# Will Size Acceptance become obsolete?



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 15, 2011)

So, I was watch the movie Transcendent Man which is a biography of author, inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil.

He is also known for predicting the coming of technical advances in science to within a year, so he has the credentials for people to sit up and take notice when he talks.

Anyway, two of his predictions is about how nanotechnology and biotechnology will be in the near future to the point to dramatically reduce illnesses and medical conditions.

However, last time I checked being fat is still labeled as a medical condition, so they would trying to "cure" that as well. And, I would think it will become part of the deal when you allow them to treat you with these advances.

So assuming he is right, this would basically make the size acceptance movement obsolete?

I welcome any thoughts on this?


----------



## Tad (Sep 15, 2011)

Well, maybe. IMO there would be a couple of caveats:

- at least at first, these treatments wouldn't be that cheap (without doubt they'll need to be tailored to the individual), so it will increase the class related stigma of being fat (the presumption will be that you can't afford this treatment)

- even once they are more generally available, you could have some people who prefer being fat, who one would hope would get accepted. Most likely they'd be seen as a bit of a freak for that preference, but without the current class/moralistic associations with being thin, there would probably not be the general fat hatred (once there has been a generation or so for those who grew up with it to fade away).


----------



## Webmaster (Sep 15, 2011)

EtobicokeFA said:


> So, I was watch the movie Transcendent Man which is a biography of author, inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil....
> 
> I welcome any thoughts on this?



Predicting the future is a notoriously unreliable business, though at times we can extend existing trends and project what will happen next. Yet, just as Isaac Asimov described in his famous "Foundation Trilogy," there will always be unexpected factors and developments that can disrupt a linear flow and progression.

As for the size acceptance movement, I don't think it'll be obsolete anytime soon. It is changing, though. That's because as a larger percentage of the population is considered fat, being larger becomes the new average. That, however, does not really affect the size acceptance movement as we know it. Why? Because NAAFA and similar groups primarily cater to those who are very fat and will be considered very fat even as the general population gets fatter.

I suppose, though, that you're really referring to the possibility that soon mankind will be able to simply genetically remove what is considered undesirable. That's a whole different ballgame and, from my perspective, a very complex and potentially dangerous area. Tampering with genetics has potential for good, but also significant potential for drastic abuse and damage.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 16, 2011)

Webmaster said:


> Predicting the future is a notoriously unreliable business, though at times we can extend existing trends and project what will happen next. Yet, just as Isaac Asimov described in his famous "Foundation Trilogy," there will always be unexpected factors and developments that can disrupt a linear flow and progression.
> 
> As for the size acceptance movement, I don't think it'll be obsolete anytime soon. It is changing, though. That's because as a larger percentage of the population is considered fat, being larger becomes the new average. That, however, does not really affect the size acceptance movement as we know it. Why? Because NAAFA and similar groups primarily cater to those who are very fat and will be considered very fat even as the general population gets fatter.
> 
> I suppose, though, that you're really referring to the possibility that soon mankind will be able to simply genetically remove what is considered undesirable. That's a whole different ballgame and, from my perspective, a very complex and potentially dangerous area. Tampering with genetics has potential for good, but also significant potential for drastic abuse and damage.



Yes, I was referring to genetically manipulation. They are already want to use it to stop autism, cancer and so on. 

And, like anything else can be wielded to drastic results as well.

My point is people do not have to be evil, just well intentioned for this to go wrong.


----------



## russianrobot (Sep 16, 2011)

Webmaster said:


> Predicting the future is a notoriously unreliable business, though at times we can extend existing trends and project what will happen next. Yet, just as Isaac Asimov described in his famous "Foundation Trilogy," there will always be unexpected factors and developments that can disrupt a linear flow and progression.
> 
> As for the size acceptance movement, I don't think it'll be obsolete anytime soon. It is changing, though. That's because as a larger percentage of the population is considered fat, being larger becomes the new average. That, however, does not really affect the size acceptance movement as we know it. Why? Because NAAFA and similar groups primarily cater to those who are very fat and will be considered very fat even as the general population gets fatter.
> 
> I suppose, though, that you're really referring to the possibility that soon mankind will be able to simply genetically remove what is considered undesirable. That's a whole different ballgame and, from my perspective, a very complex and potentially dangerous area. Tampering with genetics has potential for good, but also significant potential for drastic abuse and damage.



God,those were good books, like my favorite Trilogy of all time


----------



## adam (Sep 16, 2011)

Likely at some point in the future everyone will be fat if you go by the increasing percentage of fat people, particularly the kids. There will probably be fat fat haters then, and fatter fat haters, if you're young enough now to make it into that future anyway.


----------



## rsownu (Sep 19, 2011)

Webmaster said:


> Tampering with genetics has potential for good, but also significant potential for drastic abuse and damage.



Sounds like the video game Bioshock, where the desire for perfection becomes an obession.

But don't take me out of context, it's just a game and a (some what) related idea.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 19, 2011)

I don't think genetic manipulation is out of the realm of possibility although I honestly doubt I'll live to see it become a common practice in my lifetime. Even if we have the technology in the next fifty years, there's going to be numerous ethical and financial obstacles to making it common place. Although it may eventually happen I really doubt it'll be that quick.

The other problem with this is that I don't believe being fat is solely the result of genetics for everyone. Like if you pick for your baby to have blue eyes, it's going to have blue eyes for the rest of its life regardless of environmental factors. The same isn't necessarily true for being fat. I don't personally believe that genetics is the sole cause of being fat for everyone. Eating and exercise habits, medications, illness, injury, eating disorders, etc. can all have an impact. So, I think even if all parents choose to genetically alter their children (which probably is not realistic anyway) and they all choose to have thin kids, there will still be fat people. I think any time fat people exist (forever?) there will be a need and desire for fat acceptance on some level.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 20, 2011)

thatgirl08 said:


> I don't think genetic manipulation is out of the realm of possibility although I honestly doubt I'll live to see it become a common practice in my lifetime. Even if we have the technology in the next fifty years, there's going to be numerous ethical and financial obstacles to making it common place. Although it may eventually happen I really doubt it'll be that quick.
> 
> The other problem with this is that I don't believe being fat is solely the result of genetics for everyone. Like if you pick for your baby to have blue eyes, it's going to have blue eyes for the rest of its life regardless of environmental factors. The same isn't necessarily true for being fat. I don't personally believe that genetics is the sole cause of being fat for everyone. Eating and exercise habits, medications, illness, injury, eating disorders, etc. can all have an impact. So, I think even if all parents choose to genetically alter their children (which probably is not realistic anyway) and they all choose to have thin kids, there will still be fat people. I think any time fat people exist (forever?) there will be a need and desire for fat acceptance on some level.



Granted. However, that is why I also mention nanotechnology as well, which could supposedly be programmed to remove fat cells as well. Kind of like a non-evasive liposuction, every time you go over a preset amount of fat cells.


----------



## KittyKitten (Sep 20, 2011)

On aside, have you noticed how the 'before' weight loss pics in all these diet ads look smaller than ever before? A size 10 is big????

"Hehehe, I went from a size 10, to a size 2, hehhehehe giggle giggle" 

Bodywise, I think these women look better in the 'before' pics. Of course, they make the before pics so dull with no makeup, no tan, no fashionable clothing, or giving them a bad hairstyle. 

And of course, the women get so tiny. Biologically, women are supposed to have a higher percentage of body fat than men.

These silly diet ads continue to exist even though latest research shows, "Hey, it's not so bad to be overweight after all! " 

But of course, it's all about money and convincing the weak-minded to buy their little products.

If you walk around with a "Woe is me, I'm so inferior, because I'm ....." attitude nobody is going to flock to you.

Sorry if I'm a bit cynical, I've just had it with this silly media notion that thin=sexy and big=ugly. It's all bullshit to me.


----------



## rsownu (Sep 20, 2011)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Granted. However, that is why I also mention nanotechnology as well, which could supposedly be programmed to remove fat cells as well. Kind of like a non-evasive liposuction, every time you go over a preset amount of fat cells.



To me everyone seems to think nanotechnology can defy physics when it can't, if it removes fat it needs to change it to something different that the body can remove aswell and your brain is almost all fat cells, so unless the nanobots (w/e their called) can single out one type of fat from another. (we'd become brainless)


----------



## imfree (Sep 20, 2011)

As long as people have their inner voice telling them it's better to be dead than fat, people will diet dangerously and possibly do more damage than the fat does. Size acceptance can only become obsolete if people stop hating and beating up themselves because of fat. The hate must be stopped internally, then stopped toward others. My opinion only, others' results may vary.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 20, 2011)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Granted. However, that is why I also mention nanotechnology as well, which could supposedly be programmed to remove fat cells as well. Kind of like a non-evasive liposuction, every time you go over a preset amount of fat cells.



That seems a lot more far fetched. I guess in that hypothetical situation there'd be no fat people and therefore no need for fat acceptance.


----------



## krystalltuerme (Sep 21, 2011)

A future without fat people isn't a future I want to be a part of. No fat girls? I get a little sad even thinking about that idea.


----------



## imfree (Sep 21, 2011)

krystalltuerme said:


> A future without fat people isn't a future I want to be a part of. No fat girls? I get a little sad even thinking about that idea.





imfree said:


> As long as people have their inner voice telling them it's better to be dead than fat, people will diet dangerously and possibly do more damage than the fat does. Size acceptance can only become obsolete if people stop hating and beating up themselves because of fat. The hate must be stopped internally, then stopped toward others. My opinion only, others' results may vary.




It's frightening to me that most people think that fat acceptance will only be obsolete when there are no more fat people. I guess "they" will either "cure" fat or delete all the fat people.


----------



## Elfcat (Sep 21, 2011)

Kurtzweil is always an interesting animal... who knows what will be possible come the Singularity? I don't think there will stop being debates in the medical community about this. What if you could simply do things to "immunize" fat people against the problems most commonly attributed to them? Would these be more easily and reliably implemented than efforts to "cure fatness"?


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Sep 21, 2011)

Elfcat said:


> Kurtzweil is always an interesting animal... who knows what will be possible come the Singularity? I don't think there will stop being debates in the medical community about this. What if you could simply do things to "immunize" fat people against the problems most commonly attributed to them? Would these be more easily and reliably implemented than efforts to "cure fatness"?



This future is one I would love to see. 

Hopefully by the time science get to this point, size acceptance will be to a point where being fat is a medical condition in itself.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 22, 2011)

rsownu said:


> Sounds like the video game Bioshock, where the desire for perfection becomes an obession.
> 
> But don't take me out of context, it's just a game and a (some what) related idea.



and loosley the game deus ex but that was more cybernetic based.


----------



## jakub (Sep 22, 2011)

Everything is possible.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Sep 22, 2011)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Anyway, two of his predictions is about how nanotechnology and biotechnology will be in the near future to the point to dramatically reduce illnesses and medical conditions.
> 
> However, last time I checked being fat is still labeled as a medical condition, so they would trying to "cure" that as well. And, I would think it will become part of the deal when you allow them to treat you with these advances.



I would actually think nano/bio-tech would reduce or eliminate the impact of size on medical condition, by allowing a body to cope with the strain of increased size through a variety of aid factors, not the least of which could be improved musculoskeletal regeneration to counteract the detrimental effects of (extreme) fatness. Then the only real obstacle to SA would be personal stigmas of the populace at large.


----------



## imfree (Sep 22, 2011)

EtobicokeFA said:


> This future is one I would love to see.
> 
> Hopefully by the time science get to this point, size acceptance will be to a point where being fat is a medical condition in itself.





Forgotten_Futures said:


> I would actually think *nano/bio-tech would reduce or eliminate the impact of size on medical condition,* by allowing a body to cope with the strain of increased size through a variety of aid factors, not the least of which could be improved musculoskeletal regeneration to counteract the detrimental effects of (extreme) fatness. Then the only real obstacle to SA would be personal stigmas of the populace at large.



Medical Cost of managing obesity's co-morbidities is the rationale people use for stigmatizing the obese. It would be interesting to see what it would be like if there was an inexpensive way to mitigate the co-morbidities. An inexpensive medical procedure or medication to treat co-morbidities seems like it would reduce at least some stigma toward the obese. My thought is that obese people would still be stigmatized because of appearance only.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Sep 23, 2011)

imfree said:


> My thought is that obese people would still be stigmatized because of appearance only.



Right, which is what I meant by personal stigmas.


----------



## Azrael (Sep 23, 2011)

All comes down to the profit.

Will it be more profitable to "cure" obesity through genetic alterations (or whatever) OR will it be more profitable to simply work on curing common ailments assosciated with being overweight?

The former may be more expensive but may be more permanent than the latter. The latter makes sure that people stay fat so that there are always people willing to pay to try and make themselves thin through dieting. Thus the cash is always flowing as long as people are unhappy with being fat.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 23, 2011)

Azrael said:


> All comes down to the profit.
> 
> Will it be more profitable to "cure" obesity through genetic alterations (or whatever) OR will it be more profitable to simply work on curing common ailments assosciated with being overweight?
> 
> The former may be more expensive but may be more permanent than the latter. The latter makes sure that people stay fat so that there are always people willing to pay to try and make themselves thin through dieting. Thus the cash is always flowing as long as people are unhappy with being fat.



actually the cash is flowing as long as people are not happy with anything especially our own bodies.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Sep 23, 2011)

gangstadawg said:


> actually the cash is flowing as long as people are not happy with anything especially our own bodies.



Which further distills down to: The cash is always flowing.


----------

