3 ms·

"The Naturalistic Fallacy": Simply because something is natural does not make it good. Lava is natural, and food coloring is synthetic. Of which would you pref

by s_q_b 10y ago

"The Naturalistic Fallacy": Simply because something is natural does not make it good. Lava is natural, and food coloring is synthetic. Of which would you prefer to eat a pound? Version 1.2

danieltillett 10y ago
It depends on the amount - dose maketh the poison.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Patched
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Lol. Actually if it is a choice between a lb of uranium and a lb of some food colourings you might be better off going for the uranium. If it is in metallic form it should pass straight through your gut while the food colouring will get absorbed. The human LD50 of soluble uranium salts is around 5g [1], but metallic uranium is not very soluble. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188051 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188051
rosser 10y ago
When Ralph Nader called plutonium "the most toxic substance known to man", physicist Bernard Cohen challenged him thusly: "I'll eat as much pure plutonium as you do caffeine, and we'll see who dies first." (Paraphrased.) Nader declined. Also, a man named Albert Stevens was injected with 131kBq of Pu. He died 20 years later of heart disease, having accumulated a lifetime dose of some 64 Sv. It's not just the dose that makes the poison, it's the method of administration.
- XorNot 10y ago
  Sadly it took me a while to realize how you could possibly make this challenge, but of course - it's all about bioavailability. Plutonium isn't actually all that dangerous radioactively (gamma emitters aren't very harmful internally).
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Interesting question: could you survive swallowing a 1mL plutonium ball? Because the LD50 of a 200lb/91kg human is about that amount of caffeine (20g).
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Why we don't have any human data on the LD50 of plutonium, it is not likely to be any more toxic than uranium which has a LD50 of around 5g for the soluble salts. A 20g plutonium ball should be harmless if swallowed. 20g of caffeine on the other hand won't be pleasant.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
verroq 10y ago
Nice strawman.
eivarv 10y ago
Do you mean "Appeal to nature"? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Nope. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
  - eivarv 10y ago
    I'm sorry, but from what I read in the Wikipedia article you linked to, "Simply because something is natural does not make it good" doesn't really match Moore's definition. I've always seen the fallacy in question used as it is in the article, e.g. that one can't claim that something is good (in the ethical sense) because it is pleasurable. Is there something I'm missing?
    - s_q_b 10y ago
      Nope, you're right. I've conflated the two.

by s_q_b 10y ago

"The Naturalistic Fallacy": Simply because something is natural does not make it good. Lava is natural, and food coloring is synthetic. Of which would you prefer to eat a pound? Version 1.2

danieltillett 10y ago

It depends on the amount - dose maketh the poison.

s_q_b 10y ago
Patched
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Lol. Actually if it is a choice between a lb of uranium and a lb of some food colourings you might be better off going for the uranium. If it is in metallic form it should pass straight through your gut while the food colouring will get absorbed. The human LD50 of soluble uranium salts is around 5g [1], but metallic uranium is not very soluble. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188051 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188051

rosser 10y ago

When Ralph Nader called plutonium "the most toxic substance known to man", physicist Bernard Cohen challenged him thusly: "I'll eat as much pure plutonium as you do caffeine, and we'll see who dies first." (Paraphrased.) Nader declined. Also, a man named Albert Stevens was injected with 131kBq of Pu. He died 20 years later of heart disease, having accumulated a lifetime dose of some 64 Sv. It's not just the dose that makes the poison, it's the method of administration.

XorNot 10y ago
Sadly it took me a while to realize how you could possibly make this challenge, but of course - it's all about bioavailability. Plutonium isn't actually all that dangerous radioactively (gamma emitters aren't very harmful internally).
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Interesting question: could you survive swallowing a 1mL plutonium ball? Because the LD50 of a 200lb/91kg human is about that amount of caffeine (20g).
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Why we don't have any human data on the LD50 of plutonium, it is not likely to be any more toxic than uranium which has a LD50 of around 5g for the soluble salts. A 20g plutonium ball should be harmless if swallowed. 20g of caffeine on the other hand won't be pleasant.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

verroq 10y ago

Nice strawman.

eivarv 10y ago

Do you mean "Appeal to nature"? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

s_q_b 10y ago
Nope. [0] [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
- eivarv 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but from what I read in the Wikipedia article you linked to, "Simply because something is natural does not make it good" doesn't really match Moore's definition. I've always seen the fallacy in question used as it is in the article, e.g. that one can't claim that something is good (in the ethical sense) because it is pleasurable. Is there something I'm missing?
  - s_q_b 10y ago
    Nope, you're right. I've conflated the two.