6 ms·

Creating problems instead of solutions. The answer is to STOP putting sugar into everything so that people learn what sweet tastes like. Fast so that you know w

Creating problems instead of solutions. The answer is to STOP putting sugar into everything so that people learn what sweet tastes like. Fast so that you know what hunger feels like, and so when you eat enough calories stop eating! instead of continuing to stuff yourself with low-calorie garbage.

vikiomega9 6y ago
I always wonder about this. Why do we choose to solve a problem with another. Something about individual freedom or something?
- 754dvhy 6y ago
  Dependency and addiction nurture recurring revenue. Fasting doesn't.
- anthropodie 6y ago
  Stop putting carbon dioxide in our environment instead we are developing technologies to capture it. Although, I think in this case it is required because it's high time.
orangecat 6y ago
This is identical reasoning to social conservatives who would say that the solution to STDs and unplanned pregnancies is to stop having non-procreative sex, rather than wasting effort on vaccines and contraceptives that will never be 100% effective.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  Yeah, I think it's time we recognize that many (most?) humans simply lack the willpower to resist overconsumption, particularly when it comes to sweet/fried foods. I would struggle to find a single country where rising wealth/living standards didn't correlate with a rise in obesity. "Stop stuffing your face" will, causally, prevent obesity. "Stop having sex" and "don't take drugs" will, causally, prevent unplanned pregnancies and drug addictions, too. But thousands of years of human behaviour show that these are not effective policies because humans will never follow them. Thinking otherwise is simply delusional. The sugar debate is really fascinating, too, because it's a clash of two diametrically opposed philosophies. On the one hand, it's something demonstrably "bad" that humans (on average) demonstrably cannot control themselves from consuming. On the other, it's something that a lot of people find really enjoyable. Who are we to dictate the life priorities of our neighbours? Just because I think living like a monk is worth an extra decade of life doesn't mean someone else does. I'm gradually settling on the view that these substances should be sufficiently taxed to pay for the associated healthcare costs, but no more. Personally, I feel that those taxes should also subsidise healthier foods (at least for low-income individuals families), but that may be a harder sell.
  - colmvp 6y ago
    > Who are we to dictate the life priorities of our neighbours? When my tax dollars go towards a health care system that pays for some medication, medical consultations, and surgeries, I think it's fair to say the choice of what one eats affects everyone. It's one thing to get an unforeseeable disease, it's another to live a particular lifecycle that we know is conducive to long term health problems. As you touched upon in your closing paragraph, I would prefer taxing these items or subsidizing healthier options.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      That's probably the single best argument against universal health care.
      - nmfisher 6y ago
        Elaborate? I'm not sure what your point is.
        aidenn0 6y ago
        If we think it odious to control all personal choices that result in long term health effects, then we either have to agree as a society to pay for other people's bad choices or not have universal health care.
        nmfisher 6y ago
        I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. There's nothing preventing a universal healthcare system, partially funded by higher taxes on "unhealthier" behaviours that cause a disproportionate burden on the system. Obviously there will always be some proportion of people who draw from the system without ever paying anything in taxes (i.e. long-term unemployed). That's the case with any form of welfare, though. If you're philosophically opposed to non-net-taxpayers deriving any form of government benefit, then I'm assuming you're a priori opposed to universal healthcare.
        6y ago
- jariel 6y ago
  The subjugation of our our carnal impulses to our 'higher will' is the issue, and it's a foundational measure of maturity and our ability to act responsibly, and to get along with one another towards forming intelligent social systems. As our 'cup runneth over' with every material thing that suits our fancy (sugar, information, 'cheap stuff', addictive substances (like oxycontin, fentanyl), even porn) we have no choice but to try to have more self control. Randy Marsh I think said it best [1] "We must only use the internet only for what is necessary, no browsing while watching TV ... and for porn twice a day, max". The 'Big 5' trait closely associated with this is 'Conscientiousness' and it's the trait mostly clearly correlated with positive life outcomes of every kind: better performance in the workplace, lower rates of incarceration, more wealth, happiness etc. etc.. But if we can find a non-toxic substance to 'help out' wit this then that's good too - though I always wonder about the viability of eating non-natural chemicals. It seems both Sucralose, Aspartame are not without controversy. So kudos on these researchers, but it may be a long time before we can fathom how safe it is. [1] http://www.comedycentral.com.au/south-park/videos/the-best-of-randy-marsh-over-logging#internet-reset http://www.comedycentral.com.au/south-park/videos/the-best-o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness
- joegibbs 6y ago
  I think that the difference here is that you'd have to convince hundreds of millions or billions of people to stop having premarital sex, whereas with sugary food the majority is coming from a much smaller group of processed food manufacturers which are relatively easy to target.
- poiuyt098 6y ago
  I was thinking it's more like pollution by oil companies. Profit from subsidized sugar, externalize the costs. We also put warning labels on cigarettes and make them inaccessible to minors. Classify sugary "bread" as dessert cake instead. Additionally it's cultural: not all western countries have such rampant obesity. Smoking is no longer cool, and so on.
dragonelite 6y ago
This transition to keto to become more metabolic flexible then try fasting and the planet by consuming one day not food in a week.

vikiomega9 6y ago

I always wonder about this. Why do we choose to solve a problem with another. Something about individual freedom or something?

754dvhy 6y ago
Dependency and addiction nurture recurring revenue. Fasting doesn't.
anthropodie 6y ago
Stop putting carbon dioxide in our environment instead we are developing technologies to capture it. Although, I think in this case it is required because it's high time.

orangecat 6y ago

This is identical reasoning to social conservatives who would say that the solution to STDs and unplanned pregnancies is to stop having non-procreative sex, rather than wasting effort on vaccines and contraceptives that will never be 100% effective.

nmfisher 6y ago
Yeah, I think it's time we recognize that many (most?) humans simply lack the willpower to resist overconsumption, particularly when it comes to sweet/fried foods. I would struggle to find a single country where rising wealth/living standards didn't correlate with a rise in obesity. "Stop stuffing your face" will, causally, prevent obesity. "Stop having sex" and "don't take drugs" will, causally, prevent unplanned pregnancies and drug addictions, too. But thousands of years of human behaviour show that these are not effective policies because humans will never follow them. Thinking otherwise is simply delusional. The sugar debate is really fascinating, too, because it's a clash of two diametrically opposed philosophies. On the one hand, it's something demonstrably "bad" that humans (on average) demonstrably cannot control themselves from consuming. On the other, it's something that a lot of people find really enjoyable. Who are we to dictate the life priorities of our neighbours? Just because I think living like a monk is worth an extra decade of life doesn't mean someone else does. I'm gradually settling on the view that these substances should be sufficiently taxed to pay for the associated healthcare costs, but no more. Personally, I feel that those taxes should also subsidise healthier foods (at least for low-income individuals families), but that may be a harder sell.
- colmvp 6y ago
  > Who are we to dictate the life priorities of our neighbours? When my tax dollars go towards a health care system that pays for some medication, medical consultations, and surgeries, I think it's fair to say the choice of what one eats affects everyone. It's one thing to get an unforeseeable disease, it's another to live a particular lifecycle that we know is conducive to long term health problems. As you touched upon in your closing paragraph, I would prefer taxing these items or subsidizing healthier options.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    That's probably the single best argument against universal health care.
    - nmfisher 6y ago
      Elaborate? I'm not sure what your point is.
      - aidenn0 6y ago
        If we think it odious to control all personal choices that result in long term health effects, then we either have to agree as a society to pay for other people's bad choices or not have universal health care.
        nmfisher 6y ago
        I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. There's nothing preventing a universal healthcare system, partially funded by higher taxes on "unhealthier" behaviours that cause a disproportionate burden on the system. Obviously there will always be some proportion of people who draw from the system without ever paying anything in taxes (i.e. long-term unemployed). That's the case with any form of welfare, though. If you're philosophically opposed to non-net-taxpayers deriving any form of government benefit, then I'm assuming you're a priori opposed to universal healthcare.
        6y ago
jariel 6y ago
The subjugation of our our carnal impulses to our 'higher will' is the issue, and it's a foundational measure of maturity and our ability to act responsibly, and to get along with one another towards forming intelligent social systems. As our 'cup runneth over' with every material thing that suits our fancy (sugar, information, 'cheap stuff', addictive substances (like oxycontin, fentanyl), even porn) we have no choice but to try to have more self control. Randy Marsh I think said it best [1] "We must only use the internet only for what is necessary, no browsing while watching TV ... and for porn twice a day, max". The 'Big 5' trait closely associated with this is 'Conscientiousness' and it's the trait mostly clearly correlated with positive life outcomes of every kind: better performance in the workplace, lower rates of incarceration, more wealth, happiness etc. etc.. But if we can find a non-toxic substance to 'help out' wit this then that's good too - though I always wonder about the viability of eating non-natural chemicals. It seems both Sucralose, Aspartame are not without controversy. So kudos on these researchers, but it may be a long time before we can fathom how safe it is. [1] http://www.comedycentral.com.au/south-park/videos/the-best-of-randy-marsh-over-logging#internet-reset http://www.comedycentral.com.au/south-park/videos/the-best-o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness
joegibbs 6y ago
I think that the difference here is that you'd have to convince hundreds of millions or billions of people to stop having premarital sex, whereas with sugary food the majority is coming from a much smaller group of processed food manufacturers which are relatively easy to target.
poiuyt098 6y ago
I was thinking it's more like pollution by oil companies. Profit from subsidized sugar, externalize the costs. We also put warning labels on cigarettes and make them inaccessible to minors. Classify sugary "bread" as dessert cake instead. Additionally it's cultural: not all western countries have such rampant obesity. Smoking is no longer cool, and so on.

dragonelite 6y ago

This transition to keto to become more metabolic flexible then try fasting and the planet by consuming one day not food in a week.