Jargon Watch: Carborexia

Uhh... unlike Anorexia and other "psychological diseases" I don't think having a strong dedication to reducing your carbon footprint and environmental impact makes you "sick". It makes you a decent human being, it makes you perhaps less selfish and more aware of your actions.

Maybe it is unusual to care so much, that makes extreme greenies odd, not ILL. A perceived obsession with doing the right thing should not be characterized as a disorder.

In the US anybody who doesn't fit the perfect mold is told they have a disorder.

Now people who really care about the environment aren't environmentalists, they are people with a disease. They must be treated! Pump them full of drugs until they are normal and resume raping the planet for its resources.

To try and propagate the idea that responsible living is a mental disorder is both sick and incredably dangerous.

People, let's try and be a little bit less smug. I'm a committed environmentalist, but I definitely know people who take environmental worry to a degree that I would consider decidedly unhealthy.

Let's face it: people can become obsessive about anything. It doesn't matter whether the cause is good or bad: the effect of obsession is almost entirely bad.

Most of us have accepted the term "workaholic". Does that mean we think that work is bad? No, but a workoholic's life is out balance, and many of us have seen the negative side of this.

The same thing is true of cat ladies, obsessive handwashers, and overprotective mothers. Loving cats, being hygenic and keeping your children from danger are all good impulses. But they can go very, very wrong.

Of course, the idiots out there will seize this word in order to mock, and generally miss the point about, envrironmentalism. So be it. We can dismiss them, while taking their point: Do your best, live responsibly; but be flexible, be adaptible, maintain your balance, and keep things in perspective. You'll be much, much more effective that way.

And also, help your friends. If you suspect somebody you know is acting "carborexic", they may have a mild case of OCD. They might need your support.

I think "carborexic"is a stupid thing to call it and cheapens both the disease of anorexia and the political movement of environmentalism. However, there is a certain percentage of the population who has an "anorexic mindset," if you will. Anorexia is, by and large, not primarily about weight; it is about an unhealthy obsession with self control. If an anorexic tells her/himself s/he will eat one grape, and then eats two, s/he sees her/himself as "disgusting," "out of control," "a failure," "unhealthy." People with these kinds of thought problems can apply them to almost anything, not just food. (Remember, trying to eat right and exercise is generally considered a good thing, just as being green is.) It is quite likely that a VERY VERY VERY SMALL percentage of greenies have a similar sickness, and are not simply making their carbon footprint as small as possible, but punishing themselves when they fail to meet this perfect standard. For them, it is accidentally leaving the bathroom light on one day when leaving for work that kicks off the cycle of self-hate, feelings of disgust and failure. People who feel that way should get psychological help: not because of what they are doing FOR the earth, but because of what they are doing TO themselves. (Just as the treatment for anorexia is not to try to turn the person into a binge-eater, therapists are unlikely to try to get the person to buy a big house in the exurbs and an H2 Hummer. It's really more about all-or-nothing thought processes.)

Cutting carbon severely isn't a disease. Medicalizing values-based lifestyle choices harms people with real diseases such as anorexia. And there's no reason for it. Sharon, who was one of the people they attached "carborexia" to, is a really functional and healthy person acting according to her most pragmatic assessment of current needs. The NYTimes article coining the phrase was an unethical, sensationalist thing to do from a paper I usually think more of.

Roygbiv gives us an example of how medicalizing lifestyle choices is harmful to people with real diseases. Putting someone who makes the choice to work more than is healthy for them in the same category with someone who is unable to stop washing their hands even while their skin starts to peel off trivializes real neurological conditions that people suffer from. That's not a choice to be overly hygenic; it's a neurochemical condition. Grouping these things together makes it harder for people with real conditions to be taken seriously and get treatment, and it's a bit like grouping intelligent design with evolutionary science—one is a values-driven personal choice, the other is a matter of biological reality.

If I could have my own take Carborexia, I'd say the people who coined it are suffering from it! Sounds to me more like a complete lack of Carbohydrates rather than carbon... and carbs are the only nutrient the brain can metabolize!! These poor beings must not be thinking straight...