Thanks D,
Energy is energy. The problem is blocking the energy. However when it comes to morality, there is a difference in energies. L. the "laughing cure" is highly complex and that's why it doesn't work as a panacea. We are all food for the world. The way we handle that is indicative of our ability to be happy and balanced in the world. When a species sets up cannibalism, or the "warpath" with its own species, in one of the Domains of its System, then it begins to work at a "give back." A "Give Back" means you agree to be food. Clarity or balance and morality in your systems means that you are responsible and agree to be food later but will live your allotted days. Clarity in your path, Balance in your life and Morality in your spirit is the Triad of Peace. Although, if you are a worker in a sewer, Peace is a lot harder than if you own a hotel at the beach. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of D & N Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 12:12 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Diminishing life expectancy of the poor I have heard of such things. Feeling bad. Negatives. Would this not block the flow of energies through our bodies? Creating areas of stagnation? It is one thing to have these areas assisted by massage (or whatever) but if the underlying reason for illness is not addressed, the illness will continue or return. There have been incidents of total cancer remission without intervention. But, once one has cancer (or other major illness) another circle in one's life is closing the ring. So feeling bad may initiate a disease but now having the disease makes one feel worse (perhaps in another way) and the feedback loop is complete to retain the disease. D. On 29/09/2012 10:29 AM, Ray Harrell wrote: So feeling bad gives you cancer. Rather than Cancer makes you feel bad. Hmmm. Interesting. REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:05 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] Diminishing life expectancy of the poor At 15:04 29/09/2012, you wrote: >From today's AlterNet Newsletter. I find the last paragraph interesting -- the idea that ill health and diminishing life expectancy are at least partly the result of the poor feeling they are sinking into an increasingly hopeless situation. Might life expectancy be related to how good and useful you feel? Yes, I'd have thought so. Keith Ed Shocker Stat: Life Expectancy Decreases by 4 Years Among Poor Whites in U.S. Yesterday, the New York Times reported <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whit es-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all> on an alarming new study: researchers have documented that the least educated white Americans are experiencing sharp declines in life expectancy. Between 1990 and 2008, white women without a high school diploma lost a full five years of their lives, while their male counterparts lost three years. Experts say that declines in life expectancy in developed countries are exceedingly rare <http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/nation/la-na-womens-health-20110615 > , and that in the U.S., decreases on this scale "have not been seen in the U.S. since the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918." Even during the Great Depression, which wrought economic devastation and severe psychic trauma for millions of Americans, average life expectancy was on the increase <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090928172530.htm> . What are the reasons for the disturbing drop in life expectancy among poor white folks, and in particular for the unusually large magnitude of the decline? According to the Times, researchers are baffled: one expert said, "There's this enormous issue of why . . . It's very puzzling and we don't have a great explanation." Undoubtedly, the increasing numbers of low-income Americans without health insurance is a major contributor factor. Researchers also say that lifestyle factors such as smoking, which has increased among low-income white women, play a role; poor folks tend to engage in more risky health behaviors than their more affluent counterparts. I will offer an alternative hypothesis, one which is not explicitly identified in the Times article: inequality. In the U.S., the period between 1990 and 2008, which is a period that saw such steep declines in life expectancy for the least well-off white people, is also a period during which economic inequality soared <http://inequality.org/income-inequality/> . Moreover, there is a compelling body of research that suggests that inequality itself -- quite apart from low incomes, or lack of health insurance -- is associated with more negative health outcomes for those at the bottom of the heap. One of the most famous series of studies of the social determinants of health, Britain's Whitehall Studies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study> , had as their subjects British civil servants, all of whom health insurance and (presumably) decent enough jobs. Intriguingly, these studies found a strong association between grade levels of civil servant employment and mortality rates from a range of causes. Men in the lowest grade (messengers, doorkeepers, etc.) had a mortality rate three times higher than that of men in the highest grade (administrators). The Whitehall studies found that while workers in the lower grades were more likely to be at risk for coronary heart disease due to factors such as higher rates of smoking, higher blood pressure, etc., even after controlling for those confounding factors, these workers still experienced significantly higher mortality rates. So what was behind such disparate health incomes among high-status and low-status workers? Researchers pointed the finger at inequality, hypothesizing that various psychosocial factors associated with inequality - such as the higher levels of stress at work and at home experienced by the lower tier workers, as well as their lower levels of self-esteem - were behind the dramatic differences in mortality rates. I believe that inequality-related stressors are likely to be the determining factors in declining American life expectancies, as well. I'm surprised, in fact, that the Times article did not specifically identify inequality as a causal factor, because the health risks associated with economic inequality are well-established in the scientific literature. For decades, the United States has been making a series of political choices that has distributed wealth and power upwards and left working Americans not only poorer and sicker, but also feeling far more burdened and distressed, and experiencing far less security and control over their lives. The consequences of these choices have been devastating, and absent a dramatic reversal in our political course, they are likely to get even worse. Where inequality is concerned, Republicans have their foot on the accelerator, while the best the Democrats seem to be able to do is to (temporarily) put their foot on the brake. We are on a trajectory all right, and it's not a good one. The Washington Monthly / By Kathleen Geier <http://www.alternet.org/authors/kathleen-geier> | Sourced from Washington Monthly <http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_09/shocker_stat_of _the_day_life_e040058.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign =Feed%3A%20washingtonmonthly/rss%20%28Political%20Animal%20at%20Washington%2 0Monthly%29> Posted at September 22, 2012, 8:27am _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com <http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/> _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
