4 ms·

Yeah, the human race is truly stupid. I can’t believe we’re still having these conversations. Warnings went on cigarettes in 1964. I was born in 1966. I’ve wa

Yeah, the human race is truly stupid. I can’t believe we’re still having these conversations. Warnings went on cigarettes in 1964. I was born in 1966. I’ve watched people develop COPD, etc Someone in the family needing oxygen in their 50s wasn’t enough to scare the few remaining smokers. Remember when people were going to stop going to bars when smoking was banned indoors? Now take something that’s not as obvious as smoking and try to convince people they’re wrong.

inglor_cz 2y ago
"Stupid" is a bad description. First, addictions are a terrifyingly complicated health problem. They involve and hijack ancient reward paths in our brain. Stop breathing for 30 seconds and watch your reactions. Some people react in the same way to withdrawals. Are you weak-willed or stupid if you cannot hold your breath for a minute? Second, some people make money on addictions. That is where "stupid" definitely leaves the conversation and "evil" enters it. And it is not just stereotypical mafiosi peddling fentanyl. How many HNers spend their working hours making some app slightly more addictive to the users? Do they consider themselves evil? These people have an enormous incentive to play down the risks and try to hook up new users to their products. Be it tobacco, gin, Facebook... If no one made money on smoking, it would be a niche activity by now.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >If no one made money on smoking, it would be a niche activity by now. That is an interesting thought and I'm not so sure. Some things are self sustaining cultural practices. Maybe it depends on how you scope the idea. If the companies went non-profit and taxes were cut, it would be very cheap and I don't think advertising does anything anymore. I think the same is largely true for alcohol as well Advertising seems more about market share than converting users.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    I meant "niche" in the same sense as fishing is. About 2 per cent of Czechs are fishers. At least 15 times as many smoke. That said, I was too vague. There is a huge difference between the world where production of tobacco was never profitable vs. where production of tobacco, hypothetically, stopped being profitable yesterday.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Yeah, that was another thought I had. If profit it was somehow prevented all the way down to farmers and distribution, then I think use would be extremely niche. Few people would be interested in growing and manufacturing their own tobacco. That said, I think this speaks more to how profit is the engine of commerce, and otherwise we would all be subsistence farmers. In the never profitable case, it is interesting to think about native American use prior to the Colombian exchange. If Native American cultivation was a profitable activity is debatable, but not particularly interesting to me, so lets set that aside. My understanding is that it was used fairly heavily in a social setting. It seems reasonable that this would still have propagated rather quickly. It reminds me that smoking spread throughout Europe and the near east without TV, billboards, or hallmarks of modern advertising - and how deeply it imbedded itself in the cultures there. Similarly, I would argue that Alcohol predates advertising and predates currency itself.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Conversely, if humans did everything a stranger told them to and heeded every warning, we would also have mass misery, death and societal collapse.
- melling 2y ago
  Would you believe that’s not the converse of what I said? What you’re arguing is an extreme argument then trying to claim it’s the opposite. A common tactic.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I'm not particularly trying to negate, but rather build and contextualize and explain. I think what I said is actually pretty tame.
- antisthenes 2y ago
  I think that's a very negative way to view it. We should try to follow recommendations from health professionals to the best of our ability. However if I followed every doctor's recommendation, I would just be taking care of my health every waking hour. I would be very healthy and fit, but I wouldn't have the time to actually enjoy my life.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I'm curious why you think it's negative. I think my point is very similar to your point. I don't think humans are categorically stupid. I think they have individual goals, and therefore can't just blindly follow all recommendations. They don't have a trusted administrator input setting, and that's a good thing. Instead, they need to judge and assess instructions on an ongoing basis. This can be a messy process, but there's no better alternative in a world where you receive instructions from other flawed humans with agendas that differ from your own.

inglor_cz 2y ago

"Stupid" is a bad description. First, addictions are a terrifyingly complicated health problem. They involve and hijack ancient reward paths in our brain. Stop breathing for 30 seconds and watch your reactions. Some people react in the same way to withdrawals. Are you weak-willed or stupid if you cannot hold your breath for a minute? Second, some people make money on addictions. That is where "stupid" definitely leaves the conversation and "evil" enters it. And it is not just stereotypical mafiosi peddling fentanyl. How many HNers spend their working hours making some app slightly more addictive to the users? Do they consider themselves evil? These people have an enormous incentive to play down the risks and try to hook up new users to their products. Be it tobacco, gin, Facebook... If no one made money on smoking, it would be a niche activity by now.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
>If no one made money on smoking, it would be a niche activity by now. That is an interesting thought and I'm not so sure. Some things are self sustaining cultural practices. Maybe it depends on how you scope the idea. If the companies went non-profit and taxes were cut, it would be very cheap and I don't think advertising does anything anymore. I think the same is largely true for alcohol as well Advertising seems more about market share than converting users.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  I meant "niche" in the same sense as fishing is. About 2 per cent of Czechs are fishers. At least 15 times as many smoke. That said, I was too vague. There is a huge difference between the world where production of tobacco was never profitable vs. where production of tobacco, hypothetically, stopped being profitable yesterday.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Yeah, that was another thought I had. If profit it was somehow prevented all the way down to farmers and distribution, then I think use would be extremely niche. Few people would be interested in growing and manufacturing their own tobacco. That said, I think this speaks more to how profit is the engine of commerce, and otherwise we would all be subsistence farmers. In the never profitable case, it is interesting to think about native American use prior to the Colombian exchange. If Native American cultivation was a profitable activity is debatable, but not particularly interesting to me, so lets set that aside. My understanding is that it was used fairly heavily in a social setting. It seems reasonable that this would still have propagated rather quickly. It reminds me that smoking spread throughout Europe and the near east without TV, billboards, or hallmarks of modern advertising - and how deeply it imbedded itself in the cultures there. Similarly, I would argue that Alcohol predates advertising and predates currency itself.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Conversely, if humans did everything a stranger told them to and heeded every warning, we would also have mass misery, death and societal collapse.

melling 2y ago
Would you believe that’s not the converse of what I said? What you’re arguing is an extreme argument then trying to claim it’s the opposite. A common tactic.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I'm not particularly trying to negate, but rather build and contextualize and explain. I think what I said is actually pretty tame.
antisthenes 2y ago
I think that's a very negative way to view it. We should try to follow recommendations from health professionals to the best of our ability. However if I followed every doctor's recommendation, I would just be taking care of my health every waking hour. I would be very healthy and fit, but I wouldn't have the time to actually enjoy my life.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I'm curious why you think it's negative. I think my point is very similar to your point. I don't think humans are categorically stupid. I think they have individual goals, and therefore can't just blindly follow all recommendations. They don't have a trusted administrator input setting, and that's a good thing. Instead, they need to judge and assess instructions on an ongoing basis. This can be a messy process, but there's no better alternative in a world where you receive instructions from other flawed humans with agendas that differ from your own.