4 ms·

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, rat

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.
        JimTheMan 6y ago
        You only have to look at places with universal health care to see if they have issues with "Moral Hazard". Do people in the UK, Aus, Canada, France etc engage in more unhealthy activities because they have access to good healthcare? And I would say the observed answer is no, the population doesn't engage in more risky behaviour. And you pay for healthcare anyway to cover emergency rooms that have to serve everyone so hospitals don't all go bankrupt. And then that cost gets put back on the insured... who have their employer pick a plan for them... who then have insurance middle men nickle and dime doctors to give imperfect, but cheap treatments. Or doctors just try to do lots of tests/imaging because they know the insurance will cover it. Not having universal healthcare is truly the worst of all worlds. There's no benefit to it unless you are an investor, in the insurance industry or are rich enough to not care about the public at large.
- jariel 6y ago
  " I would struggle to find a single country where rising wealth/living standards didn't correlate with a rise in obesity." Even if there is a correlation it doesn't mean it's out of hand. Japan has very low rates esp. compared to the other nations around it's 'obesity rankings' [1] We don't need that much sugar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_r...
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.

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.
      - JimTheMan 6y ago
        You only have to look at places with universal health care to see if they have issues with "Moral Hazard". Do people in the UK, Aus, Canada, France etc engage in more unhealthy activities because they have access to good healthcare? And I would say the observed answer is no, the population doesn't engage in more risky behaviour. And you pay for healthcare anyway to cover emergency rooms that have to serve everyone so hospitals don't all go bankrupt. And then that cost gets put back on the insured... who have their employer pick a plan for them... who then have insurance middle men nickle and dime doctors to give imperfect, but cheap treatments. Or doctors just try to do lots of tests/imaging because they know the insurance will cover it. Not having universal healthcare is truly the worst of all worlds. There's no benefit to it unless you are an investor, in the insurance industry or are rich enough to not care about the public at large.
jariel 6y ago
" I would struggle to find a single country where rising wealth/living standards didn't correlate with a rise in obesity." Even if there is a correlation it doesn't mean it's out of hand. Japan has very low rates esp. compared to the other nations around it's 'obesity rankings' [1] We don't need that much sugar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_r...

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.