Scientific Cultures of Health

Political Science is the compare and contrast study of governing authority powers with concomitant economic responsibilities, and...um...opportunities, speaking perhaps too candidly. Why not other powers? Compassions that can be governed only bipartisanly, and would like to become health care co-invested? Political scientists worry if everything and everybody is for sale, or rent, or could be if the MBA's created a more competitive market price for them. Like human resources, for instance? Air? Water? How about fertility, sexual passion and pleasure? Yes, we have expanded political powers into all these markets, including physical and intellectual property, both bodies and our sometimes competitive and sometimes cooperative minds. Really? You can buy kindness? Health? Well, we do have Motivational and Anger Management Therapists. And, pharmaceuticals are big corporate businesses heavily invested in the wins and losses of mental/spiritual health investments. Political Science is the study of economic power vestments? In which consumers purchase public authority by investing in privately taxing responsibility? And responsible behaviors and attitudes, trusts and mistrusts and distrusts, are the subject of Health and Therapeutic Sciences. Political and Economic scientists assume authority empowers wealth worth winning more of and not losing to control less of; not necessarily the same thing as increasing or decreasing health value or cultural merit, or demerit. Political scientists remain neutral on health meritocracies of power. But economic health and political wealth can go together, right? When you and yours are successfully nurturing a politically enriching year, investing in mutual trust inviting multicultural beauty dancing days and harmonic nights, now, but also open and accessible to future and past EarthTribe regenerations. Yes, I suspect political wealth branched off from economic health back about the time we developed token value economies which slowly evolved incorporated private monopolistic hoarding tendencies, as opposed to investing in next year's healthy harvest of publicly redolent fragrances and tastes, deep trusting warmth emerging from mistrusting cold ambivalence. This WinLose Political Competition Game seems to suboptimize WinWin ecopolitical roots and regenerative Natural Science branches. Sorry, weren't we talking about the Science of Politics, rather than the Economic Health-Governing Games of monoculturing anti-EarthScience practitioners? who would rather eat than be eaten, and find no space or time in-between partisan rabidity and impoverishing paranoia? I thought Political Science was our subject and Economic Resilience Games are becoming our shared Earth objective? That might feel right, but what is this Political Wealth Table you seem to set? I'm noticing that WinLose political evolution stories are important, but do not explain well-being potentialities of WinWin revolutions, healthy ecopolitical wealth gaming conjectures. Win today to Lose tomorrow does not comprehend redundant reiterations of Earth's natural WinWin symbiotically interdependent ecosystems. You have either said too much or too little. Explain, please. WinWin could be a non(0)-soul objective of resilient Political Wealth Gamers. WinLose could be either nurturing private health without much of any public power of wealth, or WinLose could be public power of authority without healthy private economics. LoseLose could be a despairing flatline for ecopolitical devolutionary trauma and death. That is your Political Evolutionary Gaming Conjecture, but wherein lies this Political Health Theorem? How would you measure these cooperative powers of health-empowerment growing wealth or poverty? What is health for you? Perhaps non-apartisan formulas, synergetically viral vital organic resonance not doomed to dustpiles of disempowering dissonance and unpleasantly voracious competitive tastes? Or, is health more primally about what smells good v bad and in-between? What tastes marvelous or malignant, and in-between? What feels warm as neither too hot nor too cold regard, too bullying or too nearly flat-line recessive, entropic, dormant? This political science conjecture has become a series of questions responding to healthcare questions, seeking economic WinWin resolutions. My concern about your WinWin Politics of Science revolving EarthCentric ReConnecting HealthyWealth is that empathic climates of trust v mistrust v distrust may blur empirically deductive orthodoxy with interdependent inductive advocacy. Perhaps not advocacy so much as historic wealth analysis, rooted in ecopolitical evolutionary WinWin v LoseLose full spectrum of historicultural peak regenerative events within Earth's Great Transitional Conjecture, to win both political empowerment of polyculturing peaceful revolutions and integrating balance of economic nutritional flow-trends is to become inter-re-ligioned in globally co-empathic WinWin trust; healthier than deduction's monopolistic either-or bipolarity. Our BiPartisan Win Theorem for defining political democratic healthcare success can be measured against current LoseLose systemic trauma baselines monopolistic, monochromatic, rabid-toxic, dissonantly stuck chaos of elitist anthro-hubris, because egocentric Self-against-Other smells dangerously over-heated, tastes like fast-food corruption, and feels like doom stalking Earth's polypathic possibilities for global trans-associative happiness because of our relentlessly competitive partisanship and catastrophic capitalist competitive ways. This Political Culture of Health Theorem defines and refines flatline BusinessAsUsual 0-sum liabilities opposing what Earth's polyculturing assets healthy wealth WinWin Gaming Design Earth's original life conjecture through co-empathic trust polypathic integrity of sacred synergy smelling organically fresh, and pronouncing this empowering fragrance "healthy".