4 ms·

You'd be literally adding chemicals to change people's brain chemistry to the water. The conspiracy theorists would be pretty justified I'd say. I think this is

You'd be literally adding chemicals to change people's brain chemistry to the water. The conspiracy theorists would be pretty justified I'd say. I think this is the sort of thing you should really decide for yourself individually.

johnward 10y ago
What about all those cancer causing chemicals we allow companies to dump into the water or fluoride? I guess the conspiracy theorists are already onto fluoride.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  > I guess the conspiracy theorists are already onto fluoride. They are. I hope however that we can agree that they are in fact conspiracy theorists.
  - toolz 10y ago
    Why would you hope that? What do you gain by polarizing an entire group of people based on something as inconsequential as fluoride? Are you unable to brush your own teeth and would suffer great harm if they stopped profiting from companies who pay to dump their fluoride waste into our water supply? Crazy ideas only get crazier when you don't calmly address them with education and instead find some weird necessity to ostracize those with differing viewpoints.
    - lawless123 10y ago
      also vaccines..
      - toolz 10y ago
        Hmm, vaccines are in a slightly different camp as they are most effective when everyone uses them. I will say that the anti-anti-vaccine crowd does much more harm than good by spreading pro-vaccine propaganda. Believe it or not, not every vaccine created has been effective and harmless and by generalizing your hate speeches (on both sides) instead of educating you only cause people to make emotional decisions rather than rational decisions.
panic 10y ago
We already remove chemicals from the water that change people's brain chemistry (e.g., lead). Adding something entirely helpful doesn't seem that different from removing something entirely harmful.
- ultramancool 10y ago
  It does seem entirely different. In one case we're removing a toxin, something that doesn't need to be in water at all. In the other case we're adding something that isn't normally in the water in order to benefit a few people. We do this with fluoride in many places already, but I think this takes it to a far different level by affecting your brain chemistry. You're giving many people who really don't need it a mood stabilizer, if it's enough to affect those who are at risk of suicide, it's surely still having an influence in the minds of those who don't need it. Why should the entire population have this alteration performed when only a few will benefit. Seems better to go and seek out those few. Personally I'd take the increased suicide risk. Point is, people will disagree about this, the optimal solution is to just let people who want it add it or take it as a supplement in their own homes.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Lithium might be an essential micronutrient, so it may simply be treating a common problem. Much like how milk is fortified with Vitamin D. PS: There is little (ed: zero) evidence that Lithium is and the human body puts effort into removing it. But, it's also common in the environment and may have positive impacts at low levels so it's more debatable than you might think.
    - ultramancool 10y ago
      Perhaps, but if it's having a mental effect of notable size it still causes me concern. If you're happy with your current behaviors I don't see why you'd want it. Wouldn't it be better for individuals to just opt to take it themselves, encourage usage of those already existing environmental sources, etc?

johnward 10y ago

What about all those cancer causing chemicals we allow companies to dump into the water or fluoride? I guess the conspiracy theorists are already onto fluoride.

reitanqild 10y ago
> I guess the conspiracy theorists are already onto fluoride. They are. I hope however that we can agree that they are in fact conspiracy theorists.
- toolz 10y ago
  Why would you hope that? What do you gain by polarizing an entire group of people based on something as inconsequential as fluoride? Are you unable to brush your own teeth and would suffer great harm if they stopped profiting from companies who pay to dump their fluoride waste into our water supply? Crazy ideas only get crazier when you don't calmly address them with education and instead find some weird necessity to ostracize those with differing viewpoints.
  - lawless123 10y ago
    also vaccines..
    - toolz 10y ago
      Hmm, vaccines are in a slightly different camp as they are most effective when everyone uses them. I will say that the anti-anti-vaccine crowd does much more harm than good by spreading pro-vaccine propaganda. Believe it or not, not every vaccine created has been effective and harmless and by generalizing your hate speeches (on both sides) instead of educating you only cause people to make emotional decisions rather than rational decisions.

panic 10y ago

We already remove chemicals from the water that change people's brain chemistry (e.g., lead). Adding something entirely helpful doesn't seem that different from removing something entirely harmful.

ultramancool 10y ago
It does seem entirely different. In one case we're removing a toxin, something that doesn't need to be in water at all. In the other case we're adding something that isn't normally in the water in order to benefit a few people. We do this with fluoride in many places already, but I think this takes it to a far different level by affecting your brain chemistry. You're giving many people who really don't need it a mood stabilizer, if it's enough to affect those who are at risk of suicide, it's surely still having an influence in the minds of those who don't need it. Why should the entire population have this alteration performed when only a few will benefit. Seems better to go and seek out those few. Personally I'd take the increased suicide risk. Point is, people will disagree about this, the optimal solution is to just let people who want it add it or take it as a supplement in their own homes.
- Retric 10y ago
  Lithium might be an essential micronutrient, so it may simply be treating a common problem. Much like how milk is fortified with Vitamin D. PS: There is little (ed: zero) evidence that Lithium is and the human body puts effort into removing it. But, it's also common in the environment and may have positive impacts at low levels so it's more debatable than you might think.
  - ultramancool 10y ago
    Perhaps, but if it's having a mental effect of notable size it still causes me concern. If you're happy with your current behaviors I don't see why you'd want it. Wouldn't it be better for individuals to just opt to take it themselves, encourage usage of those already existing environmental sources, etc?