4 ms·

Why not both? It's an arms race. Why not supply both sides?

by x5n1 10y ago

chris_wot 10y ago
What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they can sell them a cure? I can see that going down well in other industries. The automobile industry can engineer metal fatigue into their axle joints and sell you replacements. Microsoft can build bugs into Windows and sell you critical updates to fix the flaw. Chair makers can sell you chairs with legs attached by screws that are slightly too short so they can sell you more screws of the correct size to allow you to remain safely seated... I guess it would stimulate the economy.
- x5n1 10y ago
  They already do this is a more ethical way. Planned obsolesce and all of that. They know it's going to fail in 10 years when they sell it to you with a 5 year lease. Windows has bugs and they will fix some of them in the next release for sure, every time. You can sue for certain things and also bring the government down on them so I guess that's most likely what keeps them from doing more outrageously nefarious things.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Yeah, I did factor that into consideration. However, planned obsolescence is fairly unethical also and many European nations are legislating to force companies into stating how long they believe their products should last for. And in Australia our consumer law deliberately uses the word "reasonable" to prevent companies from setting arbitrary time limits on product warranty specifically to limit unreasonable attempts at planned obsolescence. In terms of Windows having bugs - unless you are a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist who hates everything Microsoft stands for then it's fairly self evident that Microsoft doesn't intentionally introduce bugs into their products. But a Tobacco company exists solely to hook their customers on their products. There sure is planned obsolescence, but the ones who they plan on becoming obsolete and thus discarded are their customers!
- fche 10y ago
  "let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people" Isn't that just a loonie interpretation? Making Butterfingers available for sale don't "intentionally harm" anyone. Surely you're not working on an "attractive nuisance" sort of legal theory here.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    List me all the positive health qualities of cigarettes and I'll see if I can give you a fuller answer. P.S. If you are smoking Butterfingers you are doing it wrong.
- jerf 10y ago
  "What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they can sell them a cure?" Let's not forget our history here, since it wasn't exactly all that long ago. For decades, the consensus has been that the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Sugar was on the top of the food pyramid not because it was "bad" for you, but merely because it displaced other better things. I've been flame-roasted on HN in the last few years for being on the anti-sugar side, because consensus science and official government positions were strongly against the idea. It still isn't even the consensus today that sugar is the problem. (My read on the current situation is that the evidence strongly indicates that sugar is a major problem, though probably not the only one, and that the government is moving as quickly as it can to adjust its recommendations while never having to admit they were in any way wrong, which is a process that takes many, many years of little slight tweaks so that at every point they have cover to claim this is what they were saying all along. Such moral cowardice where they'd rather let millions of people continue hurting and dying rather than take even a hint of responsibility is why I don't take my scientific cues from the government and recommend against anyone else doing it either.) Trying to show that Nestle is "deliberately harming" people would require basically claiming that they should have known all nutrition science and government position was wrong and to some extent is wrong, since treating "Sugar is bad" as consensus is still premature! (The mercy is that nobody has ever said it's good for you, unlike transfats, so nobody really looks at you too weirdly if you drop it out of your diet.)
  - Evgeny 10y ago
    the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Anything excessive in the diet will lead to gaining weight and eventually to obesity. I can not say which will lead to diabetes faster, consuming extra 1000 calories daily in fat or in sugar, but in terms of fat gain results will be similar. The government recommendations are most unfortunate, as they concentrate on macronutrients. So when *fat is bad" people will start eating sugary snacks, and when eventually it changes to "sugar is bad", fat will be added to everything instead of sugar. It would be more positive to suggest eating more whole, unprocessed foods, but I'm sure political issues will never allow that.
EazyC 10y ago
This whole thing reminds me of a relevant paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- x5n1 10y ago
  Your link reminded me of this tradition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch "In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished."

Why not both? It's an arms race. Why not supply both sides?

by x5n1 10y ago

Why not both? It's an arms race. Why not supply both sides?

What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they can sell them a cure? I can see that going down well in other industries. The automobile industry can engineer metal fatigue into their axle joints and sell you replacements. Microsoft can build bugs into Windows and sell you critical updates to fix the flaw. Chair makers can sell you chairs with legs attached by screws that are slightly too short so they can sell you more screws of the correct size to allow you to remain safely seated... I guess it would stimulate the economy.

x5n1 10y ago
They already do this is a more ethical way. Planned obsolesce and all of that. They know it's going to fail in 10 years when they sell it to you with a 5 year lease. Windows has bugs and they will fix some of them in the next release for sure, every time. You can sue for certain things and also bring the government down on them so I guess that's most likely what keeps them from doing more outrageously nefarious things.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  Yeah, I did factor that into consideration. However, planned obsolescence is fairly unethical also and many European nations are legislating to force companies into stating how long they believe their products should last for. And in Australia our consumer law deliberately uses the word "reasonable" to prevent companies from setting arbitrary time limits on product warranty specifically to limit unreasonable attempts at planned obsolescence. In terms of Windows having bugs - unless you are a dyed in the wool conspiracy theorist who hates everything Microsoft stands for then it's fairly self evident that Microsoft doesn't intentionally introduce bugs into their products. But a Tobacco company exists solely to hook their customers on their products. There sure is planned obsolescence, but the ones who they plan on becoming obsolete and thus discarded are their customers!
fche 10y ago
"let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people" Isn't that just a loonie interpretation? Making Butterfingers available for sale don't "intentionally harm" anyone. Surely you're not working on an "attractive nuisance" sort of legal theory here.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  List me all the positive health qualities of cigarettes and I'll see if I can give you a fuller answer. P.S. If you are smoking Butterfingers you are doing it wrong.
jerf 10y ago
"What, let a company supply a substance to intentionally harm people so they can sell them a cure?" Let's not forget our history here, since it wasn't exactly all that long ago. For decades, the consensus has been that the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Sugar was on the top of the food pyramid not because it was "bad" for you, but merely because it displaced other better things. I've been flame-roasted on HN in the last few years for being on the anti-sugar side, because consensus science and official government positions were strongly against the idea. It still isn't even the consensus today that sugar is the problem. (My read on the current situation is that the evidence strongly indicates that sugar is a major problem, though probably not the only one, and that the government is moving as quickly as it can to adjust its recommendations while never having to admit they were in any way wrong, which is a process that takes many, many years of little slight tweaks so that at every point they have cover to claim this is what they were saying all along. Such moral cowardice where they'd rather let millions of people continue hurting and dying rather than take even a hint of responsibility is why I don't take my scientific cues from the government and recommend against anyone else doing it either.) Trying to show that Nestle is "deliberately harming" people would require basically claiming that they should have known all nutrition science and government position was wrong and to some extent is wrong, since treating "Sugar is bad" as consensus is still premature! (The mercy is that nobody has ever said it's good for you, unlike transfats, so nobody really looks at you too weirdly if you drop it out of your diet.)
- Evgeny 10y ago
  the root cause of dietary issues is excessive fat in the diet, not sugar. Anything excessive in the diet will lead to gaining weight and eventually to obesity. I can not say which will lead to diabetes faster, consuming extra 1000 calories daily in fat or in sugar, but in terms of fat gain results will be similar. The government recommendations are most unfortunate, as they concentrate on macronutrients. So when *fat is bad" people will start eating sugary snacks, and when eventually it changes to "sugar is bad", fat will be added to everything instead of sugar. It would be more positive to suggest eating more whole, unprocessed foods, but I'm sure political issues will never allow that.

EazyC 10y ago

This whole thing reminds me of a relevant paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

x5n1 10y ago
Your link reminded me of this tradition, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch "In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished."