3 ms·
>That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choos
by billmalarky 7y ago
>That said, that’s absolutely no argument for regulation. People should be free to entirely destroy themselves seeking short-term dopamine hits—if they so choose. It is staunchly immoral to impede them.
This ignores the entire premise of my comment, which is that people's choices in this context are not made in a vacuum.
If the market demands unhealthy food, then that is what the food industry will supply, and thus be the option made generally available to all.
The food industry has exploited human evolutionary traits (cravings for salt/sugar/fat and other nutrients that are high-value in moderation but detrimental in excess) to push the market in a direction that boosts consumption (and thus revenue growth) at a cost to our health.
- sneak 7y agoThe cost to people’s health is not caused by “the food industry”. It is caused, moment by moment, by those same people choosing to harm themselves. Grocery stores still sell broccoli and chicken. People choose to buy oreos and croissants and other refined carbs. That’s not “the food industry”. It’s variously described, but “consumer choice” and “market demands” don’t really capture it. It boils down to other adult humans, just like you and I, choosing what they want to spend their money on, choosing what foods they want to eat. It is nobody’s place but the eater to tell them what they should or should not be doing. Full stop.