4 ms·

In fairness, one could characterize that brokenness as being the fault of us, the consumers. The "boot" is self imposed. People demand their Twinkies and 2 lite

by hallole 10mo ago

In fairness, one could characterize that brokenness as being the fault of us, the consumers. The "boot" is self imposed. People demand their Twinkies and 2 liter soda bottles. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing, but it's a tad sad it took a miracle pill to do what good individual decision-making could've accomplished just as well this whole time.

jokoon 10mo ago
"we give people heroin and they ask for more, it's the addicts' fault"
- hallole 10mo ago
  It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.
  - subscribed 10mo ago
    Seriously, read some more. > Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12055324/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12055324/ This one is even better but should be read in full: > The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/
    - hallole 10mo ago
      > "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine" The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.
      - jokoon 10mo ago
        Do you really think I believe sugar is as much addictive as heroin? Because I don't. Sugar is addictive, so talking about "individual decision-making" of millions of people like you did, like they lack willpower, is not going to improve the situation regarding the obesity epidemic. You should do a bit of research of what can be found in supermarkets in developed countries of the EU, and what sort of food norms they have. Of course you can put any problem on the fault of free will if you really want.
        hallole 10mo ago
        LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you. I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...
DangitBobby 10mo ago
We're running on monkey hardware. People aren't going to make good choices all the time, even the most disciplined and educated among us. It's unethical to intentionally exploit our weaknesses and throw up your hands like there's nothing you could have done. In any case, here in the US, companies that made money by peddling high sugar/grain diets lobbied to have a practically inverted food pyramid so Americans for generations to come would grow up believing the wrong things about a healthy and balanced diet. That was the culmination of decades of effort by junk food companies to fund fake studies to malign fats to point fingers at basically any food except the problem one: sugar.
- tyleo 10mo ago
  I agree with this argument but it goes both ways. We run on monkey hardware… and our leaders run on monkey hardware. Those unethical leaders are monkeys like the rest of us. Pointless status hoarding at the expense of populations is part of it. It’s monkeys all the way down.
  - DangitBobby 10mo ago
    The point of assigning blame here isn't so much a moral exercise as it is to decide what went wrong, how to deal with it, and how to prevent the same failure modes in the future.
    - tyleo 10mo ago
      That’s what I’m talking about too. Understanding that we’re all monkeys is an important piece of the puzzle if you want to deal with the problem.
- hallole 10mo ago
  I guess I agree with you. Deep down, I wish they hadn't given up on prohibition, and that we'd have banned smoking, too. Still, though, there's gotta be a point where people become responsible for their actions. We're running on "monkey hardware," true, but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned. We expect individuals to have self control. Couple other notes: I agree that excessive sugar is bad, but there's nothing wrong with whole grains. Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.

by hallole 10mo ago

jokoon 10mo ago

"we give people heroin and they ask for more, it's the addicts' fault"

hallole 10mo ago
It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.
- subscribed 10mo ago
  Seriously, read some more. > Repeated, excessive intake of sugar created a state in which an opioid antagonist caused behavioral and neurochemical signs of opioid withdrawal. The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine, suggesting that the rats had become sugar-dependent. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12055324/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12055324/ This one is even better but should be read in full: > The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. According to the evidence in rats, intermittent access to sugar and chow is capable of producing a “dependency”. This was operationally defined by tests for bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization to amphetamine and alcohol https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2235907/
  - hallole 10mo ago
    > "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine" The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.
    - jokoon 10mo ago
      Do you really think I believe sugar is as much addictive as heroin? Because I don't. Sugar is addictive, so talking about "individual decision-making" of millions of people like you did, like they lack willpower, is not going to improve the situation regarding the obesity epidemic. You should do a bit of research of what can be found in supermarkets in developed countries of the EU, and what sort of food norms they have. Of course you can put any problem on the fault of free will if you really want.
      - hallole 10mo ago
        LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you. I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...

DangitBobby 10mo ago

We're running on monkey hardware. People aren't going to make good choices all the time, even the most disciplined and educated among us. It's unethical to intentionally exploit our weaknesses and throw up your hands like there's nothing you could have done. In any case, here in the US, companies that made money by peddling high sugar/grain diets lobbied to have a practically inverted food pyramid so Americans for generations to come would grow up believing the wrong things about a healthy and balanced diet. That was the culmination of decades of effort by junk food companies to fund fake studies to malign fats to point fingers at basically any food except the problem one: sugar.

tyleo 10mo ago
I agree with this argument but it goes both ways. We run on monkey hardware… and our leaders run on monkey hardware. Those unethical leaders are monkeys like the rest of us. Pointless status hoarding at the expense of populations is part of it. It’s monkeys all the way down.
- DangitBobby 10mo ago
  The point of assigning blame here isn't so much a moral exercise as it is to decide what went wrong, how to deal with it, and how to prevent the same failure modes in the future.
  - tyleo 10mo ago
    That’s what I’m talking about too. Understanding that we’re all monkeys is an important piece of the puzzle if you want to deal with the problem.
hallole 10mo ago
I guess I agree with you. Deep down, I wish they hadn't given up on prohibition, and that we'd have banned smoking, too. Still, though, there's gotta be a point where people become responsible for their actions. We're running on "monkey hardware," true, but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned. We expect individuals to have self control. Couple other notes: I agree that excessive sugar is bad, but there's nothing wrong with whole grains. Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.