2.5 Billion People are Unbanked

The World's Poor Don't Have A Bank Account  
More than 2.5 billion people -- or half of all adults around the world -- are "unbanked," meaning they don't have a bank account, according to data released by the World Bank on Thursday.

The World Bank's data comes from the Gallup World Poll Survey, which found that more than three-quarters of the world's poor are unbanked. Poverty, as well as proximity to a bank and the amount of paperwork involved, prohibit people from having a bank account.

Being unbanked prevents the world's poor from saving for and investing in the future -- whether it be by paying for an education, buying a home, or starting a new business. The world's unbanked population is also at a disadvantage when it comes to borrowing.

There is a huge disparity between rich countries and the rest of the world when it comes to unbanked populations. Nine out of 10 adults in rich countries have a bank account, which is more than double the number of adults in developing countries with bank accounts, according to the World Bank. Just 18 percent of adults in the Middle East and North Africa and 24 percent of adults in sub-Saharan Africa have a bank account.

As a result, poor people are often forced to borrow money from informal lenders who generally charge high fees, according to the World Bank. Friends and family are the largest source of loans in all regions except for rich countries, where banks and credit unions are the most popular source of loans. About 40 percent of adults in sub-Saharan Africa have borrowed from friends or family in the past year, while about 5 percent of them have borrowed from an informal lender. An emergency or health care are the single largest reason why people in developing countries take out loans.

In the U.S., 7.7 percent of households are unbanked, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Humans Are Born Natural Vegetarians

Foods With More Fat Than A Stick Of Butter 

You wouldn't sit down to dinner at your favorite restaurant and order a stick of butter a la carte. You're too smart for that -- you know there'd be lots of calories and little nutrients and, most of all, lots and lots of fat.

But some of the cheesy entrees and meaty meals you're ordering are packed with just as much fat -- or more. There's a total of 92 grams of fat in a stick of butter, much more than the maximum amount recommended for an entire day on a healthy diet.
The Dietary Guidelines For Americans recommend limiting fat intake to 20 to 35 percent of your daily calories. (A gram of fat provides 9 calories.) For a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, that means anywhere from 44 to 78 grams of fat a day won't push you over the edge. Most Americans don't have to worry about not getting enough fat; in fact, our diets are too heavy in saturated and trans fats and skimpy on the healthy, unsaturated kind, found in good-for-you foods like fish, olive oil and nuts.
Unfortunately, it's too easy to find foods -- especially on the menus of your favorite chain restaurants -- that trample those daily fat recommendations in one fell swoop. Here are seven of the worst offenders. Let us know in the comments what other fat traps you've spotted -- or even eaten!

1. Fried Fish

 

2. Sneaky Salads 

3. Burgers That Overdo It On The Meat 

4. Burgers That Overdo It On The Toppings 

5. Shakes 

6. Fried Chicken Meals 

7. Quesadillas

Scientific Views
Dr. T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus at Cornell University and author of The China Study, explains that in fact, we only recently (historically speaking) began eating meat, and that the inclusion of meat in our diet came well after we became who we are today. He explains that "the birth of agriculture only started about 10,000 years ago at a time when it became considerably more convenient to herd animals. This is not nearly as long as the time [that] fashioned our basic biochemical functionality (at least tens of millions of years) and which functionality depends on the nutrient composition of plant-based foods."
That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."
There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).
In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."
The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.
Old habits die hard, and it's convenient for people who like to eat meat to think that there is evidence to support their belief that eating meat is "natural" or the cause of our evolution. For many years, I too, clung to the idea that meat and dairy were good for me; I realize now that I was probably comforted to have justification for my continued attachment to the traditions I grew up with.
But in fact top nutritional and anthropological scientists from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores, and that we will be healthier today if we stick with our herbivorous roots. It may be inconvenient, but it alas, it is the truth.