Seems to by hippy day for today’s news cycle.
Having “reached the limit” of free articles in the NYT for this month, I couldn’t read the entire article.
However, is this company _selling_ bacteria to put on one’s skin, as opposed to simply testing the results of zero soap/shampoo usage?
If so, then is the message not that being unwashed is healthy, but that in order to be healthy one must be unwashed _and_ add designer bacteria to the hair and skin?
How cynical are they? Here are some of the prescriptions I have encountered recently:
Don’t eat cooked food. Besides being healthier, you will *save* energy by not cooking and reduce *pollution*.
Don’t wash a specific brand of jeans. These jeans will then become an emblem of ecological correctness, reducing water usage, energy usage and gray water.
Wash hair once a week. It is better for the appearance and health of your hair and it reduces water usage, energy usage and gray water.
Don’t flush urine every time you use the commode. This will save water, save energy and reduce any sewage system use and water treatment.
Being cold is the new weight loss. Being cold will cause an increase in personal metabolism, reduce fuel use and reduce *pollution”.
The insidious part of all this is the tiny bit of truth embedded in each proscription. Cold surroundings will increase metabolism, causing weight loss. Reductions in washing clothing and bodies will reduce energy bills. etc.
However,in its entirety (and I am certain I have missed some of the new proscriptions/prescriptions), there is a pattern. The carrot of improving something like metabolism,skin and hair health, energy and water bills along with the “feel good about oneself” for “saving the environment”.
Just what are we saving all this “environment” for?
Hygiene is the cornerstone of modern civilization. It has increased lifespan and reduced many opportunistic diseases. It has made living in cities bearable. Why is it being attacked in what appears to be a systematic manner?