Thinner isn’t always better. A number of studies have 1 that normal-weight people are in fact at higher risk of some diseases compared to those who are overweight. And there are health conditions for which being overweight is actually 2 . For example, heavier women are less likely to develop calcium deficiency than thin women. 3 , among the elderly, being somewhat overweight is often an 4 of good health.

Of even greater 5 is the fact that obesity turns out to be very difficult to define. It is often defined 6 body mass index, or BMI. BMI 7 body mass divided by the square of height. An adult with a BMI of 18 to 25 is often considered to be normal weight. Between 25 and 30 is overweight. And over 30 is considered obese. Obesity, 8 , can be divided into moderately obese, severely obese, and very severely obese.

While such numerical standards seem 9 , they are not. Obesity is probably less a matter of weight than body fat. Some people with a high BMI are in fact extremely fit, 10 others with a low BMI may be in poor 11 . For example, many collegiate and professional football players 12 as obese, though their percentage body fat is low. Conversely, someone with a small frame may have high body fat but a 13 BMI.

Today we have a(n) 14 to label obesity as a disgrace. The overweight are sometimes 15 in the media with their faces covered. Stereotypes 16 with obesity include laziness, lack of will power, and lower prospects for success. Teachers, employers, and health professionals have been shown to harbor biases against the obese. 17 very young children tend to look down on the overweight, and teasing about body build has long been a problem in schools.

Negative attitudes toward obesity, 18 in health concerns, have stimulated a number of anti-obesity 19 . My own hospital system has banned sugary drinks from its facilities. Many employers have instituted weight loss and fitness initiatives. Michelle Obama has launched a high-visibility campaign 20 childhood obesity, even claiming that it represents our greatest national security threat.

In our contemporary culture, the prospect of communicating with—or even looking at—a stranger is virtually unbearable. Everyone around us seems to agree by the way they cling to their phones, even without a 1 on a subway.

It’s a sad reality—our desire to avoid interacting with other human beings—because there’s 2 to be gained from talking to the stranger standing by you. But you wouldn’t know it, 3 into your phone. This universal protection sends the 4 : “Please don’t approach me.”

What is it that makes us feel we need to hide 5 our screens ?

One answer is fear, according to Jon Wortmann, an executive mental coach. We fear rejection, or that our innocent social advances will be 6 as “weird.” We fear we’ll be 7 . We fear we’ll be disruptive.

Strangers are inherently 8 to us, so we are more likely to feel 9 when communicating with them compared with our friends and acquaintances. To avoid this uneasiness, we 10 to our phones. “Phones become our security blanket,” Wortmann says. “They are our happy glasses that protect us from what we perceive is going to be more 11 .”

But once we rip off the band-aid, tuck our smartphones in our pockets and look up, it doesn’t 12 so bad. In one 2011 experiment, behavioral scientists Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder asked commuters to do the unthinkable: Start a 13 . They had Chicago train commuters talk to their fellow 14 . “When Dr. Epley and Ms. Schroeder asked other people in the same train station to 15 how they would feel after talking to a stranger, the commuters thought their 16 would be more pleasant if they sat on their own,” The New York Times summarizes. Though the participants didn’t expect a positive experience, after they 17 with the experiment, “not a single person reported having been embarrassed.”

18 , these commutes were reportedly more enjoyable compared with those without communication, which makes absolute sense, 19 human beings thrive off of social connections. It’s that 20 : Talking to strangers can make you feel connected.

People have speculated for centuries about a future without work. Today is no different, with academics, writers, and activists once again 1 that technology is replacing human workers. Some imagine that the coming work-free world will be defined by 2 . A few wealthy people will own all the capital, and the masses will struggle in an impoverished wasteland.

A different and not mutually exclusive 3 holds that the future will be a wasteland of a different sort, one 4 by purposelessness: Without jobs to give their lives 5 , people will simply become lazy and depressed. 6 , today’s unemployed don’t seem to be having a great time. One Gallup poll found that 20 percent of Americans who have been unemployed for at least a year report having depression, double the rate for 7 Americans. Also, some research suggests that the 8 for rising rates of mortality, mental-health problems, and addiction 9 poorly-educated middle-aged people is shortage of well-paid jobs. Perhaps this is why many 10 the agonizing dullness of a jobless future.

But it doesn’t 11 follow from findings like these that a world without work would be filled with unease. Such visions are based on the 12 of being unemployed in a society built on the concept of employment. In the 13 of work, a society designed with other ends in mind could 14 strikingly different circumstances for the future of labor and leisure. Today, the 15 of work may be a bit overblown. “Many jobs are boring, degrading, unhealthy, and a waste of human potential,” says John Danaher, a lecturer at the National University of Ireland in Galway.

These days, because leisure time is relatively 16 for most workers, people use their free time to counterbalance the intellectual and emotional 17 of their jobs. “When I come home from a hard day’s work, I often feel 18 ,” Danaher says, adding, “In a world in which I don’t have to work, I might feel rather different”—perhaps different enough to throw himself 19 a hobby or a passion project with the intensity usually reserved for 20 matters.