confidentcrescent
No bio...
User ID: 423
In no particular order:
- I think maximizing lifespan is a bad idea that makes people unhappy.
A life lived well is measured by how filled it was with things you enjoy, not by the number of years you existed on earth. Banning unhealthy food is a step away from the former and towards the latter. Banning unhealthy food would make people's lives less worth living, to a degree not made up for by the extended lifespan they'd see.
- I think it's infantilizing and controlling to make such a decision for people.
These are adults and ostensibly ones we trust enough to vote on the direction of our country. A democratic state shouldn't be micromanaging their decisions about their own health.
Freedom is generally good and we should need a extremely strong reason and lack of alternative options to resort to having the state restrict it, especially to the degree that banning a category as wide as "unhealthy food" would entail.
- I don't trust the science around healthy vs unhealthy food
What diets are considered good and bad for you has changed immensely just in my living memory. Trying to mandate healthy eating on such a shaky foundation is foolishness and could easily make things worse. Imagine if we mandated high-carb diets based on the food pyramid. Would this have been a sensible decision or a disaster?
- I think restricting unhealthy food via ratcheting up a harm tax would be an extremely dishonest way to achieve that goal
In this particular case, I would also object to the dishonesty of arguing for a tax under grounds that it will be used to pay for the harm of unhealthy food if your goal is actually to use it as a slippery slope towards restricting or banning consumption.
I suspect the purpose of a tax on unhealthy food is not to defray the harm unhealthy food causes but instead to stop people consuming that food. I believe this because that's exactly what has happened with the similar cigarette taxes. They have escalated constantly and are now being replaced with bans on cigarettes in some countries.
I believe once the hard work of getting this tax in place has been done, it will be raised until it achieves the goal of reducing or eliminating consumption of unhealthy food.
I am against banning or restricting unhealthy food and your post does little to convince me that this is not the end point of the suggested tax. Until you have a concrete amount for these taxes and until you can signal credibly that the tax will remain at that level, I am against taxing unhealthy foods to pay for health costs.
confidentcrescent
2yr ago
But in for example, the UK, we're already nearly at breaking point with our social care system, and with inflation driven declining standards of living/property bubble, I don't see us having as good a time of it.
Is the crisis in the UK due to paying out pensions, or due to trying to give unrealistically good healthcare to every single person? I've heard a bunch about funding issues with public health in the UK but not much about funding issues with their pensions.
It's possible the UK will try to gut pensions to throw yet more money into the endless pit of healthcare, but the unsustainable element here isn't the part where we pay people a pension for 15-20 years after 40 years of work.
confidentcrescent
2yr ago
If healthcare doubles in price do people start working longer to afford healthcare in their old age? Or do they just consume less of it and accept sacrifices to the quality of it?
I think the latter, which is why I put healthcare with luxury goods as an item where a decline in quality won't kill retirement.
Healthcare in particular is also not a great example of hitting limits on what is possible. I'm informed that in many western countries a large part of the scarcity is from strict limitations on how many people can head into the profession rather than from a lack of people who could do the work (after necessary training).
If this is the case then the issue is not that a large retirement population is unsustainable, but that a gross mismanagement of resources is occurring in healthcare.
confidentcrescent
2yr ago
The idea that you work for 40 years and then stop and do nothing for the last 15-20, spending all your accumulated wealth (which in this case gets sucked out by the service economy and healthcare costs), or in perhaps more welfare minded countries, by the taxpayer, is a historical anomaly. At some point we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that people will have to keep working much longer (or maybe that they ought to want to work longer).
Is this behavior actually unsustainable, though? A large group of people retiring for a long time is historically unusual, but so are many other things about today. The amount of work required to produce many necessities is historically unusual. The amount of workers we have now in service roles or in roles doing intellectual labor is extremely historically unusual.
While I share your disdain for the current model of retirement, I don't see the current model becoming unsustainable any time soon. The vast majority of modern economies seems to go towards making luxuries or money pits like healthcare, not the necessities for life. In these areas it is far more possible for quality to drop without disrupting the status quo.
Where and how do you see the current model breaking down?
confidentcrescent
2yr ago
Nobody is immune to info-chaff.
The internet is already full of info-chaff (otherwise known as spam) and things are, for the most part, working fine. If AI is going to change that then it needs to do a lot better than fooling people for a couple of sentences. Spammers can already do better than that.
confidentcrescent
2yr ago
Speaking primarily about video games, because that's where I'm most familiar:
I think your item 3 is a big part of the puzzle, possibly the biggest. Reviewers nowadays seem less interested in games and much more likely to have undue incentives then they used to be. However, since that's been discussed by other replies a lot I'm going to focus on an element I think is relevant that hasn't been mentioned yet.
I think a part of the decline in review usefulness is the shift away from reviews being a product of a single person and towards reviews being the product of large publications.
I've found the most useful reviews focus on how an individual saw the game and how much or how little fun they had with it. If the reviewer decides to rate the game lower because of some minor element that seriously detracted from their game experience, that's perfectly okay as long as the reviewer makes it clear so readers who might care less about that element can take the score with an appropriately-sized grain of salt.
Nowadays, at least for the bigger names in games reviews, it seems like the intent is to put out an objective score. I think that has led reviewers to stop looking so much at their level of enjoyment with the game, and instead focus on non-opinion criticisms. This way of reviewing games feels like reviewers start with a default of a perfect score and take points off for flaws, and "I didn't have much fun" needs to be translated into an objective flaw or it can't be used.
This kind of review tends to favor big companies that produce technically well-done games that are lacking something hard to define over ambitious smaller studios whose games have significant flaws but really nail the critical part of their product.
The obvious explanation for sugar consumption being negatively correlated with happiness is that your causation is backward; people whose lives suck eat more sugary food because it's a cheap and easy way to be happier. Eating ice cream to feel better after a breakup is a trope for a reason.
Okay, maybe not entirely backward. It's clearly possible for sugar consumption to reduce your life satisfaction by making you fat. But given the myriad confounding factors it's a big leap to go from correlation to "sugar caused this!"
The comparison to heroin is weird, since the main issue with heroin is that it reduces your baseline happiness and leaves you needing more and more of it to get to normal. Most people keep a stable level of sugar consumption over long periods of time rather than spiraling out of control and eating increasing amounts of it, so sugar doesn't seem to have the same problem that leads to heroin ruining lives.
More options
Context Copy link