The Collectism diet

It's true: Asian tourists do in fact travel en masse, and it is in fact hilarious. But it is also admirable — a beautiful portrayal of their communitarian (versus individualistic) culture.

You may have seen one or more of these such tourists wearing a SARS mask. They don't have SARS, dollars to dimes, but they are sick, and wear masks to prevent spreading whatever they may have their companions. We, in the United States, wear masks not when we're sick, but when we don't want to be. The social contract does not extend far beyond the self. This isn't a value judgement; it's simply how it is and how it has always been.

Recently, the Japanese government, dissatisfied with the girth of its country's citizens, took a drastic — or drastic by our standards — step.

Story: Japan, Seeking Trim Waists, Measures Millions, 6/13 New York Times

Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population. My note: Japan is realllllllllly old.

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the Internationa,l Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments (My emphasis) that fail to meet specific targets.

It would be obvious to copycat Japan's anti-obesity initiative by fashioning one of our own. But this would be an obvious and catastrophic failure. Mandates don't change the culture, and mandating that overweight citizens must slim down would be like clipping the top of a weed. The country's agri-food sectors would still produce 3800kcal/citizen/day; the government would still be subsidizing corn syrup and soybean oil more heavily than celery; our youth would still spend in excess of 4 hours a day transfixed upon a screen.

And, perhaps most considerably of all, this would exceed the previously heeded boundaries of government. We would feel violated, insulted, infringed upon. The nanny state, which has already stolen our trans fats, granted validity to thousands of petty lawsuits and forcibly strapped a seatbelt across our chests, would demand we lose weight. The nerve. For a citizenry that balks at toll roads and licensing procedures on firearms, a national weight loss requirement would venture far too far into what we consider personal and private.

Yet the mandate approach should not be discarded. There's freedom, and there's irresponsibility: irresponsibility that negatively impacts society at-large; irresponsiblity that refuses to wear a SARS mask; irresponsibility that will not — despite a energy and environmental crossroads the likes of which we have never seen — let off the accel when the country needs it most.

In 1974, the National Maximum Speed Law capped speed limits at 55 mph. In 1987, the cap was raised to 65. In 1995 — when gas cost $1.16 a gallon — the cap was done away with. Today, as drivers fill up for $4+/gal., many continue to push the spedometer further and further to the right. The government, and the power invested therein, would be apt to push back. There will be opposition and cries of Big Brother, but, ultimately, the social contract will be bolstered, as will be the topic at hand.

Even if we can't tighten our waistlines, we can do this. We can do this.