Most people probably don't think too much about their health when they philosophize on freedom and independence, but I would argue that we need to add good health to the list of items that increase our autonomy. The why, as can be clearly seen in the header, illustrates one of the main issues I take with consoooomerism, and is why I almost always spell it that way. But as always, there's more to dig into such as the physical and mental consequences of unwellness, the opportunities of the healthy man versus the unhealthy man, and the freedom-related ramifications of good health.
(Quick clarification: I use health and wellness interchangeably.)
While these are mostly obvious, for sake of demonstration I'll list just a few consequences of unhealthiness; do keep in mind that I am not blaming those with genetic predispositions; if you cannot help being a certain way, then that's that; I am referring to those who self-sabotage their own health:
If our survivability is low outside of the controlled environment, then our autonomy is consequently low. If we're all fat, we cannot get around as well and need to eat all the time; if we're not strong, then we must rely on others for heavy lifting or do without; if we're always in pain, then we cannot get anything done for lack of focus on the task at hand. This of course is just the tip of the iceberg of unhealthiness; the amount of issues facing Westerners is much longer, and new consequences are added every day.
That's right, we haven't even touched on mental and emotional health:
This word has been a meme my whole life, but I intend to use it in a non-cringeworthy way: an unhealthy man does not have as much opportunity in the world as a healthy man. Forget all of that talk of survivability for a moment: even in our ultra-modern, cookie-cutter lives, the healthy man still comes out on top, because he is more mentally sound and physically healthy, which means he will likely live longer, and we all know that's the only measurement of success in the 20th and 21st centuries. Those gains only increase when the system falls apart; I doubt anyone that isn't already mentally sound and physically fit would survive a collapse of civilization; but the healthy man has a much greater chance of survival.
The healthy man is fit enough to hunt, farm, gather, fight, or do any back-breaking labor required to survive: the unhealthy man will not have the strength to survive; he'll need luck on his side. Because the healthy man is mentally healthy he can withstand great loss, keep his mood up despite circumstances, and possess greater willpower to accomplish his goals: the unhealthy man is too depressed to do anything about his circumstances; he's disabled by his own mind.
There is, admittedly, an element of luck to all of this, but because there's nothing we can do about luck, it is best to stack the deck in our favor rather than against it. We have all heard those total defeatist people that think everything is determined by fate, and because of that they do nothing: it is the equivalent of rolling the dice on your own life. But the healthy man does not rely on mere chance, because he has developed his body and mind in such a way that his metaphorical dice is weighted in his favor, thus his lucky number is more likely to occur.
Here's an example of this: we've all heard of people who smoked tobacco and drank hard liquor for 50 years, and still lived to be 90 years old. We've also heard of people who dropped dead of a heart attack at 30 and in perfect health. The defeatists, from this, draw the conclusion that it doesn't matter what you do, but in reality these are exceptions to the rule rather than the rule. Most people who participate in unhealthy behaviors for several decades do not live to be 90, and most people don't drop dead at 30; those who do their best to stay healthy increase their chances of living a long time, but there are no guarantees in life. Despite that, it is still best to increase our chances of living longer by being healthy; its like how buying 51% of all raffle tickets in a raffle makes you the most likely to win, but there is still a 49% chance that you will lose. It is still better than being the schmuck who only bought 0.5% of the tickets.
Good health leads to more opportunity which leads to greater survivability, which, of course, leads to more independence and freedom. At this point, I have hopefully sold you the dangers of being an unhealthy consoooomer, and that the healthy man has so many more advantages than the unhealthy man does.
It may seem strange to consider health a freedom-related issue to some, but allow me to demonstrate. If one is healthy and mostly independent, what need does he have for politics and governance? He takes care of himself just fine: he has no one on whom he depends for his very survival; think of Thoreau with his Walden Pond experiment. But the unhealthy man... that is a different story.
The unhealthy man, whatever his ailment may be, needs others to survive, and I am not talking about neighbors/small community, I am talking about large corporate entities like goverments, big pharma, big tech, and every other big business you can think of. An obese man needs massive quantities of food that only big agriculture can provide; a depressed man needs questionable drugs from big pharma; a type 2 diabetic needs medication from big pharma. The unhealthy man may not be able to survive without these, thus he is dependent on big whatever, and therefore not independent or free, and certainly not autonomous.
Now that it is clear that being healthy or unhealthy is an issue of freedom, let us explore what is actually happening here, despite the trustworthy prescence of lab coats.
If the population is unhealthy in that it requires refined products to keep it alive (though not too well), that population will comply with the demands of their providers. The dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds him, especially if he is not healthy enough to take care of himself. Being unhealthy, that is, by one's negligence toward body and mind, is a sacrifice of precious independence and freedom for product to consoooom at one's convenience. Let's explore an illustrative example.
Let us take a man, mid-forties, and overweight. This man has an increased risk for high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, and a myriad of other things due to obesity. If he develops one of those issues, he will require the expertise of trained medical professionals and powerful drugs to keep him alive, none of which would be available outside of a first world setting. If that first world setting collapses, then our example man will most likely collapse as well, furthermore, he is more likely to do everything he can to preserve the system that keeps him alive, but if he had just been healthy in the first place, this would all be a nonissue. Because he needs the system to persist for his survival, he will always advocate for the system over his own freedom or independence. Thus, he is easily controlled.
What about the healthy man though? Well, the healthy man does not need all of this medical care, drugs, and big agriculture to survive, because he mostly takes care of himself. It makes no real difference to the truly healthy man what happens in the society around him, because he has everything he needs, or can easily obtain his needs from his small community. If a healthy man's needs are met, and he has no need for intense medical care due to bodily self-abuse, then he can survive no matter what happens to the big corporations and governments. By being healthy, combined with a serving of independence, the healthy man has insured his path to freedom and autonomy.
To conclude this argument, I would like to strongly suggest that its readers get healthy: get strong, shed those extra pounds, and become too healthy to be controlled. This is the first step to becoming autonomous; after all, what good does all of your possessions, or money, or whatever do you if you are not healthy enough to apply them to survivability? Go read up on nutrition to figure out what a healthy person should be eating, and start doing some form of strength exercise as well as cardiovascular exercise.