I do know what you are saying, and while part of me knows I'm nitpicking and/or getting too far into semantics, part of me is not.
Second, while I appreciate the personal note, I know a bit about diabetes, too. And although you bring it up as an "body:planet" analogy, I actually think that, epidemiologically
, it can be compared more directly with climate change. That is, I think it has the potential to, and most likely will
, kill as many or more people than any disruption(s) caused by "climate chaos"; that, on a global scale, it (and its associated metabolic syndrome) is a much bigger problem
and will likely become a crisis
if it is not dealt with.
I'm also pretty convinced that not only can it (type 2) be managed, but that it can be effectively reversed
if caught soon enough. See any or many of Dr. Robert Lustig's talks
(possibly starting with the 2010 classic that started his outspokenness, Sugar: The Bitter Truth
) for the full reasoning and argument behind this conviction. He -- and he has impeccable credentials -- believes that excessive and ubiquitous added sugar (combined with fiber removal) is essentially "the new tobacco", and is planning to hold 'Big Food' accountable in the same way that 'Big Tobacco' was with cigarettes*. You will hear more of him, I guarantee
So while early diabetic indicators may pose a problem for the individual
, the number of diabetic people (who fail to manage or reverse the disease, for whatever reason), en masse
, is also a big problem for humanity as a whole, just as climate change is. And both will cause severe crises for many down the road if ignored.
I realize that I've gone a bit off-topic from an analogy, but I think it's somewhat relevant to the thread, regardless. And that's because if you look at diet-related chronic disease and deaths from them (and there are many), we might want to move the big hand one more minute closer to midnight. :-\
* of course, 'Big Food' is much bigger than 'Big Tobacco' was, so it will be a much 'Bigger Fight'...