4 ms·

Stupid article. First, most humans already consume enough extra callories for not having to consume more to walk to work. Actually, doing so would only be a ne

Stupid article. First, most humans already consume enough extra callories for not having to consume more to walk to work. Actually, doing so would only be a net benefit healthwise for most. Even then, the way they count the emission of food production focuses on cattle which is known to be highly inefficient. Garbage premise, garbage conclusion.

gspencley 4y ago
I agree but, to play Devil's Advocate, I think the larger point is still a good one: always consider the unseen rather than only focusing on the immediately obvious. That said, people in general do tend to eat too much. I'm not even just talking about processed and "junk" foods. Throughout most of human history food was very scarce and we can go a shockingly long time, by modern standards, without eating. Speaking from personal experience, the less I eat the less hungry I feel and therefore the less I want to eat. From my limited understanding, this is hormone related. Insulin is the hormone that our pancreas releases when our blood sugar spikes and it's our body's way of saying "there is energy here to store." Once the insulin spike drops you start burning stored fat and your fat cells release another hormone called ghrelin which triggers the hunger response. So as unintuitive as it is, eating less is actually a good way of feeling less hungry in general (after the initial hormone spikes have dropped). I've also heard that physical exercise can act as an appetite suppressant, though I don't know why. So you're absolutely right, if people made healthier lifestyle choices in general (and knew what those choices were since there is so much contradictory information out there) then that would reduce demand on the food supply chain.
- rsclient 4y ago
  My own take: I only see people worrying about the "unforseen side effects" when its conservative people worrying about liberal concepts. Are there any takes on the gross energy inefficiency of mega-churches? The political downsides to allowing single corporations to own mulitple radio and TV stations? The waste of super-profiling internet users in order to (slowly) serve ads? Nope, never. It's always an "analysis" showing that some generally liberal-oriented thing is bad.
  - gspencley 4y ago
    I didn't read any partisan political views into this, personally. I think that says more about your own lens/filter than it does anyone else's.
- skrtskrt 4y ago
  You don’t need to play devil’s advocate for a bad-faith terribly-written, terribly-argued, and terribly-researched article. No one involved in serious research or policymaking needs to be reminded that second order effects exist.
  - gspencley 4y ago
    > No one involved in serious research or policymaking needs to be reminded that second order effects exist. I'm sorry, I thought this was a social forum and we were just having discussion. I didn't realize that "serious research and policymaking" was at stake. My mistake. eye roll

gspencley 4y ago

I agree but, to play Devil's Advocate, I think the larger point is still a good one: always consider the unseen rather than only focusing on the immediately obvious. That said, people in general do tend to eat too much. I'm not even just talking about processed and "junk" foods. Throughout most of human history food was very scarce and we can go a shockingly long time, by modern standards, without eating. Speaking from personal experience, the less I eat the less hungry I feel and therefore the less I want to eat. From my limited understanding, this is hormone related. Insulin is the hormone that our pancreas releases when our blood sugar spikes and it's our body's way of saying "there is energy here to store." Once the insulin spike drops you start burning stored fat and your fat cells release another hormone called ghrelin which triggers the hunger response. So as unintuitive as it is, eating less is actually a good way of feeling less hungry in general (after the initial hormone spikes have dropped). I've also heard that physical exercise can act as an appetite suppressant, though I don't know why. So you're absolutely right, if people made healthier lifestyle choices in general (and knew what those choices were since there is so much contradictory information out there) then that would reduce demand on the food supply chain.

rsclient 4y ago
My own take: I only see people worrying about the "unforseen side effects" when its conservative people worrying about liberal concepts. Are there any takes on the gross energy inefficiency of mega-churches? The political downsides to allowing single corporations to own mulitple radio and TV stations? The waste of super-profiling internet users in order to (slowly) serve ads? Nope, never. It's always an "analysis" showing that some generally liberal-oriented thing is bad.
- gspencley 4y ago
  I didn't read any partisan political views into this, personally. I think that says more about your own lens/filter than it does anyone else's.
skrtskrt 4y ago
You don’t need to play devil’s advocate for a bad-faith terribly-written, terribly-argued, and terribly-researched article. No one involved in serious research or policymaking needs to be reminded that second order effects exist.
- gspencley 4y ago
  > No one involved in serious research or policymaking needs to be reminded that second order effects exist. I'm sorry, I thought this was a social forum and we were just having discussion. I didn't realize that "serious research and policymaking" was at stake. My mistake. eye roll