4 ms·
I'm pointing out the problems of considering this a valid on term "solution." It's simply not. You need a plan to eventually be rid of this compromise. That
by akira2501 2y ago
I'm pointing out the problems of considering this a valid on term "solution." It's simply not. You need a plan to eventually be rid of this compromise.
That GLP-1 has benefits is good. That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
You can acknowledge both without hurting _anyone_. You entirely lack an argument.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pixl97 2y ago>That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better. Ya so you want to change a system that involves millions of selfish actors and corporations looking to profit and that have entrenched themselves, and are protected by freedom of association versus a choice between a doctor and a patient. I can tell you which one will be more successful.
- kaibee 2y ago> It's simply not. You need a plan to eventually be rid of this compromise. because..? > That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better. Will this be before or after we fix capitalism/finish building communism?
- kelseyfrog 2y agoThis is a textbook case of letting better stand in the way of good. I'd love to re-imagine our food of food production and consumption, but it sounds like you're arguing that because food production and consumption is a better solution, we shouldn't be promoting GLP-1 agonists. Sorry, but one is exists in reality and the other exists in our imaginations. When we let our imaginations take precedence over reality, we live in a fantasy and the consequence is that we get neither. Effectively this argues for neither, and that's a bad deal for everyone.
- kbos87 2y ago"The [food system] can remain irrational longer than you can remain [alive]."