Denial of Death and the Recurring Spiral

Ever wondered why obese people prefer to to eat unhealthy food inspite of being warned of the dangers by a myriad of scientific reports?
Why people buy still more cars and fuel guzzling vehicles even as climate change is now a scientific fact?
Why sugary fizz drinks sell like hot cakes when diabetes is now a common modern malady?
Why people(including me) sit glued to their computer screens addicted to social networking sites when we all know that our modern sedentary lifestyle is bringing us one step closer to death?
Why alcohol addicts don't care a bit to where their broken life is heading to?
Why we deny ourselves the little bit of exercise that is needed to keep us healthy other than the fact that we are too lazy or find it stressful?
Why the majority of smokers and tobacco consumers in India still stick to their habits inspite of the products now being adorned by law with images of diseased lungs, ulcerous mouths, snake and scorpion logos?
Ernest Becker proposed an interesting theory.
To quote from an article:

In 1973 the cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker proposed that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with "vital lies' or 'the armour of character." We defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects, which boost our self-esteem and grant us meaning that extends beyond death. More than 300 studies conducted in 15 countries appear to confirm Becker’s thesis. When people are confronted with images or words or questions that remind them of death they respond by shoring up their worldview, rejecting people and ideas that threaten it, and increasing their striving for self-esteem.
One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger. For example, researchers at Bar-Ilan University in Israel found that people who reported that driving boosted their self-esteem drove faster and took greater risks after they had been exposed to reminders of death.
...
A recent paper by the biologist Janis L. Dickinson, published in the Journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult to repress thoughts of death, and that people might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival.
There is already experimental evidence that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption.
...
If Dickinson is correct, is it fanciful to suppose that those who are closer to the end of their lives might react more strongly against reminders of death?
...
And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the last two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?

The whole article, though it deals in length with climate change denial, could in a way explain many of mankind's "deviant" behavior and can be read here:
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article42833.ece
I don't say this is a proven scientific theory but a plausible hypothesis worth giving a thought to.

The Scientific Disclaimer

Imbibing scientific temparament into oneself has been hammered into us time and again.
We are being spammed by results of scientific studies almost every day - on the net, in newspapers, on the TV, and in magazines too.
I came across an interesting study on how the world's most expensive coffee comes into being.
The initial discussion is how the Asian Palm Civet eats raw coffee berries which are defecated by this exotic creature, the beans then washed, and sold as coffee beans to make the world's most expensive coffee with a unique taste.
The study seems to suggest that the bean undergoes some sort of transformation within the civet's digestive system which gives the bean its unique flavor.
Then as a footnote, the study adds - the taste is unique quite probably because civets only forage on the most ripe berries and later excrete the seeds eventually used for human consumption.
Thank good for the disclaimer - now we can view things in a different perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak
Another study on a completely different topic claimed that pregnant women under stress bore children who had a much lesser IQ and had learning disabilites. The study was carried out in Alaska at a storm shelter where offspring born there were found to have a much lesser IQ, because their mothers were stressed up due to the natural calamity, the report said.
Then the disclaimer - the study carried out on pregnant women at the storm shelter, belonged to the lower strata of society and perhaps it was but natural that their children should have lesser IQ and poor coping skills.
Thanks to these disclaimers.
Red wine some researchers argue is good for the heart in small doses. But another study goes on to say that to get the right dose of the "good chemical" in red wine, one would have to imbibe the drink in such a huge quantity that it would be mortally fatal to an imbiber.
These pros and cons on every subject under the sun have been made public.
Scientists have been mixing up the cause and effect of phenomena for ages. And results of studies that could mean almost anything have been put up as venerable scientific studies.
So next time you read the results of a scientific study somewhere, take it with a pinch of salt.
Poetic license should not not be a word in the scientist's dictionary!

The joy ride after the wild goose chase

Recently several media publications were bold enough to expose the sham that lies behind police interrogations involving narcoanalysis. Injecting suspects with a so-called truth serum, before they have been proved guilty, exposes one of the extremely crass and crude methods that the law condones (in India).
On the lighter side why don't these so-called preservers of the law take their suspects to the nearest bar and make them have their fill of the strongest liquors. Surely some of these "guilty" offenders might just spill the beans for all we know or maybe even "sing" for them. Or how about Cocaine or hashish, and if thats too costly for these guys in mufti, they could try good old marijuana.
The interrogators too could have a sniff at the substance on offer just to test whether it truly works. Once both the parties are "high", they could swap truth stories with each other and perhaps the "real" truth would spill out in the bonhomie.
These are the Dr Deaths' of today in the garb of forensic experts. The description of it being "scientific" just makes everything seem very sophisticated to the lay man.
The basic intention is the age old classic manoeuvre. When things go very wrong, and the law enforcers are clueless as to what went wrong they are under pressure to produce quick results - from the public, the politicians, the higher-ups and in order not to lose their credibility they have to produce results fast. What way other than a quick fix(pun intended) for this? In fact, the situation for them would work the other way round if they solved the entire mystery in a short spell- pats and kudos from everyone.
It's high time the law enforcers and others who condone it, recognize narcoanalysis for what it truly is.