SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-another-reason-to-not-be-obese dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Obesity leads to the release of cytokines into the bloodstream which impact the metabolism of breast cancer cells, making them more aggressive as a result. Scientists from Helmholtz Zentrum München, Technical University of Munich (TUM), and Heidelberg University Hospital report on this in 'Cell Metabolism'. The team has already been able to halt this mechanism with an antibody treatment.
The number of people with obesity is increasing rapidly worldwide. The German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) recently reported that according to the WHO the number of children and adolescents with obesity increased tenfold between 1975 and 2016. Severe overweight can lead to various health impairments. Besides inducing cardiovascular diseases, obesity for example also promotes the development of cancer and metastases.
The current study elucidates an as yet unknown mechanism making breast cancer more aggressive. The enzyme ACC1* plays a central role in this process," said Dr. Mauricio Berriel Diaz, deputy director of the Institute for Diabetes and Cancer (IDC) at Helmholtz Zentrum München. He led the study together with Stephan Herzig, director of the IDC and professor for Molecular Metabolic Control at TUM and Heidelberg University Hospital. "ACC1 is a key component of fatty acid synthesis," said Berriel Diaz. "However, its function is impaired by the cytokines leptin and TGF-β." The levels of these cytokines are increased particularly in the blood of severely overweight subjects.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25 2017, @04:02AM
The "Tragedy of the Commons" results from a lack of control over a resource.
This outcome implies the need for some means by which to limit usage of said resource, and thus implies some kind of ownership over said resource, of which there are 2 kinds: Authoritarian (government) and Libertarian (property rights). History has led civilization naturally from the simplest, dumbest authoritarianism towards libertarianism; right now, the most productive societies are a hybrid, with the vestiges of ancient authoritarianism hacked to provide the psychological impression that there is something dependable forming the foundation of individual property rights. The truth is that authoritarianism is in utter contradiction to individual property rights, as seen by any number of obvious examples, such as the prohibition of beer in the "Land of the Free".
The American Revolution was a retaliation against the tyranny of a government that had overstepped its delegated mandate; the American Revolution set out to re-establish a proper government that was not a radical brand new one, but rather an improved continuation of the old one.
That is to say that the authority of the various governments of the several States and their federation came not from the threat of violence of The People against the government, but rather from the fact that The People were delegating various authorities to the government (tyrannical overreach of which might well justify retaliation once again).
The thing is, no Person ever had the right to walk into His neighbor's pub and, in the name of Temperance, begin breaking all of the bottles of beer; no Person could have ever delegated such an authority to any government. Ever. It doesn't matter what the "Constitution" says. Clearly, the Prohibition of Beer was an overreach of delegated authority, and the Brits must have been laughing their drunk asses off at the antics going on in the so-called "Land of the Free"!
More explicitly: No. It is not the case that violence is the ultimate authority from which all other authority derives; that's why the "Declaration of Independence" sets as its foundation not violence but rather inalienable rights endowed by the Creator; it's why the "Constitution" speaks of unenumerated rights (there are many more which haven't been mentioned explicitly). A government's supposed authority comes from the delegation of the authorities that are implied by existing rights, and a dispute over such delegation is something to be left to public discussion (e.g., legislation), to adjudication, and—from time to time, as noted by Jefferson—to the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Your question is a very good one, but you must note that your "government" idea does NOT supply an answer. Your government, founded in liberty, outlawed beer for fuck's sake.
Now, the American government was and still is better than many other forms of government, including warlords (which are a form of government). The reason is that the American government introduced as a fundamental principle the notion of checks and balances—competing structures of power; of course, we know these as the branches of the government. Well, take that principle to its most generic: Competition of power structures is what matters; that's why it's a good thing that there is not (and never has been) One World Government; competition, even among self-serving warlords who care not a bit about principles, keeps governments in check.
A monopoly that arises out of Free Market activity, solely by virtue of "do-as-we-agreed" voluntary exchange, is going to be a much different shape than a monopoly that arises from "do-as-I-say" coercion.
Insist that power structures be grown through voluntary exchange; fight tooth-and-nail anybody who would seek to grow a power structure any other way, and work to dismantle existing power structures that have already been grown in that despicable involuntary fashion (ideally, you'd convince people to abandon them in favor of better, liberty-grown organizations; this could be known as "privatization", but that term has been soiled by cronyism that ultimately rests not on voluntary exchange, but on the same old governmental mandate that should be escaped).
When you think of a finished skyscraper, it seems impossible that it was ever constructed—so many parts depend on each other that it must have sprung out of the ether already complete! Well, as we know, there were many intermediate stages during the construction of that massive, intricate structure; there were supports and scaffolding, which were employed to good effect, and then dismantled and forgotten thereafter.
The same will be so for man and his civilization: In 100,000 years, he will live under libertarianism; however, this miracle will result not from him being more angelic, but rather from civilization's libertarian power structures being more fully developed.