3 ms·

I spent half of this week researching industrial food processing methodologies and the cleanliness you can get to is obviously unhealthy. It's like humans look

I spent half of this week researching industrial food processing methodologies and the cleanliness you can get to is obviously unhealthy. It's like humans look at biology and see 10 major pathogens and over-optimize for that chunk of biology what-ifs they better understand due to macro effect. They then shut their eyes and bury their heads in the ... chemically clean and white fluffy pillow, eat a salad bathed in chlorine, sit inside in air conditioning, and wonder why they get ill. Let them eat dirt.

daveguy 9y ago
Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything was just so much more natural.
- andai 9y ago
  You said it, brother!
- contingencies 9y ago
  This is a flippant dismissal that is perhaps important to address. Science is not a binary thing: hackers of all audiences should know that you can respect science while admitting partial knowledge of the world and embracing holistic (or less fully informed, yet well evidenced) modes of action. In short, daveguy's argument simultaneously presents a false dichotomy and shifting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof based upon the implied assumption that formal, academic science is the only true source of evidence. In fact, there are many valid sources of information other than science, and many of its outputs are near philosophical anyway. For example, monocultures are weak would be scientifically founded, philosophical perspective for holistic thinking and against the implication. PS. In fact my comment was mostly aimed at the folly of human behavior (overoptimization for macro-visible pathogens and backslapping self-assessment of broad self-assumed understanding when mounting evidence shows just how little we know about even human biology), not claiming that industry is bad, mmkay?
  - daveguy 9y ago
    It was not a flippant dismissal. I was simply trying to make the argument that the basis of cleanliness in food processing has done pretty fucking well. You confuse monoculture with cleanliness. We don't want diverse culture soups in our processing. What we deliberately put in our body we want to be well identified culture or no culture at all. I was pointing out a serious flaw in your reasoning based on over a century of results based on scientific progress. It's easy to dismiss food safety as "industrial" when the very real alternative is pathogenic disease outbreak. There is nothing false about that dichotomy. Science is the sole source of evidence. If your woo philosophy produces better outcomes, then put up or shut up. Burden of proof has not been shifted. Burden of proof is with the challenger. Increased food safety is the status quo with a century+ of life expectancy improvements.
    - contingencies 9y ago
      Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.
      - daveguy 9y ago
        By science I mean the scientific method. Again, put up or shut up. I cited the positive health effect of the last century as evidence that the scientific method has worked out well. I am not ignoring that we have imperfect knowledge. That's why science isn't over. Ignoring our evidence based understanding and health improvement outcomes over a philosophical argument that our knowledge isn't complete (it never will be) is the definition of folly. Ignorance is not an argument for more ignorance.
- pizza 9y ago
  They're not making a naturalistic fallacy. They're saying that our understanding of environmental influence of internal makeup is incomplete. What they're saying would extend our theory, and potentially our lives, too. It could also create new inventions, pushing us to become even more artificial in a technological/medical sense.
emmab 9y ago
> sit inside in air conditioning What's wrong with air conditioning?
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  apart from obvious power drain, it makes the air unnaturally dry, and if not clean super regularly many pathogens can live in there and spread. Also not sure about stuff like ions and other possible things. To my lungs and nose AC air feels unnatural, it doesn't matter if in car, airplanes or buildings.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Poorly maintained systems can germinate and spread disease. https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-disease-facts/ https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-di...
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  Nothing is wrong with it, but temperature fluctuations (particularly heat) seem to promote gene expression that is ultimately healthy. Sauna use has been shown to lower blood pressure and heart rate in the short term, and there is some correlation with longevity in the longer term.
- j_s 9y ago
  There are definitely positives and negatives. This may have been mentioned in part due to this recent discussion: The far-reaching effects of air conditioning | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962

daveguy 9y ago

Yeah, germ theory of disease is silly. The doubling of life expectancies since the late 1800s just feels too industrial. We should go back to when everything was just so much more natural.

andai 9y ago
You said it, brother!
contingencies 9y ago
This is a flippant dismissal that is perhaps important to address. Science is not a binary thing: hackers of all audiences should know that you can respect science while admitting partial knowledge of the world and embracing holistic (or less fully informed, yet well evidenced) modes of action. In short, daveguy's argument simultaneously presents a false dichotomy and shifting the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof based upon the implied assumption that formal, academic science is the only true source of evidence. In fact, there are many valid sources of information other than science, and many of its outputs are near philosophical anyway. For example, monocultures are weak would be scientifically founded, philosophical perspective for holistic thinking and against the implication. PS. In fact my comment was mostly aimed at the folly of human behavior (overoptimization for macro-visible pathogens and backslapping self-assessment of broad self-assumed understanding when mounting evidence shows just how little we know about even human biology), not claiming that industry is bad, mmkay?
- daveguy 9y ago
  It was not a flippant dismissal. I was simply trying to make the argument that the basis of cleanliness in food processing has done pretty fucking well. You confuse monoculture with cleanliness. We don't want diverse culture soups in our processing. What we deliberately put in our body we want to be well identified culture or no culture at all. I was pointing out a serious flaw in your reasoning based on over a century of results based on scientific progress. It's easy to dismiss food safety as "industrial" when the very real alternative is pathogenic disease outbreak. There is nothing false about that dichotomy. Science is the sole source of evidence. If your woo philosophy produces better outcomes, then put up or shut up. Burden of proof has not been shifted. Burden of proof is with the challenger. Increased food safety is the status quo with a century+ of life expectancy improvements.
  - contingencies 9y ago
    Science is the sole source of evidence Evidence is a loaded word in that it has a specific scientific meaning. Information is less so. As sources of information, are gut instincts to be dismissed? Do you wait for a scientific analysis to be peer-published before running away from danger? Are traditions to be dismissed? Many forms of traditional lore have been validated through subsequent scientific study: are they valueless prior? Law is largely opine and tradition with appeals to random existential and other fallacies, not science, yet does generally fine in guiding human behavior in many societies. Similarly, most people don't know the law, they 'get a sense of it'. Should they cease to live because they don't have time for a law degree? You are table-thumping on formal and reductive reasoning yet conveniently ignoring the broader biological, physical and indeed scientific reality that we have an imperfect understanding of the world. This does not dismiss in any way the achievements of science, and my original comment was made to encourage people to laugh at our folly in making great rational advances while missing the forest for the trees. Your comments are, sadly, while probably well meaning, providing mostly nought but a great example.
    - daveguy 9y ago
      By science I mean the scientific method. Again, put up or shut up. I cited the positive health effect of the last century as evidence that the scientific method has worked out well. I am not ignoring that we have imperfect knowledge. That's why science isn't over. Ignoring our evidence based understanding and health improvement outcomes over a philosophical argument that our knowledge isn't complete (it never will be) is the definition of folly. Ignorance is not an argument for more ignorance.
pizza 9y ago
They're not making a naturalistic fallacy. They're saying that our understanding of environmental influence of internal makeup is incomplete. What they're saying would extend our theory, and potentially our lives, too. It could also create new inventions, pushing us to become even more artificial in a technological/medical sense.

emmab 9y ago

> sit inside in air conditioning What's wrong with air conditioning?

saiya-jin 9y ago
apart from obvious power drain, it makes the air unnaturally dry, and if not clean super regularly many pathogens can live in there and spread. Also not sure about stuff like ions and other possible things. To my lungs and nose AC air feels unnatural, it doesn't matter if in car, airplanes or buildings.
pjc50 9y ago
Poorly maintained systems can germinate and spread disease. https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-disease-facts/ https://www.airconditioningservices.com/info/legionnaires-di...
CuriouslyC 9y ago
Nothing is wrong with it, but temperature fluctuations (particularly heat) seem to promote gene expression that is ultimately healthy. Sauna use has been shown to lower blood pressure and heart rate in the short term, and there is some correlation with longevity in the longer term.
j_s 9y ago
There are definitely positives and negatives. This may have been mentioned in part due to this recent discussion: The far-reaching effects of air conditioning | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14485962