MetabolicTrash
Member
Seems a tough method forward for people. Some pursue resources and funds so they can reach a place of health or "betterment" of sorts -- others try and achieve "salvation" of some sort even with nothing but the clothes on their backs (if even). What approach usually is the more optimal one though, at least for the most part?
Can people achieve good health in first-world countries in today's age with no resources, finances, etc. (in others words being poor, low-class/classless, socially rejected)? Do people need to get financial/social freedom & success and then a sense of more "freedom" in general through finances/other methods prior to fully relishing in the benefits of health thereon, as opposed to finding some "health" in an "anti-health" situation/environment to possibly work from there onwards?
Or do people basically have to fix their health intrinsically (metabolism, hormones, vigor, sense of identity, structure, etc.) with no matter external to our concerns like our place of being, circumstances, living conditions, etc.? Because it's a tough angle to play by telling people to both achieve health in one way ("internally" or regards to metabolic function isolated more) while also trying to outwardly make their standing/circumstances more ideal ("externally" or regarding perception of one's place in life/treatment/so on). I mean you can try more money -> more choices to create purpose/happiness/better means-> good place of being. The problem is that if we work everything in our being to our bones to make more money to "better ourselves," then what are we once that money is gone? There must be some innate work done, but it's hard knowing how much money/etc. you might need with no specific purpose or idea of what to do with it -- and where your health is supposedly going to take you if then you have a limit due to finances/etc. in some other ways regarding freedom, choice, pursuits, etc.
It's complex since you can sort of do both, but each degree left or right can backfire in different ways, effectively making it a balancing act somehow.
Can people achieve good health in first-world countries in today's age with no resources, finances, etc. (in others words being poor, low-class/classless, socially rejected)? Do people need to get financial/social freedom & success and then a sense of more "freedom" in general through finances/other methods prior to fully relishing in the benefits of health thereon, as opposed to finding some "health" in an "anti-health" situation/environment to possibly work from there onwards?
Or do people basically have to fix their health intrinsically (metabolism, hormones, vigor, sense of identity, structure, etc.) with no matter external to our concerns like our place of being, circumstances, living conditions, etc.? Because it's a tough angle to play by telling people to both achieve health in one way ("internally" or regards to metabolic function isolated more) while also trying to outwardly make their standing/circumstances more ideal ("externally" or regarding perception of one's place in life/treatment/so on). I mean you can try more money -> more choices to create purpose/happiness/better means-> good place of being. The problem is that if we work everything in our being to our bones to make more money to "better ourselves," then what are we once that money is gone? There must be some innate work done, but it's hard knowing how much money/etc. you might need with no specific purpose or idea of what to do with it -- and where your health is supposedly going to take you if then you have a limit due to finances/etc. in some other ways regarding freedom, choice, pursuits, etc.
It's complex since you can sort of do both, but each degree left or right can backfire in different ways, effectively making it a balancing act somehow.
Last edited: