or even most) variables can be controlled for. It's very much impossible to concretely prove causation within our populations for things that don't cause instantaneous death... Often times, the best we can hope for are very strong correlations and make a *reasonably* educated assumption.

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[noidentity]

Exactly; perhaps healthy people simply choose to live in cities with less air pollution. Even if air pollution had no actual effect on one's health, people concerned with health might still believe it did. Before anyone rebuts what I just said, please remember that I said "perhaps" and "might".

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[psetzer]

It doesn't get proven. That's the whole point of that objection. It allows the person making it to sound intellectual while tossing up a smokescreen where there's always some unspecified alternative explanation but there's never a specific one that the researchers can disprove or any point where the person chanting "correlation != causation" will ever concede anything. It's religious fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudoscientific veneer where gosh they'd really like to believe this but their strong dedication to the skepticism prevents them from doing so.

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's what happens when you jump to conclusion!

Somebody get this man a mat! (Okay, I'm done.)

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[flynt]

For the most part, you're right. But I think most people accept a causal model based on randomization and blinding. For instance in a double-blind, randomized control clinical trial.

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[flajann]

It doesn't get proven. That's the whole point of that objection. It allows the person making it to sound intellectual while tossing up a smokescreen where there's always some unspecified alternative explanation but there's never a specific one that the researchers can disprove or any point where the person chanting "correlation != causation" will ever concede anything. It's religious fundamentalism wrapped up in a pseudoscientific veneer where gosh they'd really like to believe this but their strong dedication to the skepticism prevents them from doing so.

Surely, you jest, right? You are accusing me of being a religious fundamentalist?

I'm just stating a fact. Finding a correlation simply means just that -- we have a correlation. Making assumptions is not Science. Making a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis IS science. If your assumption is to be taken as a hypothesis, it is either true or false. You can then -- hopefully -- find ways to falsify it. If you can't, then it's nothing more than conjecture.

That's the way Science works. Take it or leave it.

All we have here is a good reason to do more science to see if there is causality or not. It seems likely there is a good chance to find the causal link, but you can't just assume the causal link exists and call that Science.

In this particular case, and examination of the lungs of those that have died would provide evidence of a causal link or not. As well as looking at a control group, and what not. What's the life expectancy of the rural or suburban populations? Do they match what you would expect if the assumption of a causal link is true? What about cities and rural areas in other places around the world? Are the nature of the deaths respiratory related or not? How do the differences break down due to demographics? These questions and others can be tested and can tell you much more about what is really going on.

I am really beginning to wonder about the Slash-dot crowd. To assert mere assumption as fact -- and then beat up on anyone who dare raise questions -- is the tenet of religious fundamentalism. To ask questions and to call for more tests is the mark of a Scientist. All things -- including our most cherished beliefs -- must be open to question, or we may as well move back to the dark ages.

Wow, this is a new one for me, though. I've been accused of being "the Prince of Darkness" by real religious fundamentalists, and now I'm accused of being a religious fundamentalist by the very crowd that should understand Science. Wow. The fun never ceases.

Well, cling to your assumptions all you like. I hope you're right. Meanwhile, I will stick to critical thinking, inquiry, reason, and logic. If we can't establish a causal link, what is wrong with being honest about that, and being honest that we are making a reasoned assumption that there is -- but keeping in mind at all times that a reasoned assumption is not fact?

Unless, of course, you can't be bothered with that pesky Scientific Method anymore once you hear something you like.

Re:Don't jump the gun yet...

[flajann]

For the most part, you're right. But I think most people accept a causal model based on randomization and blinding. For instance in a double-blind, randomized control clinical trial.

And you can't decide everything on one clinical trial. You need many. You need to ask new questions and test those. It's painstaking. It's laborious. It's time consuming. It's expensive, unfortunately. But at the end, you wind up with a much more through understanding, which could lead to new knowledge and understanding.

...and also traffic accidents

[gigoguy]

I imagine that polluted areas tend to be heavily populated and industrialized. Things like car fatalities, murder rates and industrial accidents might have something to do with avg. lifespan.

Re:...and also traffic accidents

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm pretty sure that they teach you how to statistically compensate for factors you can't control, even in social scientist school...

Re:...and also traffic accidents

[EvolutionsPeak]

If you actually read the paper you will see that they do not account for these things. They don't even account for improvements in medical technology. The closest they get is to try and account for the change in prevalence of smoking.

Therefore, this is absolutely the correct time to stand up and state that correlation is not causation and they needed to do better to compensate for other factors.

whut

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, smaller cars use less fuel, exercise builds up muscle, and computers use less power if you turn them off at night.

This needs to be said...

[incognito84]

...like it's 1995! No duuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

More interested in quality of life

[syousef]

I really don't care about an extra 2-3 years of nursing home hell where I'm fed through a tube and can't remember my own name. I'm sure I'll feel differently when I'm closer to that time of my life, but right now it's just not on my list of priorities to extend that part of my life which is certain not to be the best.

What I do care about is QUALITY of life. I bet the last few years those people who live in a more polutted place spend are not happy healthy years. Show me stats on the last 10 years of life and how sick people were.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[pipedwho]

It's more likely that the extension is to the years prior to getting sick and entering the nursing home.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[MrMista_B]

Alright then, but do you really think spending the last few years of your life choking to death on air pollution clogged lungs is somehow 'better'?

Seriously. 'Better air quality' isn't some fairytail greenpeace myth thing. There are and can be demonstrable differences in the 'quality' of the air we breathe, and, according to this study, the better the air a person breathes, the longer they live.

Now, they're not saying that extra lifespan is spent in 'nursing home hell', but do you really want to die /sooner/?

You seem to have your priorities confused, and I'm curious to understand the reasons why you think the way you do.

Personally, I'd rather live longer, and if better air quality is what it takes, then that's a sacrafice I'm prepared to make.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[theheadlessrabbit]

I really don't care about an extra 2-3 years of nursing home hell where I'm fed through a tube and can't remember my own name...What I do care about is QUALITY of life. I bet the last few years those people who live in a more polutted place spend are not happy healthy years. Show me stats on the last 10 years of life and how sick people were.

but clean air isn't giving you 2-3 extra years in a nursing home.
With better air quality, you should stay healthier longer, and will be moving in to that nursing home 2-3 years later.

Cleaner air could give you 2-3 more good years.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[An dochasac]

Personally, I'd rather live longer, and if better air quality is what it takes, then that's a sacrafice I'm prepared to make.

A reasonable wish, I wish slashdotters were better informed about the science of how to improve air quality to we can better inform employers and voters. The U.S. is going through a massive 'coal bubble', dirty 'CLEAN (sic) coal' power plants are cropping up in place of nuclear or alongside massive hydroelectric power plants. It won't be long before there won't be a safe place from pollution. Big cities such as LA, London, Beijing and SLC are legendary for their pollution, what is less well known is that the Ohio river valley from Pennsylvania to the western Great Lakes states is chronically polluted with NOx, SOx, CO2 (obviously, though the Fed still refuses to count this as pollution) and particulates. The first step towards reducing this is figuring out how much of the world gets by with 1/10th to 1/2th the energy usage per person, grab the bits which don't impact our 'comfort' enough to be balance a shorter life and research what it would take to bring back the comfort for the bits that people think is more important than living longer.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[hey!]

It's more complicated than that.

What if you get to have a nice estate in the country with clean air and healthy exercise, because you skim extra profits by polluting other people's air? You in effect ensure yourself decades of healthy living by taking a little bit of a bunch of other peoples' lives.

I bring this up because viewing the atmosphere as a common cesspool hides the connection between the good quality of your life and the reduced length/quality of other peoples' lives. Yeah, you might say, it's too bad about the higher morbidity rate of people who don't have the gumption to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did, but it's not my problem. Except it should be your problem if what's really keeping you afloat isn't your bootstrap pulling, it's standing on somebody else's back.

The important thing about capital, the thing that makes it really useful and powerful, is the way it has of flowing towards opportunity. But if you look at that trait carefully, you'll also see that the very same behavior means that it runs away from problems. So you take your profits from your goldmine and liquidate the company before the arsenic in the tailings starts leaking out. The entity legally responsible for the problems is now an empty shell.

Any attempt to fix the incentive problem after the fact would undermine the positive functions of capitalism and corporations. Oh, I think there should be criminal prosecutions in such cases, don't get me wrong. But what you really have to do is to remove the ability to exploit the mobility of capital by creating problems and running away from them. People will bitch and moan that you're restricting capital's ability to build wealth, and they're right. But it doesn't restrict capital's real ability to generate value.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[Locklin]

That can't be stressed enough. Lung disease is the difference between playing golf and lying on a hospital bed sucking oxygen through a tube.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[kellyb9]

What I do care about is QUALITY of life. I bet the last few years those people who live in a more polutted place spend are not happy healthy years. Show me stats on the last 10 years of life and how sick people were.

You're absolutely right, we need to pollute the air MORE so we can avoid nursing homes altogether.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[T Murphy]

That 2-3 years might be made up of a few people dying much sooner than they would otherwise. Without the data it is hard to say how those years get distributed amongst the population. It would be like how life expectancy in places with high infant mortality is really low, even though plenty of adults live well past the expectancy. I'm sure most cases are a matter of losing a few years, but some percent of people will lose a large fraction of their life.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, now youre just making wild assumptions. Did the article even address morbidity? no, did it control for any other factors? No... its just speculative bs afaic.

Re:More interested in quality of life

[mattwarden]

> What if you get to have a nice estate in the country with clean
> air and healthy exercise, because you skim extra profits by
> polluting other people's air?

I am intrigued by your ideas and wish you subscribe to your newsletter.

Shocking!

[dwhitaker]

This new, unexpected knowledge astounds me. I'm so glad they fund studies like this and the ones to determine why prisoners attempt to escape prison.

No sh*t Sherlock

[smchris]

I left a job in the NorthEast corridor almost 20 years ago because I couldn't breath. Yeah, that blue haze drifting around was "fog" all right. State had something like a 65 year average life expectancy. Glad to be back in a state with about a 78 year life expectancy even though I really liked the job.

Libertarians wish the problem away

[Goonie]

For both economic and philosophical reasons even a hard-core libertarian should be ok with regulation of pollution.

That should be the case. It's my observation that much of the time libertarians wish the problem away by downplaying the impacts of pollution.

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Burpmaster]

You hit the nail right on the head there. Libertarianism is another form of extremism, just like religious extremism. The followers actively try to suppress information that contradicts their ideology, and they're frequently in denial, rearranging the facts in their head to make them acceptable.

Even issues much smaller than this, like the Wiimote lawsuit, elicit denial. This got modded flamebait and troll because I pointed out that whether the wriststraps were defective and were breaking was relevant to the lawsuit. But no, it's a lawsuit, so it must be invalid no matter what. And whatever has to be true to make the lawsuit invalid must be true.

There were people arguing that the wriststrap was not intended as a safety device, therefore Nintendo can't be liable for damage caused by its failure. OK, never mind that that's an unsourced claim stating the opposite of what's apparent from just looking at the wriststrap and being familiar with the Wiimote's intended function. Can we just assume that it is and discuss a what-if based on the straps being a safety device? No, because in that scenario, a lawsuit might have some credibility! Even a hypothetical, they refuse to process.

One person pulled a scenario out of nowhere where the strap was frayed from a child chewing on the strap, and the parent was too irresponsible to replace it. It wasn't in the original story, so I searched for that on Google. I could not find a single instance of that happening. He just made it up on the spot to blame the people suing for the problem they were suing over.

Another person responded that car manufacturers shouldn't be liable for defective seatbelts. The reason, apparently, is because he can blame the driver for the crash instead. Libertarianism is frequently about blaming victims in order to justify inaction. It's crazy.

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You hit the nail right on the head there. Libertarianism is another form of extremism, just like religious extremism.
Wow, that's quite a leap, you should be cast as the next superman. So how easy is life when you have such a simple philosphy that any -ism you don't like or understand == religious extremism.

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[CodeBuster]

In defense of the Libertarians, I think that you guys are misunderstanding our position(s) again. In the case of pollution and other instances of what economists call negative externalities most Libertarians acknowledge and accept role of the government and specifically the courts in addressing the question of harm to third parties who are not involved in a transaction. Indeed that is a necessary and appropriate function of government. Libertarianism is not about extremism or an ideology of "no government" it is about preservation of individual freedom(s) to live as we chose and not be interfered with so long as we afford the same negative rights to live and let live to others as we would have them afford to us. Libertarians want many of the same things that other good people want, but we disagree about the means that some choose to employ when providing those good things to others; namely the use of force (which is by definition what governments do) to take from one group and give to another regardless of intention or outcome. We Libertarians reject the notion that some good can come from or begin with an act of evil (i.e. the confiscation of property at the point of the sword).

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Anonymous Coward]

Line breaks, man. Line breaks.

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Burpmaster]

Wow... Just wow. Were you going for an ironic +5 funny or are you being serious?

I didn't say libertarianism = ism = religious extremism. I said libertarianism is like religious extremism because the followers have the same behavior pattern of ignoring inconvenient facts and going into denial to preserve their belief.

And what'd you do? You ignored the inconvenient examples of this behavior that I provided and responded as if that information wasn't there. Did your brain block it out? It's ironic because now you've made yourself into an example of exactly what I was talking about.

Are you going to ignore yourself now?

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I didn't say libertarianism = ism = religious extremism. I said libertarianism is like religious extremism because the followers have the same behavior pattern of ignoring inconvenient facts and going into denial to preserve their belief.
Actually, you said and I quoted, "You hit the nail right on the head there. Libertarianism is another form of extremism, just like religious extremism." See is != is like. Certainly there are extremists in any point of view, had you stated, "some libertarians behave like religious extremists in their ignoring inconvenient facts and going into denial to preserve their belief." No one would have accused you of leaping to conclusions, instead a wikipedia link to cognitive dissonance would have been appropriate. Now, to the mod who wasted point on calling my previous post a troll, really? Remember kids troll mod != something you disagree with.

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Burpmaster]

See is != is like.

Read more carefully:

Libertarianism is another form of extremism, just like religious extremism [is a form of extremism].

The comparison between libertarianism and religious extremism in that sentence is not equivalence, it's similarity (specifically that they both share the common trait of being forms of extremism).

Certainly there are extremists in any point of view, had you stated, "some libertarians behave like religious extremists in their ignoring inconvenient facts and going into denial to preserve their belief." No one would have accused you of leaping to conclusions,

If it was merely common among libertarians to be extremist, I would have said "some." But the thing is, the definition of libertarian in common usage requires that a person be what I would call extremist. Because once you accept more than a couple regulations as justified, you're no longer considered a libertarian. And there's more than a few regulations that are very thoroughly justified.

instead a wikipedia link to cognitive dissonance would have been appropriate.

Thank you for the suggestion. I actually have linked to cognitive dissonance before, but the phrase did not come to mind this time.

Now, to the mod who wasted point on calling my previous post a troll, really? Remember kids troll mod != something you disagree with.

Generally a reply that responds to someone as if they said something they didn't say and that ignores most of what they actually did say is a strawman and will be modded down.

Re:Libertarians wish the problem away

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

But the thing is, the definition of libertarian in common usage requires that a person be what I would call extremist.
I'll try to avoid the semantics game, as to usage etc. here's the statement of principle of the libertarian party. "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." Well, that doesn't seem too extremist now does it? Now, if you do view tha above as extremist then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As for strawmen, I quoted you verbatim, no strawman anywhere.

Great, the dumbest people will live the longest...

[tjstork]

That's great. Let's clean up our cities, presently, crime ridden cesspools filled with the bulk of America's poor, and have them all draining welfare for even longer than they do. So, air quality helps these people live 2 years longer? Why not weigh that against the stress of being poor, which causes people to live decades less. Build some fricking factories there, for christ sake...

What!?

[Vertana]

I am shocked. Shocked, I say! You mean to tell me that better health leads to a longer life!? Well sir, I have apparently been wrong my whole life; thank you Slashdot!

Re:What!?

[Belial6]

No, no, no, You have it all wrong. The surprising part isn't that better health leads to longer life. The surprising part is that breathing things that are not air is bad for you. Up until this study, we all thought that the only non-air substance that was bad for you was those evil cigarettes. Now we know that there are two things that are bad for you to breath. Good thing sitting around that camp fire or walking through the perfume fog at Macy's are still safe...

Air filter?

[cyn1c77]

So by logical extension, would an air filter in the home help to some degree?

Obviously the effect is statistical in nature and even if there was any benefit to an individual, it wouldn't be as effective as living in an area with low pollution. But still...?

Re:Air filter?

[DigitAl56K]

Related to home environment products, I'd like to take a moment to share my experience with an ultrasonic humidifier. I needed to pick one up a couple of years ago and ultrasonics seemed to be the way to go due to instant-on, low power, no heat misting. Then the particle sensor on my air purifier went nuts. At first I thought it was just a fluke but then I shone one of those green laser pointers from thinkgeek through the air. Holy crap! The air was choked with particles - possibly minerals originally contained in the water. I'd also noticed a strange build-up of white power in my vacuum cleaner at the time. I changed to an evaporation-based humidifier and the problem was gone. The air purifier didn't complain, the vacuum was no longer picking up white dust and the laser pointer didn't turn up anything unusual in its beam. If you're using an ultrasonic perhaps using only distilled water will solve this problem. I suggest if you're concerned about air quality you check this out for yourself.

Re:Air filter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the air quality of your home, how much you spend at home, and a few other things.

Re:Air filter?

[Yvanhoe]

It could be that area with high pollution level are the area that also harbors certain life endangering factors (like high population density). Once again, correlation is not causation.

Re:Air filter?

[Anonymous Coward]

And which air filter then? There are too many and almost no tests are available - nobody knows what she/he is buying. The better ones start around $400.

Any advice? Looked at IQAir, Alen or Daikin so far...

Unimpressive

[ScrewMaster]

People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution.

Of course, if we Americans would eat less crap, eat more healthy foods, and got out and exercised now and then, we'd extend our lifespans by a considerably greater amount.

http://tinurl.com/aerosolcrimes

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tinurl.com/aerosolcrimes

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There's this guy, Larry Summers who I think you should meet...

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[Anonymous Coward]

Build some fricking factories there, for christ sake

nah we shipped those to China and Mexico years ago. But at least we breath better in our crappy 800 sqft apartment. But dont worry the government will take care of us with food stamps.

but seriously I like the idea of food stamps and programs to help the poor. What I find offensive is the people who leach onto the system and do not even try to get out of it. I would go nuts.

Did you know most drug dealers are using the system? Why not, they 'technically' do not make any money. So they are 'poor'. You get 4 to 5 people hooked on something and you can leach off them for years. Then turn around and go to the government to get more. Isnt this a awesome system?! Knew this one old lady who sold the pain pills the gov gave her for free to make about 4k a month tax free. I felt sorry for her at first. Then realized she never will do better. She has *NO* reason to. The gov gives her enough money for an apartment, food, transportation, etc... Then lands in her lap two people addicted to the pain pills that she does not take because they make her sick. She is ripping everyone one off. When I finally was able to get those two away from her and she wasnt raking in 4k a month. She THEN decided to do something about her life. In many ways the gov is 'helping/hurting' the very people they are trying to help.

Until people see the system for what it truly is it will just get worse. It is a sick and grotesque system. I hope to God if I or any of my family or friends ever need it they will be able to, and it will still have the funding to do so. I also wish the system would get better. It invites people to leach off it. They go in saying 'oh I will just use it for awhile'. But it is amazing what people can get used to. After awhile its not even worth trying to better yourself. The old lady I told you about? Well she settled back into her old ways and lives off the checks from the gov. Hoping one day to get a few more addicts to buy from her.

Sorry I needed somewhere to vent about this. Its been eating me for years. Thank you for reading this. This system bore this old lady and there are many more like her. It infected my life thru my friends. I do not know what to say or do. I know I do not control it and should not even try. Time helps and getting away from these people helps. But knowing they still exist and do this to others just makes me angry. Turning them in does nothing. It just makes it stop for a little while. There is a deeper issue. Our gov has pushed all the jobs to other countries then let these people leach off the rest of the ones who do work. It just makes me more angry. I will stop typing now... But thank you for reading.

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[DNS-and-BIND]

Cities? Stupid people? Poor? Why don't you just go ahead and take off the hood, say what you mean: you don't like black people. Sickening this racism is moderated "+3 Insightful" (or at least it is at the time of this posting)

Anonymous Coward.

[Anonymous Coward]

we forget that medicine could be the cause... too many factors to account for... air as an factor... we might aswell just breathe 100% fresh oxygen, we can afford it....

Re:Anonymous Coward.

[perryizgr8]

no.
if we breathe 100% o2, we will experience the rare sensation of having the retina detached from our eyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
think before you type.

Shocking!

[iStig]

Wait â" you're saying that by *not* being poisoned every day by the air I breathe, I will live longer? Wow. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

yeah, that's so much longer...

[perryizgr8]

.15*2.72*365=150 days
so i would have lived 150 days more if i wouldn't have used my car every day, or had continuous electricity. that seems quite acceptable to me.

god, what a lame response

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course correlation is not causation. Do you think you are imparting some deep wisdom to the people who did the study? We public health people make decisions about causality based on the weight of evidence of huge sets of data. We've studied air pollution for decades. We know that health deteriorates when air pollution worsens, and that health gets better when air pollution improves. That is not a simple correlation. We also know a lot of detail of the physiologic impacts of air pollution on the lungs, the cardiovascular system, and the rest of the body.

This is a problem we understand quite well. The present study is an attempt to quantify it on a population level. It is extremely valuable to know *how badly* air pollution impacts health and mortality. This study contributes tremendously to that knowledge.

Your simpleminded "correlation is not causality" response adds nothing and rests on a complete misunderstanding of the science. I'm sure you say the same thing about global warming, which is *also* something we understand far beyond a simple correlation.

Next time, read and think before you critique the work of people who've thought things through. sheeesh.

Re:god, what a lame response

[fishbowl]

I didn't need to wear my scientist hat, to turn down a job in a place that made my eyes hurt from the minute I got off the plane, and where I was sick for a week after every time I visited there...

Irony...

[drik00]

I'm in the petroleum biz (ooooh evil, yeah, yeah, i know)... but I get the freshest air every day. You couldn't pay me enough to live in a big metropolitan city. I've smelled NYC.

J

contracts

[r00t]

You signed your name on the dotted line? You live up to that contract. You breach? You pay the penalty.

Consumer contracts are written by teams of bright well-educated lawyers who commonly bill $200 to $700 per lawyer per hour.

Consumers commonly make $10 per hour and are over their heads in debt. About half of them have below-average intelligence. About 5/6 of them are not truly literate even for regular newspaper-like text, never mind a legal document. Consumers are given one-sided contracts with no reasonable alternative. There is no practical opportunity (time) or financial ability to seek the advice of counsel, and no alternative provider of services.

This is a fundamentally cruel situation. Even as arrogant and elitist as I am, I can see that this is harmful to society. It encourages contempt for our legal system, general distrust, and a feeling of unfairness. All of that encourages corruption, which of course hurts everybody.

Re:contracts

[ildon]

About half of them have below-average intelligence.

50% of people are below average??? AMAZING!!

Re:contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

50% of people are below average??? AMAZING!!

That's not as trite as it seems. Say I have a set of values 1,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,6,7. The arithmetic mean (average) is 2.4, and 80% of the values are below average.

Re:contracts

[flajann]

The current state of legal affairs is a mess -- overly complicated, overly expensive, and has deliberately been put out of touch with the common man so that Lawyers can get fat, dumb, and happy.

A contract can be as simple as a single-sentence promise written on paper and signed by both parties involved. It need not be heavily-laden in latin, overly verbose, requiring several law degrees and the ability to diagram sentences. Contracts should be simple, to the point, succinct, and understood by all parties involved.

How many truly understand the contracts they sign today? Or can afford to take the time? Worse, how many get tripped up by unspoken contracts that the State slams over our heads, such as when we petition the State for a marriage license? You enter into a contract at that point without even seeing the terms!!!!! That's not how contracts are supposed to work!

As far as "Consumers", I hate that word -- too much baggage, and seems to encouarge wonton(sp) spending, consumption, and being a slave to debt.

I hereby...

[gzipped_tar]

... condemn the author's human-centric, insensitive[1] viewpoint as betrayed in this /. summary.

Yours,

The Borg

P.S. Resistance is futile.

1. Star Trek: The First Contact

Data: The atmosphere contains high concentrations of methane, carbon monoxide, and fluorine.

Jean-Luc Picard: Life signs?

Data: Population approximately nine billion... all Borg.

Singapore, socialist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, pretty sure a totalitarian state like Singapore isn't socialist. Welfare is poor there. It's every man for himself under the guise of "meritocracy".

Life expectancy and quality of life

[Anonymous Coward]

I get the feeling that with studies showing that something will knock some months or years off your life, some people will respond with 'oh i don't want to live to be 80 anyway.' I've heard this specifically to studies about consuming animal protein. Studies publishing simply in terms of lowered life expectancy aren't showing the full impact.

What matters more than losing the last years of your life is the loss of quality of the last years of your life. If it were simply a matter of the same life only a couple years shorter, then it wouldn't be so bad, but it's really the difference between being healthy and active for 99% of your life and spending decades suffering through disease from all the harmful stuff you exposed yourself to because you "didn't want to live to 80."

It may not seem worth giving up smoking or unhealthy diet or paying more to clean up the air right now, but these choices will seem trivial when the diseases they cause start hitting.

For particulate pollution, perhaps

[ThrowAwaySociety]

A very fine filtration system might cut down on the amount of particulate matter (soot) that seemed to be the focus of this study. Won't help you while you're outside, or in your car, but can't hurt.

Filters can do nothing against other pollutants like, say, ozone or oxides of nitrogen. (Those "ionic" air "purifiers" actually very slightly increase the amount of ozone in the air.)

Pointless

[besalope]

Avg. life expectancy increase in study: 2.72 years
Days in a year: 365.25
Total Days gain in study: 993.48
% Factor that air pollution had: 15%

Total days x Factor of air pollution:
993.28 x 15% = 149 days

So less air pollution increases life expectancy by less than half a year. Whooptie Freakin' Doo. Lower traffic = less air pollution + less chance of getting hit by a motor vehicle. I wonder which has a greater impact...

That's weird

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's called correlation is not causation? Am I on Slashdot?

Re:That's weird

[edraven]

Totally thinking the same thing...

Phe... statistics

[dvh.tosomja]

Tell it to my grand dad, he lived in to woods and died when he was 55. He was eaten by bear.

That's just what we need

[El_Muerte_TDS]

More people living longer. Like the current population doesn't cause any problems in the world.

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I hope you're trying to be modded funny here.

There's a good statistic to look into. How many years of your life do you lose being surrounded by stupid, poor, black people?

Myths

[troll8901]

They needed a study to correlate the relationship between heavy coughing and longevity? Being a doctored researcher must be a great life.

Good one, Sir. Here are more common sense facts that I'm publishing, so that no additional research is necessary.

• Overcharging the laptop battery shortens the battery's life.
• Allowing a hard disk to run hot shortens the hard disk's life.

Longcat is Long

[sympathy]

n/t

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all black people are poor, stupid, or live in cities, thus the logic of your deduction fails.

likewise, not all people with those characteristics are black. Further adding to the fail of your assertion.

Correlation is not Causation. The correlation of black people being impoverished and under-educated and poor, does not imply that they are that way because they are black.

As far as racism is concerned, from the desk I am sitting at, it was you who opened up that can of worms.

Re:More interested in quality of life tsarkon

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news today, cancer still has no cure and a fusion reactor doesn't exist. Likely cause: fucking asshole research like this shit wasting scientists time on moot and obvious shit.

In comic form

[spaz1810]

I can't say it any better... http://www.xkcd.com/552/

*cough*

[morghanphoenix]

Back when I used to smoke I stopped in Ontario California. I don't know if it's still this bad, but when I went outside for a cig I wasn't able to smoke because I was breathing so much crap in just being there, and at the time I was smoking two packs a day. If the air is bad enough to keep a pretty heavy smoker from lighting up for nearly a whole day I don't think there can be any doubt it's bad for you. Now I'm wondering if all my time living in big cities, and smoking for years, is being counteracted by living in the country and quitting.

In a related research paper...

[OneSmartFellow]

... scientists reveal that drinking clean water is better than drinking polluted water, and eating uncontaminated food is better than eating food laden with pesticides or other poisons or carcinogens.

It's this type of unintuitive research that I'm proud to sponsor with my tax dollars.

I can't wait to read the upcoming report on the relationship between caloric consumption and obesity. I'm panting in anticipation of the latest research into the apparent connection between teenage intercourse and teenage pregnancy.

Re:In a related research paper...

[Scrameustache]

... scientists reveal that drinking clean water is better than drinking polluted water, and eating uncontaminated food is better than eating food laden with pesticides or other poisons or carcinogens.

It's this type of unintuitive research that I'm proud to sponsor with my tax dollars.

It has to be done, otherwise the only "scientific" literature on these subjects would be funded by the businesses that pollute the water, the air, and your food with their pesticides etc., and surprise surprise, their "research" would say that all of it is not only harmless, but promotes Freedom and Democracy and puppies.

Re:In a related research paper...

[OneSmartFellow]

Damn, another good post shot down in flames.

I'll try to do better next time.

So basically ...

[daveime]

People lived about 2.72 years longer over that time span and at least 15 percent of that increased life expectancy was from a decrease in air pollution

So basically, the study found that you live on average 148 more days due to the lessened effect of air pollution. A whole four extra months living in a vegetative state in an old peoples sanctuary. Kind of gives us all hope for the future, doesn't it ?
 

Paralells with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's FREEER than the BSD because it maintains that freedom by restriction of options available.

Freedom to act as you wish without restriction is no freedom: you are chained by the biggest thug.

Freedom to act as you wish without harm to others is freeer: the thug cannot chain you, because he no longer has the option of chaining you to his cause.

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[Anonymous Coward]

Or perhaps he didn't say that because he doesn't MEAN that. Or can we NEVER talk about poor urban dwellers in any context but the racial one you insist on seeing?

Stop listening to the phony race-mongers under your bed.

Maybe ASK the OP if they're talking about racism. Most likely the OP is not talking about race, and YOU are just trying to stifle any discussion by insisting you see the big scary R-word.

Uh....

[Syberz]

I'm no science geek but, how can they be sure that air quality is the only factor that needed considering? I'm sure that air quality plays a big part, but didn't medical detection/treatment technology improve from 1978 to 2001? Couldn't that account for the longer lifespan?

Hmmph.

[silver007]

Dumb scientists. Always coming up with bizarre notions no one would ever think of on their own.

Point of Diminishing Returns

[Anonymous Coward]

So people got 15% of 2.72 years of increased life for a total about a month. That would be a 0.1% increase in a 70 year life span. I'd say that we are at the point of diminishing returns on the topic of air pollution at least for the populations that were studied.

What more significant problems do we have to solve?

How to maintain order in a libertarian society:

[bobbuck]

http://www.usconstitution.net/

Worked for a long time.

Liberty is not anarchy

[bobbuck]

Libertarians don't want a government without police, court, etc. They want the government to protect the right to do as you wish until it interferes with someone else. Our current government is LESS likely to do something about someone robbing your house because has too many other obligations now.

Summary of summary of abstract

[Anonymous Coward]

Pollution is bad for you, so cut it out. But second hand smoke is too insignificant, so keep puffing like a chimney.

Your kids and grandkids (did you even know them?) won't miss the 6 months to three years they lost being around you.

"Hey, smoke up Johnny."

WOW!!

[ddraculdiablo]

One word for this artical. DUH!!! (I wonder how much tax dollars went to tell us this vital bit of info that my 6yr old son could have told you.) Since we need air to live it only goes to say that the cleaner the air the healthier we are and the healthier we are the longer we live.

You Can't See Causation

[geoffrobinson]

At the most basic level, you cannot see causation (see David Hume). Correlation does not mean causation, but correlation is all we have to go on.

Sometimes causation is a correct description of the relationship. Sometimes it is not.

Okay, this is nice...

[theKiyote]

But what about Japan? The most polluted first world country with some of the longest life expectancies in the world...

Simpsons quote

[incripshin]

And in environmental news, scientists have announced that Springfield's air is now only dangerous to children and the elderly.

Woohoo!

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

DUH!

Country living less stressful?

[Stiletto]

I'm not specifically targeting you, but there have been a lot of people in this thread so far just tossing that out (Country living being less stressful) as if everyone agrees with it. Is there any evidence that living in a city is actually more stressful than living in rural areas?

To me, country living, at least in the USA, represents:

  * long commutes to work
  * having to drive everywhere (even for groceries!!)
  * no culture/nightlife
  * few/no high-tech businesses
  * chain stores and restaurants
  * local politics dominated by religious people
  * more fear of discrimination based on religion/skin color/sexuality
  * rednecks and pick-up trucks

Whereas city living represents:

  * public transportation
  * everything is within walking or biking distance
  * great nightlife/entertainment
  * multicultural
  * diverse choices of markets and restaurants
  * ok-to-great high-tech jobs, depending on the city
  * progressive local politics
  * tolerance of different lifestyles

Of course, you pay extra for all this so it's more expensive, but to say it's more STRESSFUL??

Re:Country living less stressful?

[Klaus_1250]

Don't have any links at hand, but there is some research that concluded that urban-life induces stress. Apparently, some people naturally go into stress mode in crowded places, which are fairly common in urban environments. All the noises, moving vehicles, flashing lights, etc can also induce additional stress.

Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Clean air adds three years of being old to your life.

It seems logical

[lightsaber777]

I wonder how much of this study is impacted by better medicine. They should also test an area with minimal air pollution as a control to see if the people there also experienced an increased life expectancy where the air quality remained relatively the same. More details of how the study was conducted should be published.

Re:Great, the dumbest people will live the longest

[Red Flayer]

You have no clue.

That's great. Let's clean up our cities, presently, crime ridden cesspools filled with the bulk of America's poor, and have them all draining welfare for even longer than they do.

That's funny... guess which regions of the US have a higher government spending/remit ratio per capita? It's not the urban areas... it's the rural poor.

Sure, there are more poor people in the cities than in the rural areas... but the rural areas drain the economy much more than the urban areas.

Take your racist claptrap elsewhere... your goddamn rural flyover states are bankrupting my urban state.

Longer life is overrated

[KharmaWidow]

Do we really want to live an additional 2+ years? The cost of living and the numerous health issues related with longer life spans just makes those additional years painful. I am watching my grand parents and parents suffer into the 90s. It might be better to die at a younger age before you have to sell your house and live on senior welfare.

Wooohooo!!!!

[SlashDev]

It is now cheaper to polute the environment!

Lies

[SlashDev]

All lies; there is no direct evidence between the two. This is the same as saying "Direct connection between living next to a nuclear waste dump and life longetivity".

Homeophathy, et al

[flajann]

Again, you do not understand Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not Anarchy. There is a government, but it has a limited role. It's role is to defend the land, and to make sure there is consequence for one person slamming another person in the nose. Beyond that, it should do little else. Enforcing contracts agreed upon by mutual consent and understanding is another limited role a Libertarian Government should have.

So educate me.

So how would Libertarianism deal with things like spectrum disputes or unfair trade practice complaints? Under a libertarian society, how would a seller of homeopathic remedies be dealt with when it's shown that they're selling sugar pills? Or when it turns out some device is jamming a wide array of consumer devices?

Under a 'liberal' Government you'd have the FTC, the FAA and the FDA. How would a theoretical Ron Paul administration do this? Coase theorem?

If you are harming someone, then you are dealt with. If you are not harming anyone, then you're fine. It's very simple. Why make it more complicated than that?

Besides, we all know how well the FDA works. They are influenced by special interests, too, and how many bad drugs have gotten past them and hurt or killed many?

I don't believe in homeopathy, obviously. But they, at least, are flat-out honest about how they prepare their "drugs" -- by diluting out a poison so much that you'd be lucky just to get a single molecule of it in your dosage.

As long as the honesty is there and the consumer is informed, then it's incumbent upon the consumer to make an informed and rational choice. No one is being harmed by sugar-water, unless, of course, they are doing this in lieu of seeking real medical help.

The placebo effect is a powerful one, so personally I am mixed on what to tell people about homeopathy. Yet, I must be honest about it. It's nothing more than the placebo effect. The normal claims of Homeopathy are pure nonsense, and I won't skip a heartbeat pointing that out. But if the placebo effect is actually doing someone good, I'm not sure how I would handle that.

Re:Homeophathy, et al

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

If you are harming someone, then you are dealt with. If you are not harming anyone, then you're fine. It's very simple. Why make it more complicated than that?

Alt-meds harm people by advocating against germ theory. When you're told that germs aren't causing your problems, rather, you're told that subluxations in your spine are the cause of your illnesses, or that you need more vitamins in your diet to cure HIV, cancer, et al. You're lying, haven't researched your product thoroughly or you don't know what you're doing. That harms people. Does a Libertarian society shut these people down or are they instead relegated to the market place of ideas?

Besides, we all know how well the FDA works. They are influenced by special interests, too, and how many bad drugs have gotten past them and hurt or killed many?

Compare Vioxx or Phenphen to entire stores dedicated to Alt-meds. The Alt-med industry is nothing *but* special interests who really don't have a product that can show any sort of real efficacy. Yes, we have acetaminophen from natural sources but I'd rather have asprin than the leaves of the plant it comes from. The FDA operates mostly transparently, the research is typically available and they do deny medicines ALL THE TIME. Further more, stories where you hear how bad drugs are really don't do real research to find out what actually happened. sure, Vioxx sucked. It really sucked, but for every vioxx there can be named 20 drugs that the FDA released that year that actually does something.

I don't believe in homeopathy, obviously. But they, at least, are flat-out honest about how they prepare their "drugs" -- by diluting out a poison so much that you'd be lucky just to get a single molecule of it in your dosage.

So are the drug companies. They must publish all of their research. Some of it for FDA approval and the rest for the patent information. We know how all of these drugs are made. Unfortunately, it's the difference between describing how a bike works and how a Wankel rotary engine work mathematically. One is simple, the other isn't. It's a fact of life. Sometimes you can't understand things others can. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, or that it's a diabolical plot, it just means you don't have a knack for pharmacology.

As long as the honesty is there and the consumer is informed, then it's incumbent upon the consumer to make an informed and rational choice. No one is being harmed by sugar-water, unless, of course, they are doing this in lieu of seeking real medical help.

Telling someone to take a sugar pill and that's going to cure an ear infection IS LYING. When someone buys a homeopathic remedy, the question is, "Will it work?" and the sales droid would be an idiot to say, "no." It's not honest. Does a homeopath get in trouble in a libertarian society?

The placebo effect is a powerful one, so personally I am mixed on what to tell people about homeopathy. Yet, I must be honest about it. It's nothing more than the placebo effect. The normal claims of Homeopathy are pure nonsense, and I won't skip a heartbeat pointing that out. But if the placebo effect is actually doing someone good, I'm not sure how I would handle that.

There is no such thing as the placebo effect. There is the placebo result, which is to say that naturally a certain percentage of patients will survive any given illness versus no drugs when given a sugar pill, but that's not to say there's an effect where you're given nothing and you can expect it to do something. The placebo effect is the same as saying, "A TV turned off can keep a room full of people amused based on the fact that one of the people in the room has an iPhone and is browsing slashdot instead of bitching about the lack of TV." Your mind and determination alone can not cure diseases.

(Yes, Mark Crislip's voice came to me in my head like Obi Wan Kenobi in Empire.)