4 ms·

https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com

by snthd 7y ago

bonoboTP 7y ago
A kind of random thought: why could that be that most things that prevent disease are of the sort that requires discipline and effort (exercise, bland-tasting food), while things that we naturally like (lots of fat, sugar, salt, alcohol, cigarettes and sitting on the couch) cause health problems? I mean, I'm not interested in some deep metaphysical moral lesson of how one must work for things that are desirable. I mean how does such a situation come about evolutionarily? It seems like we're attracted to things that harm us and that needs serious explanation. One answer could be that we're just far removed from the environment that our desires were calbirated for, but it seems strange that it's just so consistent. I don't remember reading about anything preventing cancer that people just naturally like to do/eat. Maybe it's also publication bias in the news and the "postman biting the dog" being more newsworthy than the "dog biting the postman" (Hungarian saying, not sure if it exists in English).
- CDSlice 7y ago
  We have a similar saying but we shorten it to "man bites dog".
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  Yes! Man bites dog. :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)
- schwartzworld 7y ago
  Too much of anything is unhealthy. Too much exercise can hurt or kill you, but most people don't exercise that much because it stops feeling good. It's not that healthy behaviors can't be pleasurable, but they are rarely pleasurable in the way that kills you.
  - tidenly 7y ago
    It's also worth noting that, while things like overexercising will quickly set off alarm bells to us in various ways that stop it from feeling good, items that were scarce or not about in abundance long ago like sugar, fats and tabbaco never got the evolutionary "that's enough now" blocker put in on them as overconsumption of those wasn't really a thing.
- diego 7y ago
  Cancer doesn't play a significant role in evolution because most people get cancer long after reproducing. In a way, cancer means that you succeeded at living long enough.
- snthd 7y ago
  Maybe evolution's doing just fine and we're just overestimating it's speed relative to the speed of environmental change. Also evolution can make some very crude selections - https://www.quora.com/Why-do-women-have-periods-What-is-the-evolutionary-benefit-or-purpose-of-having-periods-Why-can%E2%80%99t-women-just-get-pregnant-without-the-menstrual-cycle/answers/4625918 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-women-have-periods-What-is-the-...
- ars 7y ago
  That's just because all things we like that are also good for us, we already do them. And the things we don't like and are also bad, no one does them. So neither category gets any notice. It's only in the other situations that you need to take extra notice.

https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com

by snthd 7y ago

https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com

A kind of random thought: why could that be that most things that prevent disease are of the sort that requires discipline and effort (exercise, bland-tasting food), while things that we naturally like (lots of fat, sugar, salt, alcohol, cigarettes and sitting on the couch) cause health problems? I mean, I'm not interested in some deep metaphysical moral lesson of how one must work for things that are desirable. I mean how does such a situation come about evolutionarily? It seems like we're attracted to things that harm us and that needs serious explanation. One answer could be that we're just far removed from the environment that our desires were calbirated for, but it seems strange that it's just so consistent. I don't remember reading about anything preventing cancer that people just naturally like to do/eat. Maybe it's also publication bias in the news and the "postman biting the dog" being more newsworthy than the "dog biting the postman" (Hungarian saying, not sure if it exists in English).

CDSlice 7y ago
We have a similar saying but we shorten it to "man bites dog".
nothrabannosir 7y ago
Yes! Man bites dog. :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)
schwartzworld 7y ago
Too much of anything is unhealthy. Too much exercise can hurt or kill you, but most people don't exercise that much because it stops feeling good. It's not that healthy behaviors can't be pleasurable, but they are rarely pleasurable in the way that kills you.
- tidenly 7y ago
  It's also worth noting that, while things like overexercising will quickly set off alarm bells to us in various ways that stop it from feeling good, items that were scarce or not about in abundance long ago like sugar, fats and tabbaco never got the evolutionary "that's enough now" blocker put in on them as overconsumption of those wasn't really a thing.
diego 7y ago
Cancer doesn't play a significant role in evolution because most people get cancer long after reproducing. In a way, cancer means that you succeeded at living long enough.
snthd 7y ago
Maybe evolution's doing just fine and we're just overestimating it's speed relative to the speed of environmental change. Also evolution can make some very crude selections - https://www.quora.com/Why-do-women-have-periods-What-is-the-evolutionary-benefit-or-purpose-of-having-periods-Why-can%E2%80%99t-women-just-get-pregnant-without-the-menstrual-cycle/answers/4625918 https://www.quora.com/Why-do-women-have-periods-What-is-the-...
ars 7y ago
That's just because all things we like that are also good for us, we already do them. And the things we don't like and are also bad, no one does them. So neither category gets any notice. It's only in the other situations that you need to take extra notice.