Ticking Away Wellbeing

The family of my wife's colleague spent a few hours here tonight and the husband and I got talking about the company he works for as a CFO. It is an institute that specialises in health research to improve wellbeing outcomes in various areas, from the entire population, down to a small subset, like people who are recovering from heart surgery. > Right up my interest alley! ---  --- While we talked a little about the business itself, most of what we were discussing was society at the moment, and how so many of the poor health outcomes are due to the way we have set up our culture, and economic incentives. As I said to him today, someone who is very aware of finance and economy and deals with public sector often, the role of government has been lost, or perhaps never there. As I see it, a government is like a company whose main goal is to increase shareholder wealth, but the governments role is to increase shareholder health, meaning its wellbeing. All activities should push toward this overarching agenda. This can take many forms, not just in the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing components, but all the areas that aid a better human outcome for the population. I think that for far too long, the indicator for success of a population at a government level has been the macro economic situation. Essentially, if a country is making lots of money, things *must be* good. Perhaps there was some kernel of truth to this once upon a time, because in order for companies to make money, they had to provide practical value of some kind to the customer. However, in the current environment, the companies that make the most money are the ones that can grab our attention and influence us into consuming more, even if it is harming us as an individual, and a society. The corporations are making a huge amount more profit than earlier with fewer people, but what they are offering is not influencing us to improve, but degrade. > This product will make you slower, stupider, fatter, and less skilled. Not a very good sales pitch, is it? But that is what the outcome of most of the products from the trillion-dollar companies. TikTok, Facebook, Apple, Google... none of them *improve you.* You might feel better using them, you might get a lot of enjoyment from it, but are you better? Finland has compulsory military service for males, and the guy was talking about how the average result from the Coopers Test (running test) for recruits has fallen by over 400 meters in the last twenty years or so, with most coming in the last ten. That is a fall of around 20% of males who should be *in the prime* of their physical condition. There are many factors that influence the decline and I assume that it isn't only in Finland that this kind of thing is happening. Are you in better shape than your parents at your age? You *should* be. Because, we know more than they did, and have access to things they did not. Effectively, we should have learned from their mistakes, and improved upon them, improving the outcomes of us, the next generation. And our kids should be in better condition (mentally, physically, emotionally) than us, because they would learn from our experience and benefit from our advancements, and build on them. But, this is not the case. In fact, the majority of people are in worse condition than their parents, with many children even looking more like middle-aged drinkers, than kids. > Most, not everyone. Some people are in better condition than their parents across most factors, but I would posit that the majority of those who have "evolved" further, are not those who have spent their time consuming a huge amount of entertainment. I would also predict that the majority of people whose habitual entertainment model is digital, likely are in a less stable economic situation than the people who have maintained a more analogue entertainment life. I don't have any numbers on this, but I have my suspicions. While I believe that a government's job is to facilitate the improvement of the population as humans, I also believe that the lion's share of the work has to be done b y the individual themselves, not the government. Just like maintaining a healthy diet and consistent physical activity, it is up to us to improve ourselves in all kinds of skills and functions. But, the more we sit getting entertained, the less attention gets paid to doing what we need to do to improve. Our opportunity is seeping away and converted into profits for corporations that are only interested in shareholder wealth, not consumer health. Putting on a wearable to track steps and sitting watching the TV doesn't help you improve yourself. It also doesn't matter what you believe about yourself, or what you believe you are. Beliefs are useless, if they aren't matched with your *behaviours.* But as I mentioned to the guy tonight, a lot of people believe they are something, or they do something, but if they were to actually monitor their real actions, they would find that they are lacking. Just like how the people who self-report penis size have larger dicks than those that are measured by a doctor, independent verification is required to really see what is objectively happening, not what is subjectively being felt. > Do you *do* enough? No, I am not talking about running yourself ragged with work, I am asking if you do enough of what you need to do in order to improve yourself adequately. Are we doing the right things to promote our own wellbeing, or are we picking and choosing based on what feels good or is convenient, even if it gets in the way of our improvement? > What you do matters. *No matter what you think about it.* Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ] --- **Be part of the Hive discussion.** - Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences. - Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network - Engage well with me and others and put in effort **And you may be rewarded.** ---