3 ms·

Abolish the Food Industry

20 points by nbj914 15y ago

nasmorn 15y ago
Do they add sugar to flour, milk and vegetables as well? I do think sugar is seriously bad for you but as ling as you can buy staples you can cook. You can cook, right?
jmilkbal 15y ago
I agree with the article, but I can't decide if sugar is should be the catalyzing factor or the plethora of other toxic chemicals they put in food.
javert 15y ago
I believe that people should be free to make their own decisions. I do not want to live in the kind of authoritarian society the author lusts for. In fact, I would not. This article disgusts me to the core. To those of you who want to be free to produce, build, and create (whether tech startups or something else): If you think that people who claim that human beings need to have their choices made for them, and their freedom limited, are on your side, you are deadly wrong. These people are not our allies.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  I think it's more complicated than this. We already agree that companies should be held accountable for some health issues--that is, if a company sold poisoned food at a discount, we would want them to stop. I think this is perfectly reasonable. You can argue that this sort of thing is exactly the same because it is, after all, just a difference of degrees--instead of making you sick immediately, this sort of food makes you sick over a longer period. My point isn't that this is necessarily right, but rather that it is not trivially wrong.
  - javert 15y ago
    I don't agree at all. There is no valid reason to sell poisoned food; nor is there any valid reason to buy it. This is (rightfully) considered criminal. There are valid reasons to sell products like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, marajuana, etc. And there are valid reasons to consume them. To mush these together and claim that it's just a difference in degree is disgusting and dishonest. I'm not accusing you of being disgusting and dishonest; you're just testing the waters of the argument made by the author of the article. But for him to write such an article is at best intellectually evasive.
- yequalsx 15y ago
  Clearly people, in aggregate, need to have some choices made for them. It's not feasible for everyone to be knowledgable enough to know what constitutes acceptable electrical wiring in a home. In such a case isn't it best to have an agency make this choice for us? That is, an agency to say this is the worst wiring job that is acceptable? I'm glad for this. I'm not talking about the article above. I'm wondering how extreme your position is in regard to your statement "If you think that people who claim that human beings need to have their choices made for them, and their freedom limited, are on your side, you are deadly wrong."
  - jonhohle 15y ago
    I think it's reasonable that all people (or their guardians) know exactly what they are putting in their bodies. We have an entire infrastructure of schools to educate people regarding healthy and unhealthy choices - if people choose something else who are you or I to say they shouldn't consume it? I would argue electrical wiring or other infrastructure is no different. If it poses no threat to my neighbors' property or infringe on their rights in any way, why shouldn't I be free to proceed? I'm not saying that I'm not glad that there are standards I can expect a contractor to meet - I just don't think they should be a requirement. In the computing world we have POSIX - it's great if an OS implements it, but a very popular one which has succeeded in the market is not beholden to the standard (though at one time implemented it). Unfortunately, this is why I'm also against universal health care. There is a huge conflict of interest. People who make stupid dietary decisions are going to use the majority of health care resources available. It is unlikely that someone making smart, healthy choices will be able to get the same benefit. While I think a basic level of care would benefit all people, I am unwilling to act as an enabler for people who have no interest in looking out for their own best interest. There needs to be an underlying expectation that people are responsible for their own choices and actions. People need to be more active in their decision making, not have choices taken away from them.
  - javert 15y ago
    Clearly people, in aggregate, need to have some choices made for them. No, I don't think so at all. And it's critical for people who oppose the "control state" (for lack of a better term) to stand their ground on this point. Otherwise, they are throwing away the fundamental principle, which is their only intellectual ammunition. -- There are lots of trivial applications of this (like electrical wiring). But gettings bogged down in those is missing the forest for the trees. However, just to prove that the principle still applies, I'll answer your electrical scenario: If electrical wiring were not highly regulated, best practices and self-regulatory mechanisms would be develped to deal with the situation effectively, just like any aspect of any industrial activity that is not regulated. It is key to recognize the truth of the part in italics. Just think of how commerce and trade work - there are abundant examples.
- crusso 15y ago
  Even worse, the government is RESPONSIBLE for destroying the American diet in the first place. So now this author's solution is what? More government. Unbelievable. The increase in useless glucose carbs over the last decades was the food industry's response to government guidelines designed to reduce fat intake. Guess what? Not all fat is bad for you. To make fat-free food taste better, they added sugar and insulin-system-destroying carbs. So now the government is going to make more decisions for us in some new scheme to improve all our lives. To create a utopia here on earth that's always just a few new government programs away. Let people make their own decisions when it comes to their own health and well-being. I know, not everyone can make great decisions. But to whom are we abdicating decision-making authority? To health experts? No, to a bunch of guys who won a popularity/political contest and put their buddies in charge of micro-managing your life. People need to be concerned about the health of themselves and their families. They can't just be mindless zombies eating whatever someone else tells them to. Creating new laws, regulations, and perhaps government bureaucracies take us backward -- not forward.
- radu_floricica 15y ago
  I don't think the article is serious in proposing a ban on certain types of business. Well, it might be, but in this case it's clearly over the line. I'm currently reading Nudge, and it promotes the notion of "libertarian paternalism". Basically the idea that all choices should be free, but the defaults should be chosen intelligently. In its spirit you would go after advertising for example, but wouldn't touch actual selling of products. Is this acceptable?
  - javert 15y ago
    No. Free speech is sacred. Without free speech, we are not free. And the article is serious. These people are serious. They're making headway and we need to see them as a serious threat.
- Dylanlacey 15y ago
  A THOUSAND TIMES yes. There seems to be a distinct tendency among people with the interest (Or perhaps the money) to want to "ban" things, as though their consumers had them foist upon them. Yes, there are people who can not afford to make more sustainable choices (Or at least, are not informed enough to make them), but plenty of consumers simply don't CARE about manufactured food. And that's their right. I believe that all pertinent information should be easily (and perhaps compulsorily) made available for consumer choices. Where there are situations where poor choices impact others, such as poor wiring being able to electrocute people, then mandate a minimum standard. You're absolutely right. The sort of person who wants to make someone elses choices, even "Better" ones, are NOT acting as good people.
reedlaw 15y ago
While I'm not sympathetic to the tobacco industry, this is a dangerous argument because it depends on some agency's definition of "healthy". The article points to sugar and alcohol as being unhealthy, but what about saturated fat or fluoride? There is plenty of debate on those as well as many other foods and ingredients.

20 points by nbj914 15y ago

Do they add sugar to flour, milk and vegetables as well? I do think sugar is seriously bad for you but as ling as you can buy staples you can cook. You can cook, right?

jmilkbal 15y ago

I agree with the article, but I can't decide if sugar is should be the catalyzing factor or the plethora of other toxic chemicals they put in food.

javert 15y ago

I believe that people should be free to make their own decisions. I do not want to live in the kind of authoritarian society the author lusts for. In fact, I would not. This article disgusts me to the core. To those of you who want to be free to produce, build, and create (whether tech startups or something else): If you think that people who claim that human beings need to have their choices made for them, and their freedom limited, are on your side, you are deadly wrong. These people are not our allies.

tikhonj 15y ago
I think it's more complicated than this. We already agree that companies should be held accountable for some health issues--that is, if a company sold poisoned food at a discount, we would want them to stop. I think this is perfectly reasonable. You can argue that this sort of thing is exactly the same because it is, after all, just a difference of degrees--instead of making you sick immediately, this sort of food makes you sick over a longer period. My point isn't that this is necessarily right, but rather that it is not trivially wrong.
- javert 15y ago
  I don't agree at all. There is no valid reason to sell poisoned food; nor is there any valid reason to buy it. This is (rightfully) considered criminal. There are valid reasons to sell products like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, marajuana, etc. And there are valid reasons to consume them. To mush these together and claim that it's just a difference in degree is disgusting and dishonest. I'm not accusing you of being disgusting and dishonest; you're just testing the waters of the argument made by the author of the article. But for him to write such an article is at best intellectually evasive.
yequalsx 15y ago
Clearly people, in aggregate, need to have some choices made for them. It's not feasible for everyone to be knowledgable enough to know what constitutes acceptable electrical wiring in a home. In such a case isn't it best to have an agency make this choice for us? That is, an agency to say this is the worst wiring job that is acceptable? I'm glad for this. I'm not talking about the article above. I'm wondering how extreme your position is in regard to your statement "If you think that people who claim that human beings need to have their choices made for them, and their freedom limited, are on your side, you are deadly wrong."
- jonhohle 15y ago
  I think it's reasonable that all people (or their guardians) know exactly what they are putting in their bodies. We have an entire infrastructure of schools to educate people regarding healthy and unhealthy choices - if people choose something else who are you or I to say they shouldn't consume it? I would argue electrical wiring or other infrastructure is no different. If it poses no threat to my neighbors' property or infringe on their rights in any way, why shouldn't I be free to proceed? I'm not saying that I'm not glad that there are standards I can expect a contractor to meet - I just don't think they should be a requirement. In the computing world we have POSIX - it's great if an OS implements it, but a very popular one which has succeeded in the market is not beholden to the standard (though at one time implemented it). Unfortunately, this is why I'm also against universal health care. There is a huge conflict of interest. People who make stupid dietary decisions are going to use the majority of health care resources available. It is unlikely that someone making smart, healthy choices will be able to get the same benefit. While I think a basic level of care would benefit all people, I am unwilling to act as an enabler for people who have no interest in looking out for their own best interest. There needs to be an underlying expectation that people are responsible for their own choices and actions. People need to be more active in their decision making, not have choices taken away from them.
- javert 15y ago
  Clearly people, in aggregate, need to have some choices made for them. No, I don't think so at all. And it's critical for people who oppose the "control state" (for lack of a better term) to stand their ground on this point. Otherwise, they are throwing away the fundamental principle, which is their only intellectual ammunition. -- There are lots of trivial applications of this (like electrical wiring). But gettings bogged down in those is missing the forest for the trees. However, just to prove that the principle still applies, I'll answer your electrical scenario: If electrical wiring were not highly regulated, best practices and self-regulatory mechanisms would be develped to deal with the situation effectively, just like any aspect of any industrial activity that is not regulated. It is key to recognize the truth of the part in italics. Just think of how commerce and trade work - there are abundant examples.
crusso 15y ago
Even worse, the government is RESPONSIBLE for destroying the American diet in the first place. So now this author's solution is what? More government. Unbelievable. The increase in useless glucose carbs over the last decades was the food industry's response to government guidelines designed to reduce fat intake. Guess what? Not all fat is bad for you. To make fat-free food taste better, they added sugar and insulin-system-destroying carbs. So now the government is going to make more decisions for us in some new scheme to improve all our lives. To create a utopia here on earth that's always just a few new government programs away. Let people make their own decisions when it comes to their own health and well-being. I know, not everyone can make great decisions. But to whom are we abdicating decision-making authority? To health experts? No, to a bunch of guys who won a popularity/political contest and put their buddies in charge of micro-managing your life. People need to be concerned about the health of themselves and their families. They can't just be mindless zombies eating whatever someone else tells them to. Creating new laws, regulations, and perhaps government bureaucracies take us backward -- not forward.
radu_floricica 15y ago
I don't think the article is serious in proposing a ban on certain types of business. Well, it might be, but in this case it's clearly over the line. I'm currently reading Nudge, and it promotes the notion of "libertarian paternalism". Basically the idea that all choices should be free, but the defaults should be chosen intelligently. In its spirit you would go after advertising for example, but wouldn't touch actual selling of products. Is this acceptable?
- javert 15y ago
  No. Free speech is sacred. Without free speech, we are not free. And the article is serious. These people are serious. They're making headway and we need to see them as a serious threat.
Dylanlacey 15y ago
A THOUSAND TIMES yes. There seems to be a distinct tendency among people with the interest (Or perhaps the money) to want to "ban" things, as though their consumers had them foist upon them. Yes, there are people who can not afford to make more sustainable choices (Or at least, are not informed enough to make them), but plenty of consumers simply don't CARE about manufactured food. And that's their right. I believe that all pertinent information should be easily (and perhaps compulsorily) made available for consumer choices. Where there are situations where poor choices impact others, such as poor wiring being able to electrocute people, then mandate a minimum standard. You're absolutely right. The sort of person who wants to make someone elses choices, even "Better" ones, are NOT acting as good people.

reedlaw 15y ago

While I'm not sympathetic to the tobacco industry, this is a dangerous argument because it depends on some agency's definition of "healthy". The article points to sugar and alcohol as being unhealthy, but what about saturated fat or fluoride? There is plenty of debate on those as well as many other foods and ingredients.