4 ms·
In a sense you're not wrong, but would you say the same thing about refined sugar? Both of these substances, in terms of immediate physiological effects, are kn
by lgessler 3y ago
In a sense you're not wrong, but would you say the same thing about refined sugar? Both of these substances, in terms of immediate physiological effects, are known to be unambiguously bad for you past a certain low threshold. But immediate physiological effects are probably not the terms with which we ought to evaluate our lifestyles.
- skeaker 3y agoYou would say the same about sugar in some aspects, I guess. The hitch with chemical addictions is that they are more or less not up to you, once your brain is hooked you're locked in until you put extreme effort to break out of it. With sugar it's in many cases given to you when you're young and before you have developed the awareness or agency to avoid it. It's also in nearly every store bought food and is much more difficult to avoid. It also doesn't have immediate drawbacks that are quite as severe as alcohol (you're not getting a DUI for eating a tootsie roll). There are a lot of things like these that are just bad for us on an objective level but that we do anyways because they hack our weak little monkey brains. I don't even think it's hypocritical to partake in sugar or alcohol while openly saying that they're awful for you and that you should avoid them. The fact is that they're addictive, and an addiction by definition means that your actions are on some level no longer in your conscious control. Unless I am actively dieting I don't think twice about eating a candy even though I know that by all means I shouldn't.
- asylteltine 3y agoIn theory yes but it’s hard to avoid in practice. It doesn’t cause the same amount of acute damage and altered state though. But either way yes I don’t eat sweets like candy and generally keep things like donuts and cookies to one day a week.