3 ms·

I think it comes down to trust. We're part of nature, created by it and in it. The naturally created chemicals we deal with have been around for longer than we

by ewzimm 10y ago

I think it comes down to trust. We're part of nature, created by it and in it. The naturally created chemicals we deal with have been around for longer than we have. We have generations of people who have tested them for both short-term and long-term effects. When things previously thought safe start to harm us, it's usually because of changes in processing, like adding sugar to everything. Human-created chemicals are much more of a risk. They might only have existed for a few years, and the amount of testing done is nothing compared to the history of evolution on Earth. We are creating them with an imperfect understanding of chemistry and biology. Many people simply prefer an imperfect but reliable solution over a potentially much better but also riskier option. Not everyone is going to be able to personally vet the safety of new chemicals, so they have to trust the manufacturers who often prioritize profits over safety, confident that they will be able to pay for damages. Consumers need a better reason to trust the people pushing artificial chemicals in food because right now it's hard for them to see their interests as aligned with the companies that make them.

fpgaminer 10y ago
I can certainly see that, especially the corrupt companies side of things. But the argument doesn't make sense for anyone over 30 years old. Pre-industrial humans had a lifespan of about 30-50 years (30 years in-city, 50 years outside of city for most all of human history). Those are the humans who vetted all these natural chemicals; people who died at 30. If you're over 30, you're in unknown territory when it comes to natural chemicals. Human derived chemicals and engineering have given us over 40 extra years of life. That's more than double our previous lifespans. So on the one hand you can trust nature and live for 30 years (which would mean most everyone on HN is either now dead or getting ready to die), or you can trust humans and live for 70 years. That, to me, is clear evidence that despite the rare incidences of human negligence and corruption our batting average far exceeds evolution's.
- dualogy 10y ago
  > Human derived chemicals and engineering have given us over 40 extra years of life. Yeah well to some degree of participation.. chiefly we have reduced maternal death rate & early childhood mortality; (re)discovered/refined/improved-upon/better-understood what compounds at what dosage made traditional/herbal/ancient antiseptic/antibiotic/antifungal tinctures actually work and how to turn them into more reliable pharmaceuticals, developed ever better understanding of nourishment and hygiene and surgery, and figured out intravenous saline/nutrient infusions. Those are the major contributors to "moderns' longer lives", and any pre-moderns who managed to circumvent all the above health hazards lived pretty much almost as long as us today (and was greatly revered admired respected and consulted for it by all). "Human derived chemicals and engineering" clearly contributed quite a bit here, no argument. But it's not like some chemists churned out a formula that added 40 additional years to an otherwise-strictly-30-year-lifespan just-like-that.
  - fpgaminer 10y ago
    Citation needed. All credible research I've seen indicates that age specific mortality has decreased over the ages (from city living onward) across the board, not just infant mortality.
- secstate 10y ago
  For starters, the "people lived shorter lives long ago" argument is based on high percentages of infant mortality. While quality of life wasn't always great, the idea that folks only lived to 30 or 40 is pretty easily demonstrated to be false.
  - fpgaminer 10y ago
    Citation needed. I found the following after a quick search: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specifi... That seems to indicate that age specific mortality rates _have_ decreased across the board, not just infant mortality. And it also backs up that our in-city lifespans used to be ~30-35 after juveniles. To be clear, that's exactly the figure I'm interested in, not maximum lifespan. If, on average, most adults die around 30-35 2000 years ago and today most adults die around 70, then that, to me, is a clear indication that human driven engineering/science is succeeding on average compared to evolution and that our technologies (in particular, our synthetic chemicals) are more trustworthy than nature's. > While quality of life wasn't always great We've eliminated or nearly eliminated a great number of diseases in the modern age. These are diseases which don't reduce quality of life; they kill. You don't go from a bacterial infection to "Well, I'm alive, but my quality of life is worse". You just die. You don't get tetanus and have a sore jaw for the rest of your life; you die. You don't get diabetes and just live the rest of your life with high/low blood sugar. You pass out and die one day. These are all diseases which have existed through all of human history which by necessity of their mortality rates and incidences of occurrence must have increased the age specific mortality rates for all ages. We've cured these, and so age specific mortality rates must have decreased. If today we replaced all sugars with artificial sweeteners the same thing would happen; lower age specific mortality rates.
- Shorel 10y ago
  I don't agree with your 30 years lifespan argument. The average of 30 years was always done taking into account a high degree of child mortality. Meaning that you either died before you got to 5 years old, or you easily got* to the ripe age of 55. Average 30, but very different lifespans. Also, many biological features are stable until 55, for example male strength with an adequate training. It is after 55 that everything starts to fail. What's unknown territory is living more than 70. * disregarding external factors like wars.

by ewzimm 10y ago

fpgaminer 10y ago

I can certainly see that, especially the corrupt companies side of things. But the argument doesn't make sense for anyone over 30 years old. Pre-industrial humans had a lifespan of about 30-50 years (30 years in-city, 50 years outside of city for most all of human history). Those are the humans who vetted all these natural chemicals; people who died at 30. If you're over 30, you're in unknown territory when it comes to natural chemicals. Human derived chemicals and engineering have given us over 40 extra years of life. That's more than double our previous lifespans. So on the one hand you can trust nature and live for 30 years (which would mean most everyone on HN is either now dead or getting ready to die), or you can trust humans and live for 70 years. That, to me, is clear evidence that despite the rare incidences of human negligence and corruption our batting average far exceeds evolution's.

dualogy 10y ago
> Human derived chemicals and engineering have given us over 40 extra years of life. Yeah well to some degree of participation.. chiefly we have reduced maternal death rate & early childhood mortality; (re)discovered/refined/improved-upon/better-understood what compounds at what dosage made traditional/herbal/ancient antiseptic/antibiotic/antifungal tinctures actually work and how to turn them into more reliable pharmaceuticals, developed ever better understanding of nourishment and hygiene and surgery, and figured out intravenous saline/nutrient infusions. Those are the major contributors to "moderns' longer lives", and any pre-moderns who managed to circumvent all the above health hazards lived pretty much almost as long as us today (and was greatly revered admired respected and consulted for it by all). "Human derived chemicals and engineering" clearly contributed quite a bit here, no argument. But it's not like some chemists churned out a formula that added 40 additional years to an otherwise-strictly-30-year-lifespan just-like-that.
- fpgaminer 10y ago
  Citation needed. All credible research I've seen indicates that age specific mortality has decreased over the ages (from city living onward) across the board, not just infant mortality.
secstate 10y ago
For starters, the "people lived shorter lives long ago" argument is based on high percentages of infant mortality. While quality of life wasn't always great, the idea that folks only lived to 30 or 40 is pretty easily demonstrated to be false.
- fpgaminer 10y ago
  Citation needed. I found the following after a quick search: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/life_history/age-specifi... That seems to indicate that age specific mortality rates _have_ decreased across the board, not just infant mortality. And it also backs up that our in-city lifespans used to be ~30-35 after juveniles. To be clear, that's exactly the figure I'm interested in, not maximum lifespan. If, on average, most adults die around 30-35 2000 years ago and today most adults die around 70, then that, to me, is a clear indication that human driven engineering/science is succeeding on average compared to evolution and that our technologies (in particular, our synthetic chemicals) are more trustworthy than nature's. > While quality of life wasn't always great We've eliminated or nearly eliminated a great number of diseases in the modern age. These are diseases which don't reduce quality of life; they kill. You don't go from a bacterial infection to "Well, I'm alive, but my quality of life is worse". You just die. You don't get tetanus and have a sore jaw for the rest of your life; you die. You don't get diabetes and just live the rest of your life with high/low blood sugar. You pass out and die one day. These are all diseases which have existed through all of human history which by necessity of their mortality rates and incidences of occurrence must have increased the age specific mortality rates for all ages. We've cured these, and so age specific mortality rates must have decreased. If today we replaced all sugars with artificial sweeteners the same thing would happen; lower age specific mortality rates.
Shorel 10y ago
I don't agree with your 30 years lifespan argument. The average of 30 years was always done taking into account a high degree of child mortality. Meaning that you either died before you got to 5 years old, or you easily got* to the ripe age of 55. Average 30, but very different lifespans. Also, many biological features are stable until 55, for example male strength with an adequate training. It is after 55 that everything starts to fail. What's unknown territory is living more than 70. * disregarding external factors like wars.