5 ms·

Agreed. There's certain to be side effects, unintended consequences, etc. It's a balloon grab. But the public loves convenience. They love short cuts. Why cont

Agreed. There's certain to be side effects, unintended consequences, etc. It's a balloon grab. But the public loves convenience. They love short cuts. Why control and discipline yourself when a pill can fix everything. That mindset alone is far from ideal. Into the pods we go. The Matrix isn't as sci-fi as it once seemed to be.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> But the public loves convenience. They love short cuts. Why control and discipline yourself when a pill can fix everything. That mindset alone is far from ideal. I don't have a problem with the "laziness" angle (despite being a keen cyclist myself) as we have many different shortcuts to health that could be considered "lazy" such as adding vitamins/nutrients to foods to make it easier for people to not suffer deficiencies. It could be considered "lazy" to have pasteurised milk etc. Edit: Also there's people with disabilities that can make it much harder to exercise.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  First, I didn't use the word lazy. Second, of course there are exceptions (e.g., disabilities). That said, we have to wonder if the push to make obesity a disease is to legitimize the market, and a massive market - no pun intended - is is. Big Pharma loves big markets. Finally, True Story 1: Approx 5 yrs ago I met a friend and her colleague for dinner. They do med / pharma research. The friend was working on something diabetes related. I asked, "Why isn't the treatment to change their diet and lifestyle?" The direct answer was, "They don't do it. It's not going to happen." True Story 2: My parents are on meds that are only necessary because they don't want to change their diet and lifestyle. I have friends with parents on meds for the same reasons. I don't know why. I don't know how. I'm not being a critic. But at this point people are people and 9 out of 10 times it's pills over diet or lifestyle change. I wish I could say otherwise.
snapplebobapple 3y ago
I dont really see a problem with doing some basic safety testing and then letting those with poor will power or dire need be guinea pigs for a decade or two before i try it. Seems like a really good system honestly, as long as the guinea pigs are aware of the risk of trying a new drug
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Except that the company selling the pills will hide the risks away and so it'll end up being a tax on unhealthy people. There's also people with disabilities that can have a much harder time exercising than other people - seems unfair to use them as guinea pigs.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Or better, just add another pill to offset the side effects of the first one.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    As an unhealthy person, I'm ok with that. A tax on unhealthy people today is a benefit to future unhealthy people who then know what happened to the previous unhealthy people. As a current unhealthy person, it often seems a better wage to try something knew at the risk of getting worse for the promise of getting better. Everybody wins on absolute or expected grounds.
- stemlord 3y ago
  One of the guinea pigs might end up being someone you love

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

> But the public loves convenience. They love short cuts. Why control and discipline yourself when a pill can fix everything. That mindset alone is far from ideal. I don't have a problem with the "laziness" angle (despite being a keen cyclist myself) as we have many different shortcuts to health that could be considered "lazy" such as adding vitamins/nutrients to foods to make it easier for people to not suffer deficiencies. It could be considered "lazy" to have pasteurised milk etc. Edit: Also there's people with disabilities that can make it much harder to exercise.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
First, I didn't use the word lazy. Second, of course there are exceptions (e.g., disabilities). That said, we have to wonder if the push to make obesity a disease is to legitimize the market, and a massive market - no pun intended - is is. Big Pharma loves big markets. Finally, True Story 1: Approx 5 yrs ago I met a friend and her colleague for dinner. They do med / pharma research. The friend was working on something diabetes related. I asked, "Why isn't the treatment to change their diet and lifestyle?" The direct answer was, "They don't do it. It's not going to happen." True Story 2: My parents are on meds that are only necessary because they don't want to change their diet and lifestyle. I have friends with parents on meds for the same reasons. I don't know why. I don't know how. I'm not being a critic. But at this point people are people and 9 out of 10 times it's pills over diet or lifestyle change. I wish I could say otherwise.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

I dont really see a problem with doing some basic safety testing and then letting those with poor will power or dire need be guinea pigs for a decade or two before i try it. Seems like a really good system honestly, as long as the guinea pigs are aware of the risk of trying a new drug

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Except that the company selling the pills will hide the risks away and so it'll end up being a tax on unhealthy people. There's also people with disabilities that can have a much harder time exercising than other people - seems unfair to use them as guinea pigs.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Or better, just add another pill to offset the side effects of the first one.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  As an unhealthy person, I'm ok with that. A tax on unhealthy people today is a benefit to future unhealthy people who then know what happened to the previous unhealthy people. As a current unhealthy person, it often seems a better wage to try something knew at the risk of getting worse for the promise of getting better. Everybody wins on absolute or expected grounds.
stemlord 3y ago
One of the guinea pigs might end up being someone you love