In my country doctors gave out this drug for free to people. (because healthcare is a human right.. right?) And now that some people lost their subscription to this drug they find themselves becoming morbidly obese again. So now not giving a drug is to attack someone's "right" to a healthy life. The worst part is that no politician has ever talked about this drug until recently, it was just given out on tax payers bill without anyone voting for it. And only now that it has become a problem it entered public debate
I see you people are still using your preferred pronouns- "We / Us and Our". 🇬🇧 So when you say "We" do everything wrong, make sure to include yourselves as well. ❌❌❌
Totally true. When you walk through cities in the UK theres this cold, sterile and hostile feel to every building, with no passion or soul in their designs. There are still pockets of classic architectural beauty, and seeing them is always like a breath of fresh air.
Money. The root of all evil. It's costs that drive everything cool down and the greed behind it. You know what a building with all these beautiful ornaments would cost today?
That's because no one cares for splendor anymore, and they haven't for a long time. Its a taboo to be overdressed, to be too beutiful is to sin. This protestant idea is what boils suits and dresses into hoodies and sweatpants. No one can ever be reminded of greatness for they'll have to look inwards.
We should stick to mud (brick) and wood, maybe a little stone but unless you're building a cathedral or a castle, it's unnecessary. As we know, the American form of a castle is a barn, and that's all wood baby.
“Believe science” is invoked like a spell when people want to plant their flag on a hill of carefully curated climate studies, but is quietly dropped when the discussion is sexual dimorphism or other politically inconvenient issues.
Science exists to be proven wrong, to accept it as infallible fact is a disservice to science. Everyone should always be trying to poke holes in scientific theory, that's how science grows and adapts.
@@blunderingfool that was true a few decades ago before 99% of science was either financed by people with a political agenda or managed by people with one. science as we know it today is much closer to a perverted and twisted dystopian version of itself. we have replication crisises in multiple fields, entire fields that can be considered unscientific due to widespread use of unscientific methodology. we have paper mills and quotefarms that pervert the process of peer review and publications for personal gain. we have thousands of tenured professors that don't research anything useful but instead waste their funding on more politically aligned pseudoresearch to secure their next grant. as it stands now the purest form of science can be found in an amateur setting or in the corporate world where science is results and cost oriented and scientists are hired on merit not on their politics or diversity checkboxes..
"You cheated not only the game, but yourself. You didn't grow. You didn't improve. You took a shortcut and gained nothing. You experienced a hollow victory. Nothing was risked and nothing was gained. It's sad that you don't know the difference." No truer modern comdemnation
"Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility." Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
I don't think I agree with that, science requires both curiosity, honesty and humility to do, all virtues. The problem is this idolatry of science, by people who think that science has all the answers.
@@Nukestarmaster I think the last few years have demonstrated that the pursuit of science in the absence of morals and social responsibility can have some very negative effects. There are plenty of examples of individuals committing immoral acts in the pursuit of science, and I think we all just lived through one of the largest. The whole of humanity (many coerced into it) just participated in a giant science experiment to see the effects of mRNA treatments on a large scale sample. It could also arguably be considered an example of the pursuit of profit by opportunistic actors, but they would have to have a deficiency in the since of social responsibility to think it was proper to force a "vaccine" on someone who didn't want to take it. It's the dilemma Jeff Goldblum articulated in Jurassic Park: "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should".
The only thing science requires is an unwavering (deeply autistic) commitment to the truth, and barely at that. That of course means honesty, but you can be both honest and a deeply cruel person at the same time. Scientists are not bastions of virtue. They're not even bastions of truth most of the time either. Successful scientist are some of the proudest and most arrogant people you'll ever have the displeasure of meeting.
@@Nukestarmaster Nope, science is just a series of falsifiable experiments. The corruption of the principle comes from it's practioners - mankind. Whether you're experimenting on babies or curing cancer, it's still scientific inquiry. Science is a tool; how you choose to wield it will make you a good man or not; but the tool never changed
@@Nukestarmaster Scientists are just human beings, sometimes, very flawed ones. Read about how they cheat when their theories prove false. Or the terrible in-fighting. The refusal to look at evidence that doesn't affirm their sacred doctrines.
I don't necessarily disagree that those things are wrong, but I think that it's even more important to ask why we feel the need to gorge ourselves on food and meaningless sex. To me, that's addressing the root and not the symptoms.
Dealing with the after effects of hurricane Helene, I have been swinging around my Stihl 661 chainsaw for about 6-9 hours a day for the past few weeks. I have never been one for seriously intensive exercise, and have always been on the bigger side, but now looking at myself I have made not only incredible progress with cleaning up my property, but I have PECKS now. Humans were meant for work, body, and mind. There is no substitution.
@justadude4826 I think I am. Earplugs, chainsaw chaps, lots o water+breaks. It's really just concentrating while holding a 30-lb chainsaw for a long time, really.
Vitamins really help with that. Glucosamine is excellent in restoring mobility to creaky joints. Having had the same ailment, I started regularly taking vitamins over a decade ago, at age 44, and the Glucosamine restored my joints to a much better condition than they were when I was 30.
Microplastics, plant/ seed oil, and a plethora of other toxins right from when we made lead pipes in the Roman era. That and taxation till the plantation is complete.
Anti-human viewpoints lead to less people being around, and lower overall happiness among the people who endure?? I am shocked. Like, what better way is there to make human life better than deciding that everything about human nature is bad, and should be actively fought??? What is there even left to try now that the best option has been exhausted????
This is not any kind of flex, because Carl is much more intelligent than I, but it’s just great to see him treading paths that I’ve long travelled and grown very fond of. Lewis is invaluable, even for us non-Christian’s, but as far as contemporary thinkers go I’m waiting with bated breath until Carl inevitably reads Iain McGilchrist. Echoes of his thought and research are peppered over much of the recent lotus eater material, Carl’s in particular!
Honestly, more people need to read CS Lewis' works. Especially The Screwtape Letters and The Space Trilogy (of the space trilogy "That Hideous Strength"), because they all are applicable to modern times and modern flaws.
The fitness of humanity is not solely based on quality of our empirical models (science), but let us not throw the baby with the bathwater. All things in moderation.
I think everyone who believes in virtue and morality have to ultimately come to the conclusion that there is simply no earthly, physical reason for behaving in certain ways over others.
What's to stretch? Here's the take in a nutshell: Religion is necessary because most people are unable to find meaning in their own lives on their own initiative, or properly audit the morality of their own actions. Ta-daaa. (There's about 1/4 of the population that doesn't need an invisible dad to convince them not to be heels. But... that leaves 75% who default to hoarding, opportunism, and going-along-to-get-along.)
Without the hard work of serious mysticism, the euphoria is both passing and illusionary. If you work at meditation and prayer, you can achieve great things, things that no one else can take from you.
@@kathleenhensley5951 well said, I used to think mental health should just naturally happen without effort, my experience has shown you actually need to work for it
This. I've been looking for the answer for why not pleasure for its own sake: and it is mainly that you are robbing your future self of options and self-respect - the pleasure-for-right-now self hollows out the future self: what could be a fully realized human. So yep. Stop burning yourself, and start constructing for future self.
As someone who ate sugar and fast food all the way up to 265lbs, I have really been trying to get it under control. I've been eating Keto food for the last 5 weeks, no grains, no sugar, essentially my diet now consists of meat and vegetables with the occasional piece of fruit. The result: I am now 252lbs and falling at a rate of about 1/3 pound per day, I'm not hungry as I can eat that kind of food until sated and my weight still falls. I have more energy, I feel lighter on my feet, my blood pressure is dropping, I'm no longer sick and tired of being sick and tired. Even a persistent digestive issue has gone into remission. Perhaps the best part is that at a friend's birthday last weekend I allowed myself a single piece of cake and immediately felt ill. Having gotten past the withdrawal period of those previous addictions, I now feel sick at the thought of something like cake which turns me away from eating it again and I genuinely enjoy my herb baked salmon, garlic broccoli and brussel sprouts with mustard and crushed peppercorns for dinner.
Keep going stranger. Coming from a person in the medical field who saw thousands of obese people dying on ventilators during the COVID pandemic - Your body and mind will thank you. Fatty Inflammation is a silent killer.
Yes, I've gotten to the point where most sweets are downright repulsive. ESPECIALLY after a meal. How anyone eats a meal then wants dessert is beyond me.
Good work man, keep it up! I'm on the same trip but fasting like Sargon. It's worth it. I'm almost down to the 200 lb mark and it's been years since I've seen a weight starting with 1 on the scale. You should be proud of yourself. 👍
You go man, what helped me lose my weight was when i completely cut processed food from my diet. Seriously as soon as i stopped eating junk food i made progress. These billion dollar fast food corps are shameless
12:10 Oh, that’s easy. Our kids and/or grandkids will grow up after the ‘cheat code’ was enabled, so to them it won’t feel like cheating at all! Problem solved, civilization can be proud of itself!
Thalidomide was developed as some sort of tranquiliser. It was when they started to give it to pregnant women it was a mistake. Lots of medication are not recommended during pregnancy
Absolutely which is why it's hilarious seeing religious people claim to be humble while being allergic to saying "I don't know" about things like the origin of life or the universe.
@@mikeallan7740meanwhile looking at the science believers... I admit that I dont know how things are. I only know that "science" is a bunch of lies, sadly.
@@Eriksvensson4231don’t argue with nihilists. They don’t even have a cogent sense of anything. The reality of God is so starkly evident that any who deny it must be fools, embittered, or literal demons from hell.
People have been saying this for years because they can't accept that he doesn't believe because it's not in his nature, if he converts then sure I'm wrong, we'll just have to see.
As soon as I heard he was studying philosophy, I knew he was coming to God. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. And in Christ are stored all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom, so if he's earnest in his pursuit of the love of knowledge, he will encounter Christ.
@@RepentTherefore Y'know what's really ironic? You talk about Jesus the same way that top OF subscribers talk about the focus of their frustrated libidos. *Everything good that has or will ever exist* is just personified in that one spot. Almost like... nah. Nah, there's no point even suggesting.
I hope not, at least not pertaining to Christianity. There are quite enough things wrong with that religion that I wouldn't consider it healthy for it to see a resurgence. At least not how it was. Philosophical Christianity maybe, but the supernatural elements of its founding have been shown as false. And if the foundation of a belief system is crumbling, the structure as a whole is at risk.
Real science never demands you trust it, it demands a far higher price, it demands you understand it, and there in lies the problem, one true way to anger any one is to ask them to think!
@@Refertech101 Excellent comment. The "trust the science" crowd is always out there though... we often take advantage of products of scientific progress without understanding them (airplanes, computers, etc) but trusting an airplane with no wings because the engineer swears by his math is going to be a rough flight.
Speaking from the perspective of a pharmacy student: Ozempic is an amazing drug. Diabetics who take it have a massively reduced risk of death due to cardiovascular problems such as heart failure, stroke, heart attack, etc. The side effect of weight loss almost certainly has a hand in that as we know the massive health concerns and risks obesity places on your body. However, this is for diabetics. Many if not most diabetics in the West right now are the consequence of our eating habits, which ozempic doesn't change permanently. If you stop taking ozempic the hunger comes back and the problem of your willpower comes back into question. In Canada, ozempic is only covered by the government if you are diabetic, so if you are using it for its off label use case of weight loss, you pay full price (270ish Canadian dollars for a month of medication). People don't even hesitate to pay it even in this economy, which to me falls directly in line with what Carl is saying; something is deeply wrong here.
my mothers diabetic and was put on ozempic. Unfortunately it made her so sick she had to stop taking it, said she'd rather die then live another day feeling that terrible.
Something is wrong with people using an amazing drug… it works too well? That $270 per month == avoiding bs that don’t work. I don’t see the problem here.
ozempic is indeed an amazing drug for the pharma companies. now they have another legal drug to make people utterly dependent on their product.for the rest of their lives.
It's not for type 1 diabetics, though....It's used on-label for type 2 diabetics who make insulin but have high insulin resistance...that's why it works to battle obesity in non-diabetics.
A cool movie quote but in reality its nonsense. You cant apply that on a civilizational level, and on a personal level, how many crackheads get out of their hole again?
That's very reductive. We're complex because we are forged of 10,000 years of peoples who were determined to survive no matter what and now that that type of survival just got a lot easier we can't figure out how to survive spiritually.
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power - he's free again." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The experts are always wrong , don’t spanks your kids, don’t punish criminals ,allow mass migrations , credit is good, this food is good that food is bad, medicine is to always help you . People should be allowed fivilaious lawsuits . All good things in their time according to the experts
I get your points however don't spank your kids is actually correct. If your kids ever get so out of control that you feel the need to spank them, then you haven't been raising them right in the first place, honestly. Also, when it comes to punishing criminals, I don't think we should do that either. Hear me out. "Punishment" connotates retribution i.e. someone does bad thing, therefore, bad thing should be done to them. The problem is it doesn't actually get to the potential root(s) of the problem, which can be a whole host of underlying factors, In theory, if those underlying factors are dealt with said person will be much much less likely to engage in such behaviour. Research into the prison systems of countries that take this approach show much lower rates of recidivism. So IMO, prevention, incapacitation, and rehabilitation should be the modalities of dealing with criminal behavior, not retribution. Edit: fixed typos
Don't spank your kids is actually correct. This also illustrates that while experts are USUALLY wrong, they're not ALWAYS wrong, which complicates the picture. Agree with you on the rest, although Catalyst has a point that while of course you imprison criminals, prison should be focused on rehabilitation and not punishment. After all, suppose your new neighbor is someone who either went through a decade of "punishment" prison, or a decade of "rehabilitation" prison. Which do you prefer?
@@catalyst3713 Yeah thats a very Rousseauean way of looking at criminal punishment and what that is fundamentally wrong, and the driver of why we are releasing prisoners. Retribution is required to restore balance in society, the otherwise it leaves those who have been harmed with no catharsis. The punishment of prison should be so extreme that no man dare commit crime.
We're all wrong in some ways but they're wrong in every way imaginable, because leftism is an ideology that was purely designed to mock and rebel against God
It's our responsibility to keep those in power in check! They know very well, the power is meaningless without the masses! Bread and circuses! Our leadership, based on our form of government is an extension of its people. If that extension doesn't match up with the needs of the people, well, that's what our 5th amendment is for! As long as morons don't give it away for the illusion of security!
Look at the recent discussion between Dawkins and Peterson. Now imagine people like Dawkins being empowered and allowed to play out their materialist and literal ideology to its fullest. In the end there is no meaning in anything. To make it relevant: What is a country? Just a geographical zone. What is the people of that country? Just a collection of individuals. What is that country's culture? Just a set of relative and arbitrary rules of behaviour. What is that country's history? Just a series of random events that accidentally led to present day. Why should any of it be valued as meaningful, and why shouldn't all of them be replaced? It shouldn't be valued because value and meaning don't exist, they are arbitrary social constructs which can be "deconstructed" at will and at no consequential cost. And they should be replaced because, since they're valueless, all of them are relative to their other alternatives. In other words: If a new collection of individuals wants to enter the certain geographic zone, and then replace one set of relative and arbitrary rules of behaviour with another, and rewrite a series of random events in that zone, then what's the big deal? Country, people, culture, history... You cannot defend any of that without appealing to something more, something that the materialist will dismiss as "not factually and literally real". To him those are akin to fairy tales. Myths filled with metaphors and symbols that aren't "true".
We forgot that life is a struggle against entropy. We've worked so hard to eliminate struggle and strife that we've lost an essential driver. Wanting an easy life is the most cunningly baited trap ever devised and we've spent our entire history finding more seductive ways to bait the trap.
Best comment on here. Humans weren't meant to be happy, or even to minimise suffering. We're meant to strive against opposing forces. Like all life forms, we're built to set targets and then make incremental progress towards achieving those targets. The point is the struggle - the positive steps foward. When we actually reach a goal, we're content for like five minutes, then bored and depressed again. We're only truly happy when we're working towards something, because it's analogous to all life constantly battling the multitude of hostile forces surrounding it.
One of the main things I took away from Dune was that struggle is required to make a great person or people. While I do want a good life for my children, I do not want to give them a coddled and easy life. While I love my parents, I wish they had made me do harder things so I could grow to my fullest
So should we not try to cure diseases? Should we not make vehicles and walk everywhere? Should we sleep on stone slabs? Should we really make lightbulbs purposefully worse even though we could very easily make them last virtually forever so that people have to struggle with the continuation of buying new lightbulbs? (Which we do, by the way. Look it up if you don't believe me. Same with cars and a boat load of other things...) Where do we cross the line? Also, can I get a source on from that one guy who said humans weren't meant to be happy? How the hell do you know what we're meant to be or not be? Or what we're meant to do or not do? What if our whole purpose is to delve into science with the objective to eliminate struggle? We seemingly have the tools to do so. How do you know we're meant to ignore this entire facet of reality?
@@BaldorfBaldorf No idea. All I do know is we reach a point where making things easier just ends up making things worse. Evidence; obesity epidemic. Having plenty is reducing lifespans. To rub salt in that wound we don't even have to leave the house to get the food we're killing ourselves with anymore. Eliminating the modicum of physical activity involved in visiting the grocery store or takeaway is tempted away from us and considered desirable and 'progress'. We're getting unhappier, and unhealthier despite having a quality of life better than any in human history. Directionless, listless, flabby, hyper individualistic, hedonic societies with plummeting birth rates and worsening crises of intelligence, education, life expectancy, meaning and purpose. But...at least I have 100Mb fibre, Netflix, TikTok, electric scooters and Uber Eats to fill the void, right?
I am reasonably certain that ozempic is a faustian bargain. There is no way you can fundamentally mess with such a complex system without having unintended consequences. Also, it is treating a symptom of being metabolicly unhealthy without addressing the underlying cause.
Your train of thought on this topic made me think about addiction recovery. As an alcoholic in recovery i have had to learn and understand the difference between abstinence from alcohol and recovery from addiction. Recovery involves addressing the root of the problem. Finding that hole in our souls that we are trying to fill with drink/food/sex/drugs. Stopping the flow of our vices helps on a surface level, but there is no healing there.
Even as someone with ZERO spiritual connection with any religion, it's not hard to see how EVERYTHING goes wrong without it Not having a metaphysical reason to follow a set of morals seems not to be enough for the great majority of people
3/4 people have no persistent internal monologue, and can't actually direct their own intelligence without a third party facilitating the process/holding their hand. That's why they need an invisible overseer. They're literally too vacuous to function without one. (Followers can't not follow. It's their nature. And the ratio will never swing towards there being more leaders, because that would cap our ability to cooperate.)
@@ephraimwinslowthat is absolute ignorance. You were brainwashed as much as anyone else A. And B. Why would you even say 3/4's don't have persistent internal monologue? Because the internet said so? Maybe instead of being a condescending individual you allow them to show you their secrets? I have met plenty of people that I couldn't hold a conversation with that have taught me great skills and profound lessons. Humility is greatly lacking in us.
@@batzzz2044 1) Looks like the mods are busy, the comment you're replying to is now gone. 2) It's cute that you think your own defensiveness and slowness/bad pattern recog. are tantamount to humility and wisdom.
As and engineer with an interest in science, I just want to point out scientists know this and you shouldn't mix up scientists with . . . what would you even call them, the corporate/marketing sci-fi true believers.
Cultists of Scientism? Science Idolators? Whatever you call them they have turned 'The Science' into the god of a modern pagan mystery cult, complete with priestly class and dogma.
The problem is that the structure of science/medicine is thoroughly infested with people who believe all the wrong things about how the world works AND who believe they're infallible because "PROGRESS!!!!!".
@@edwardroy3401At this point I'd say that's largely incorrect, too. A Republic would, in theory, represent its citizens. Nearly all Western republics seem to despise theirs.
@@nepnep1453 It's an oligarchy masquerading as a republic. There's a reason nations like China and Russia don't take any of the American or European leaders seriously, and I think it's because they know the hand puppets they're talking with don't actually call the shots.
@sargon - while you repetedly mentioned the whole Ozempic analogy, I couldn't get Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange out of my mind. The whole idea that Alex, or any evil person, could be made a "morally good" individual by taking away his ability to do bad is something that has plagued me for years now. And yet, here we are - just like the doctors in the hospital, the media, and the jailors, thinking that we can change human nature via scientific intervention.
I've been saying we are racing to our own destruction for a while, most people just can't see it and think you I'm a loony, nobody can think past today.
Society is, there are those of us who refuse to partake, we're called ludites, I fix my own machinery, produce food, and I refuse to buy any thing I can't really fix my self.
@@Refertech101 I respect your lifestyle but I don't agree that fleeing and hiding away is the solution to our problems. If society falls apart, it doesn't matter how isolated you are, that will affect you as well. Without society you wouldn't even have that machinery to fix in the first place. And God knows what could happen to you in a land full of anarchy, chaos and crime. That's why I think we should get all hands on deck and try to salvage this thing. Don't know about you, I love my country and I love God, so ofc I'm fighting.
For urban folks, its always a race against time. As people urbanize, they lose grit and individualism that gets people through hard times. Rural folk feed them and for the most part protect them, which allows cities to form in the first place. Like the mouse utopia, as soon as the second generation of urban folk forget how to grow food, find water, defend themselves or socialize in healthy ways... they are on a timer until it collapses because the carrying capacity of the urban area is entirely dependent on the logistics network that feeds it, and the urban folk resent it and will actively attack their own umbilical cord in their ignorance.
Be careful of falling into the psychological trap of wanting these to be the end times simply because they are definitely the end times for you personally. This is the mistake made by death cults, several active religions, baby boomers in generality, and (very recently) organisations like extinction rebellion. Generations prior to the Great War lived their lives from the very sane perspective that they were visitors to the universe who had been allocated a finite period in which to live, enjoy their time, pass things on to the next generation, then die. Generations from the Boomers onwards have become obsessively distracted by constant change and accelerationism, as means to ignore the obvious and simple facts of mortal life, choosing instead to live as if we're the 'special' generation at the 'end of history', and might live forever. A lot of us are entirely terrified by the basic fact that Star Wars will have a 1,000th anniversary, attended by celebrating humans just like us who will read and chat about the foibles of the 21st century just like we currently do the same about the 11th century. Except we just won't be there for that conversation, having been dead for a millenium. Many people can't handle thinking about this, and so mentally conjure up a fleet of imminent catastrophies that will destroy us all within the next 2-3 generations. They find comfort in that idea, strangely, like petulant children who want to break a toy rather than share it. Nobody can think past today because nobody wants to think past today. They either live in the moment, or delude themselves into believing that tomorrow isn't going to come. Both viewpoints are incorrect, not just the first one.
I literally listened to this while eating a doughnut and teriyaki beef jerky and a monster energy drink on the way to work. Thanks Carl now I hate myself.
Not gonna lie... I'm craving a third giant cookie tonight while reading comments here, and I know I have a self indulgence/coping via eating issue that's keeping my weight above 240.
The joy of freedom doesn't come from pleasures dearived from carnality, but instead the knowledge of what is better and worse for ourselves while having the choice to pick whatever we want, with the consequences of each choice reflecting accordingly.
@@YTflagsCommentsOnMentalIness The joy of freedom is being able to make my own decisions and face whatever consequences result from them. Regardless of whether I know it's right or wrong, better or worse.
Many of the truths of the Christian religion are matters of Revelation, it must be taken on faith. However, the base axiom on which all Christians thought is based, namely, the doctrine of original sin, is as obvious as the sun on a cloudless day, as common as potatoes, as plain as the nose on your face. Original sin is the doctrine that says men do not need to be taught to lie as children, men naturally lie. Children do not need to be taught to be vicious and selfish. Children are naturally vicious and selfish. Men must be taught virtue. Vice is the default condition of the human character. The fact that we are dissatisfied with our default condition shows that it is a fallen condition, that is something that arises from a previously half remembered more perfect state. If we were merely evolving from ape man to Superman, the saintly state of mind we have not yet achieved would neither lure nor condemn us. But it is more as if there is something we remember, some Paradise of virtue which seems normal to us, despite that men are not naturally virtuous. If the term original sin offends you, you may call this doctrine the observation that what is normal to man is not natural to man. Call it what you will. But the evil that is natural to man is obvious beyond any need of discussion. Open any newspaper.
Basically what you are saying is most people just want to get on with their lives, but due progress there is a body of people who have the money and time to sniff their own farts and then waft them to the majority.
I disagree with the idea that one becomes fat due to a lack of virtue. In the 18th century you could make this argument, but our food is so toyed with and manipulated by food science that it’s not that simple anymore. Some people react to the sugar, additives etc. like crack. To them it is their weakness and they need a literal physiological intervention like Ozempic to fix their diet while still losing weight in a healthy manner. I agree that it’s solving a problem that shouldn’t exist in the first place, but arguing virtue in my opinion will not change public opinion. We need specific policy interventions to prevent food companies from adding the shit they do, as well as a concerted effort to inform the public of the dangers of UPFs.
I wish I could enjoy being so, so right about all this, but the truth is, I can’t. I’m old enough to remember the days of being labeled a “fundie” because I warned about sexual degeneracy. I remember being told to stay out of your bedrooms, gay people just want to get tax benefits, after all. I remember being told I was a protectionist because I didn’t want a flood of people overwhelming my country’s borders. This was all entirely predictable. It was also entirely preventable. But as my mother used to say about my youngest brother, “He has to do it wrong just in case you were lying.” The old biblical quote goes ‘nihil novi sub sole’. History shows us what happens to civilizations that become culturally decadent. That discard their traditions and beliefs, yet in our vanity and pride, we thought ourselves so much wiser than our idiotic, superstitious ancestors. They warned us by the traditions they passed down, as well as in writing, but we were going to do it wrong just in case they were all liars. Now we are going to pay for it.
I have a good diet, exercise regularly and I'm within the recommended weight for my height. Recently diagnosed with diabetes. No medical explanation yet. I'm so grateful for science, without it I would die of the consequences of the illness.
I understand the objection to "science providing the easy solution," but here's the problem: our food has been engineered to be addictive. Now, one CAN buy completely organic food if he is willing to a) cook it entirely himself (and never enter a restaurant), and b) spend significantly more money on it, but clearly, most will not. Given that science has made food addictive, it only makes sense that science lends a hand to helping people to cope with said addiction.
While I can appreciate the argument you're making, there are some issues with it. For example, according to your definition, I might be considered a virtuous man in terms of my eating habits, as I very seldom eat "junk food"; I don't have a sweet tooth, and I generally eat (and enjoy eating) healthy food. But I don't believe that I cultivated this virtue. It feels to me more like I inherited it, just as much as I feel I've inherited the vice of excessive alcohol consumption. I never had to fight my desires for bad food because I never had them. By contrast, from a young age, I've enjoyed alcohol and the feeling of drunkenness. The word "technology" is often used in a narrow sense (referring to physical inventions that we use to manipulate reality), but I think in its broader formulation, it can apply to anything that has the potential to give us an advantage. To borrow a term I came across through John Vervaeke, we employ many psychotechnologies to obtain advantages. Would something like meditating to achieve a more stable state of mind be considered an impediment to virtue? I doubt most people make such a claim. But what about using a psychedelic drug to "jump start" one's motivation to achieve a more stable state of mind and to meditate to this end. Would that be cheating or vicious? I don't think so, and I think many would agree with me, but many would also disagree. This suggests that there isn't a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable tools for "improving" ourselves. While I have my doubts about our casual attitudes toward using modern technologies and the risks associated with this, I wonder if perhaps technology use itself isn't the problem but rather our ignorance of the unintended and long-term effects of using it.
To me, it's pretty simple: "The bigger the challenge, the bigger the reward." Not having a sweet tooth makes the challenge of not eating sweets easier, thus less rewarding.
I want to add the fact almost everything we do was taught. What you thought off as an uncertainty, I think of as a certainty and we are almost arriving at that destination in the form of a robotaxi. Thank you.
Tl;dr No. Technology isn't going to neuter human moral development. Consequentialism and deontology are a circular duality. When you eliminate the negative consquences of a vice, it is no longer is a vice nor a virtue, because you have removed the consquences that create the negative outcomes that justify the deontology that sets the heuristic and values that protects against and define negative outcomes. For example, if science eliminated the need to eat entirely and the consequences of over and under eating, it would be neither virtuous nor viscious; it leaves the moral dimension because it no longer affects our lives. The circle goes the other way too: you remove the consequences which the deontology defines as good or bad, which makes that particular deontology abstract and meaningless, which removes the definition of the consequences. For example, are you a bad person for not setting your snare traps in the woods today? Or have you progressed beyond the need to follow prudence in hunting? Similarly, you are not viscious or virtuous for how many times you observe a yellow car, because it has no impact on life, and no deontological heuristic would bother considering it, either as a value, or in service to a value. What I would agree is terrible about the encroachment of technology on morality is the illusion that consequences have been taken away, when they haven't. This is especially relevant where it is not obvious what the consequences are This is why we have blurry golden mean heuristics around most of our morality in the first place; the consequence landscape that is known is complex, and most is largely unknown. The best example of this right now is trans surgery. It's the equivalent of telling people they don't need to collect water from the stream anymore because now we can make it rain on command directly where we need it, and then finding out that actually we can't, and no amount of bullying the water collectors will make the tech work as well as just collecting water. However, in the future as the technology develops, perhaps making it rain on command may be a better solution than collecting from the stream, and perhaps it will not. Ultimately our moral failings of today are going to cause a collapse that we will learn from and make new morals. This only hasn't happened yet to the degree that technology can develop faster than the corruption and insulate us from our misbehaviour faster than we can destroy ourselves. Yeah it would be great if we could just not destroy ourselves and be wise about it (and become feed for the parasites that aren't), but apparently people have to learn the hard way.
The misuse/dependency of/on technology is the problem, not the technology itself. Same goes for food or whatever. You're should be allowed to eat and enjoy sugary foods, just don't overindulge. We need better leaders/teachers/parents.
... points to cratering birth rates (and countless other social ills) resulting from the sexual revolution and contraceptives. Just because you _think_ that science has removed the consequences, that doesn't mean that consequences are actually gone.
@@BaldorfBaldorf True. Just as technology takes consequences away, it adds them. And they're often complicated and difficult because we've not had to deal with them before. And yeah, we do.
Is a washing machine cheating because the spiritual process of cleaning was not done by itself? Is an automobile cheating because the path of life has not been traveled under its own power?
man, calling me out. I was offered this by my doctor, but I turned it down for two reasons. I didn't know how it works or the side effects, and I felt that even if I lost weight, I wouldn't have earned it. Despite that, I struggle. Despite the fact I struggle, I am suspicious of the "virtuous man". I feel that we need to be imperfect virtuous men, continent men who honor and seek virtue but to not lose ourselves and forget what it is we are.
Everytime Im at the grocery store and Im looking at the sweets, I always hear Carl saying "Sugar is the antithesis of man" I cant remember what video that was from or what channel even if it was sargon, or akkad daily or thinkery, but that saying always stuck with me.
Not a bad article - but it does neglect an important point. Historically, a lot of our self-control came out of "not having any choice". We ran out of food from time to time and were forced to do without - or, at least, we were forced to eke out a limited supply until better times came along. This led to the genetic adoption of the solution "pile on fat while the good times are here". Our greediness stems, ironically, from our historic need to be do without - because our ancestors faced famine and piling on fat was a bulwark against it. Those who DIDN'T have this instinct died in famine times. Today, we not only have plentiful food - we have plentiful food developed by very clever people to tempt this binge eating reflex. The challenge of resisting it is harder than ever before. There are things we can do, however. One tip I found very effective recently is to simply put all treat foods in the cupboard. Out of sight, out of mind. Or don't buy them at all. But it does make me wonder: how much of the desire to binge eat is due to spiritual emptiness - and how much is due to the famine survival instincts that made my ancestors survive whilst others died? Do the two work together? Can I distract myself from my desire to consume by having a fulfilling life project?
It's very telling that about 90% of westerners, especially younger folks, will watch Spider-Man's uncle Ben refuse to give up his car keys to the robber, and react with total confusion, saying "But why didn't he just do what the criminal told him? What an idiot - didn't he understand he was going to be shot?!" Once you divorce religious belief from morality, the latter just sails away randomly on the wind. Self-preservation automatically becomes more logical than doing the right thing, to such a shocking extent that moden westerners will vehemently admonish people for acting morally.
I don't think that interpretation is completely right. I also don't think it is theism vs atheism. It's my personal belief it is comfort and addiction. When our power went out because of hurricane Helene. It was an eye opener. It has inspired us to have a no Internet and screens at least one day a week.
Thing is, very few people are actually being themselves when told that. They do what the vast majority of people do: they do what other people are doing. I always took it is as "follow your conscience", because what kind of life is it to only exist to make _other_ people happy? Ive lived like that for most of my life and I was anxiety riddled and depressed the whole way through. Its just slavery dressed to not look like slavery. If we want to continue seeing ourselves as individuals, then we need to stop thinking that collectivism is the only way. Its okay to be different. Its okay to say no. And its okay to stand up to people that think they know whats best for you when they dont. Im not going to cast off my chains from the left just to have chains put on me by the right.
Every time I go out somewhere in public with crowds of people I always run into people who don't seem to see me, don't even try to look me in the eye and just move around like they're trying to phase through me You think people like that are interested in bettering themselves?
That drives me nuts aswell. It's completely ruined what content I ever had at living in urban spaces. I would now much rather live somewhere remote or rural, where people still have civil regard for each other. Are there nice people around in cities? Sure. Does one encounter them that often among the general population? No. Societal degradation has made even getting on a bus something more akin to a battle charge.
On the subject of self control and sweet things. I recently gave up chocolate, because an injury made exercise difficult and I didn't want to balloon; having been something approaching a 'chocoholic' for a long time. Having not eaten this particular indulgence for a few weeks, my tastebuds have reset and I desire sweet things less and their appeal has much reduced - which is a good thing in my view. A lot of what many people do is habitual, breaking the habit is a good thing, if not an easy thing. Taking a drug to depress, temporarily, your appetite, is not a solution. It's another iteration of the fashionable diets that, predominantly, women embark on, only to put all the weight lost back on after coming off the diet - messing up their metabolism in the process. Ozempic will probably be the same.
A drug that suppresses your desire for sweets could result in the same rewiring of your taste buds that would last beyond the need for the drug. The issue isn't that we're using drugs to achieve short term results, its that there doesn't seem to be a long term plan to remove the drugs and retain the benefits.
@@Troublechutor Exactly this. A lifetime "plan" of "Take these medicines for all your problems, or to mask that your lifestyle is making you miserable, and never change the sources of your problems" isn't a solution: It's a scam.
With regards to the diet drug, what you are not taking into account sargon is that maintaining a healthy diet is about habit forming. If the drug allows for the habit of eating healthy to form then no conscious decision is required infact a conscious decision may even be undesirable as that can distract from the habit building by setting a time parameter after which the habit ends. While you may find this philosophically undesirable, well what's the saying...facts don't care about your feelings.
Being virtuous by avoiding what you find repugnant is not being virtuous. It's just that your vices are things that are not bad for you. Another example. A man that cannot feel fear cannot be brave even if he stands shoulder to shoulder with a brave man. You must overcome your feat in order to be brave. You must overcome your vice to be virtuous.
The issue in "the west" is an almost total lack of traditional social structure which in most societies throughout history was passed down culturally, having nothing to do with the government. Religions had a fairly big part to play. But they mostly enforced social structures that were there anyway. We've made it practically illegal to have traditional values. People keep looking to the government to solve problems that can only be solved at home. But it is too late for the old ways to return. The only option is to push through and make some sense of what comes next.
"The virtuous people are those who enjoy eating a healthy seed-oil free diet", what on earth are you talking about? Please tell me that I need to do my own research. I'm starting to suspect that the rest of what you're going on about is of similar quality.
I think Ozempic will reveal that most weight issues are from long-term heartburn issues caused by an infection that has been with us since before antibiotics.
It's everywhere and AI is like a hyper-catalyst. However, at a more mundane level, I have often wondered what it is like to be the child of two erstwhile unattractive parents who have indulged themselves in plastic surgery. One's genes do not adhere to one's parents' synthetic image. As a musician who struggled to learn to play guitar forty years ago, I figured out twenty years ago, on the release of GarageBand for Mac, that the end of music as an art form was on the horizon, if not all art. Anybody not familiar with the infant GarageBand might not have realised that with it, it was possible (though not necessarily easy) to create music with no musical abilities. It became easier and easier to the point that one barely even needs to think in musical terms to request the creation of a piece of music. My first encounter with ChatGPT a couple of years ago was to request a song with chords and lyrics in the style of The Clash on a particular subject and it was dispensed in two seconds. The momentary delight was instantly overshadowed by the realisation that the weeks that I might put into a song were debased like the Reichsmark. A few years later and the song can now be delivered fully orchestrated as an audio file. I have barely gone near ChatGPT since; the idea of faking it repels me and has probably been kept in check by occasional dreams of turning up at school naked. It is all coming to a head now, I think. RU-vidr Wings of Pegasus has been analysing the audio of supposed 'live' performances and discovered that enhancement (to put it mildly) is like a cancer in the music business. A prominent vocal coach (who I'd never heard of) was caught lip syncing to a recording he had made about thirty years ago as well as miming playing guitar. A very famous band were also caught miming at 'live' concerts and a RU-vid channel which supposedly set out to present 'unfiltered' music was discovered to be doing anything but that. There is a certain inevitability about it; the first rudimentary green-screening showcased on Tomorrow's World may have seemed a key (pun partially intended) moment but caution not to believe our senses is famously Orwellian but is as old as Plato and the Book of Revelation and indeed total disinformation was explicitly stated as the aim of the CIA by William Casey in 1981 evidently oblivious to the looming of the most notorious year in the history of literature.
Tools for music production have made music infinitely better. Its lead to the creation of infinitely more art than without it. Its a magical time to be a musician / composer / producer. Its easier now to make a living doing music independently than ever before. AI stuff is gay, but other than that its an amazing musical world for oneself today. The music "industry" is as terrible as ever though.
@@1e0isfdkorblpg That may be true in your subjective opinion but it has objectively deskilled musicians (as with all synthetic processes) who no longer need to hone their abilities because any mistakes can be 'edited in post' or even on the fly. Don't kid yourself into thinking that music has somehow improved because the sampling rate is higher or the bit depth greater - music is not synonymous with music technology. And by saying that it has never been easier to make a living doing music, you make my point - there is nothing to be in awe of because it is so f'ing easy.
@@sapereaude391Your last sentence is why I still shoot film in real cameras. Digital bullshit has done the same thing to photography as it's done to music. And digital brats are proud to the point of arrogance to have no skills. I was shooting the Burlington E5 at the Illinois Railway Museum in 2016, holding my giant studio camera over my head and looking at the screen on top, to get the lens higher up and keep the trolley poles straight, and make the front of the E5 extra-pointy. A guy strolled up and watched me do this. After I took the picture and cranked the film advance, he asked why I was holding the camera over my head, so I told him. He got a wise-ass smirk and said "Well, I can do that in Photoshop." "Yes, well, I could, too, but I'm not afraid of effort." He looked like I'd grown an extra head, and slunk away. The picture came out perfect.
@@emilyadams3228 Quite. I concede that I now have a DSLR but used to shoot on film - from around 1980 until about 2005. I did resist but even though I capitulated, I hope that I brought my 35mm approach to digital photography and not, as others even older than me, did by throwing enormous amounts of money at technology which they would point at wildlife and assault their subjects with a shutter faster than a Gatling gun and then pinch out one from a few hundred, straighten it and crop 90% out of it still leaving about 5Mp, run it through some stock Lightroom filter stacks and then ask, 'what do you think of that, then?' Learning to develop and print (especially seeing your first print) is as good as it gets in photography and as close as it might ever feel to being a pioneer. But the economic restrictions of film and the deferred revelation of your work teach you how to compose shots as you take them in a way that technology cannot. My love of photography was smothered by the ubiquity of mainly mediocre, unexceptional photographs made 'exceptional' by smart apps and I am clinging on to my love of guitars and music as the cacophony of musical product stifles motivation. As a bit of a digression, perhaps, I once made a short film with a friend. Between us, we spent two weeks writing, filming, composing music and editing. It was not a bad effort at all and we both felt that we had produced something of quality in the true Robert M. Pirsig sense. I uploaded it to my now deleted RU-vid channel and after a few weeks, there had been about a hundred views even after pushing it somewhat on my Twitter account. Meanwhile, somebody (anybody) yelling inanities into an iPhone might get 10,000 views in an hour. I might be accused of envy but I think I'm more philosophical than that, I think I was just disappointed but I believe that the disappointment came with a grain of wisdom.
Sometimes the comedians are the only ones who can tell the deep truths that no one else wants to say. How many times have tyrants attempted to silence comedians who mock their faults and tell the truth?
Another point: all of philosophy can be viewed as just some peoples' ideas and opinions about various things. Yeah, there are a lot of good ideas, but you CAN counter most philosophers work by saying "yeah but that's just their opinion bro." Science is all about the attempt to understand objective reality and when done honestly and properly you get result that say "your opinions don't matter, this is literally just how things ARE."
Do you have to frame science in opposition to morality? Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge. Moral questions are orthogonal to it. I don't think scientific progress prevents us from being virtuous. Life has enough moral challenges even for someone who has “cheated” themselves to good health. A healthy body goes hand in hand with a healthy mind.
Tru,e and honestly someone who continues to eat unhealthy on ozempic was probably doomed anyway if it wasn't available. They would just die later rather than sooner. At least ozempic gives some of them a second chance.
I think Sargon means science as an industry. As LOTR explains, the problem isn't the things that we build up into industries, but rather the concept of industry itself. The huge monoliths we construct then try to apply to everyone on a 'one size fits all' basis.
I don't think he meant the scientific method, I think he meant THE HECKIN SCIENCERINO™️ that we were told to unquestioningly trust for three years. The types that go all in tend to behave like the fundamentalist religious people they tend to decry and also probabably couldn't describe the scientific method if asked
Correct analysis. Seeds of scientism planted in classical era. Plato et al. warned against extreme thinking contra atheists, nihilists, sophists, stressing balanced living. That balance was finally lost starting in middle ages with Aquinas and Nominalists. This is the inevitable outcome--imbalance, quantity over quality.
The market does not value virtues or morals. 109th rule of acquisition "Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack". Yes it's a parody and it's also real.
having watched only the first 30 seconds, i already know this is a great addition to Whatifalthist's latest video; "The Greatest Lie Ever Told". furthermore: FIRST
Carl, If you haven't seen this, I think you'd like it. Published in nature-metabolism, Dr Speakman has a study entitled "Total daily energy expenditure has declined over the last 3 decades due to declining basal expenditure not reduced activity expenditure" It shows that * TEE declined by about 7.7% in men and 5.6% in women over 30 years, after adjusting for body composition and age. * Physical Activity Energy Expenditure (AEE) showed an increase over time (it's not sloth). * The authors suggest that changes in dietary fat consumption (Swap of animal fats for seed oils) may be the primary factor influencing obesity trends, as there was no evidence of increased caloric intake contributing to the obesity epidemic (it's not gluttony).
I haven't seen that study, but I've seen others and a whole lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that focusing on willpower and gluttony is really not the problem. The problem is corporations feeding us poison and waste to save a few bucks. Willpower is better spent eating non-processed foods. (Which isn't easy. Even things like cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil, for instance, can have issues with pesticides or the MAFIA (for some reason) cutting the oil with canola.)
As is often the case with moralists, I think Sargon has blinded himself to some of the variety of the world. Modern obesity appears to often be a complex disease rather than just habit. Besides physiological processes interfering from eating less in a modern environment, it is really hard to afford good food nowadays (which also makes me laugh when people suggest eating a lot of beef). Yes, modernity has caused the problem. Does not mean willpower can solve it.
This applies to economic systems as well. Even capitalism. Those without discipline and virtue benefit from the fruits of labor from those who put in the work. On a very small scale, this can be addressed because the beneficiaries are likely to have some form of connection to the provider, and will therefore express gratitude or risk damaging that relationship. On larger scales, connection disappears, the gifts and services are more and more taken for granted, and the beneficiaries lose any reason to grow as people. Just as "being connected" on social media has divided us, forming centralized power structures have left us relatively numb to each other. This is akin to the bystander effect in larger cities. Why help somebody being victimized in front of you when that's the government's job? The antidote is decentralization and personal responsibility.
Here are some points I would disagree with You on: 1. Families, countries, happines etc are very rational things to strive for as a human. I have no idea what You are on about here. 2. I think You are conflicting modern day progressivism with rationality which often doesn't add up. 3. A hunter gatherers would be confused looking at a sedentary farmers, then they would be confused seeing people settling in large urban centers, then they would be confused at the factory workers during industrial revolution and we would be confused seeing people in few centuries that upload their brains into computers or heavilly modify themselves to survive in harshness of space. Whatever was "natural" for humans, we already crossed this line the moment we gave up on hunter gatherer lifestile and instead of letting the evolution guide us trough blind process of trial and error that lasted for eons we took reign of our own evolution. And We too go trough our trial and error period too but it's more conscious process now. What we have now is just one step on enormously huge path humanity goes trough and the mistakes of today may fade away with time and as we go forward opportunity for new mistakes will arise that we will have to learn from. 4. Just because You could get over Your cravings and managed to maintain more healthy lifestyle everybody's organysms work differently. Will You say to someone who feels pain more strongly than others to just get over it just like the guy that has normal pain tolerance? That would be unfair isn't it? Or maybe a heroin addict could trough sheer willpower gave up on narcotics because You gave up on donuts? No. We need ways of helping ourselves with whatever weighs us down and prevents from achieving our true potential. Willpower is a good thing to heave but everybody is in different situation and need different treatments. Also yes. If I could skip the painfull journey and become a better me as soon as possible I will take the shortcut. Just like I don't wait untill my organism deals with fever by itself, I use medicine to get back to regular life as soon as possible. 5. Issue is people developing more virtuous stances in life is not something there is a shortcut to. You can tell a kid that if he touches the stove he will burn himself hundred times and it might still touch the stove and burn himself learning it's lessons the hard way. If someone gives in to their cravings way too easy then You can't beat them over the head about it. maybe cravings are just too strong to handle and they need help, maybe they will learn with time that there is a better way to handle things. So it's very easy to act high and mighty while You already learned Your lesson and how to controll Yourself but other people have their own struggles and measuring them with the same yard-stick. 6. I think You blow it waay out of proportion. Using ozempic is like using safety wheels while learning to ride a bike. It's like taking a medicine when You are ill. It's a way to stabilise Your life. You think that if You managed to brake Yourself out of Your pleasure seeking behaviour everybody should do the same while everybody's situation is different. Calling it cheating is like wearing warm clothes in winter and calling it cheating, You should have develloped natural ways of protecting Yourself from cold. I'm just... not sure where You are going with with this way of thinking. Why science is the bad guy here? Why people seeking ways to improve their well being bad? It reeks of "pulling Yourself by Your bootstraps" mentality which can work with some people but can drive others to suicide. What I would rather advocate for is better mental health hygene. Pleasure seeking mentality is a disorder that can be treated. Willpower is something that can be developped but can't be just expected as something that everybody should have by default.
The hunter gatherers and nomads might have concidered the farmers to be cheating as well. Only hunting is virtuous and domestication of animals (scientific breeding) and growing crops makes you weak.
Considering that the Kazak nomads are still around and are obviously healthier than the domesticated counterparts of our species found commenting on an internet video forum, yes, they would and they are right to think so. (Seriously, look up a few pictures of the aforementioned people, one doesnt require any medical knowledge to see the benefits of that lifestyle) The question remains in whether the decrease in health from the shift to cushy life is equivalent to or greater than the rewards for doing so, such as our ability to communicate with one another across possible leagues.
I'm reminded of the supertask paradox, where one must fill an infinite vase with infinite balls. However, every ten balls that are put into the vase, one must be taken back out. At a glance, once the task is complete, one would think the vase is now full, despite taking a ball out for every ten. But it is equally likely that the vase is empty. Consider the balls to be numbered, and you do this task in steps. Step one, when you put balls 1-10 in, you take out ball 1. For step two, you put in 11-20, you take out ball 2. For each numbered step, you take out the ball of the corresponding number for that step. Because every ball is eventually removed, the vase must be empty by the end of the supertask. No matter how much progress is made, it is just as likely that we will make no progress at all.
Just sounds like a brief demonstration that two infinities can have different sizes. Like the infinity of real numbers being larger than the infinity of whole numbers. Fortunately, people and their civilisations are not infinite. That's what causes all these issues we have with self-delusion and self-sabotage in the first place.
A fundamental problem is also that many Americans are on medications that cause weight gain even if they manage to diet and exercise. One of the side effects of those medications is increased hunger and it is not always just the urge to feel as if "stuffed". This unfortunately leads to a pharmaceutical intervention being a viable alternative since other options may not result in a person losing weight. Semaglutides may make a person feel more easily satiated, but they also increase lipolysis and discourage gluconeogenesis, which are both acted on by commonly prescribed mental health, and also some physical health, medications. Contraceptives also increase weight gain. Many areas in the United States are also not pedestrian friendly and lack walkability, which contributes to this issue. Part of the reason for the European and Asian being more trim is that even their suburban areas are friendly to walking, running, and biking. A lot of calories are simply used up just walking around and doing things, even if at a leisurely pace.
Please do me a favor and confirm that's a serious statement. I'm quickly coming to that conclusion about steak and water myself as any good relationship I've ever had with food has been systematically destroyed by blood test results, conflicting information from "experts", and revelations about the disaster that is the Western diet.
@@stevejaworski2954 In all fairness, I'm pretty sure people on an all meat diet either supplement a lot of vitamins (which everybody should be doing anyway, as modern processed/mass manufactured foods are nutritionally terrible) or eating primarily grass fed/organic/high quality meats. Personally, I am sure that people need meat and protein as their primary staple food, with a mix of vegetables, fruits, raw nuts/seeds, and some occasional grains/sugars in limited amounts as the best diet. Our short intestine digests meats very efficiently, and we actually NEED gut flora (bacteria) to process other foods, and our primary diets as hunter/gatherers would be various meats year round with other foods as we found them. Farming has only been a thing for 5,000 to 15,000 years.
@hariman7727 I think ppl underestimate how long it took to gather enough grain to make a slice of bread before we invented farming, or how that sack of oranges in the supermarket is more fruit then most gatherers saw in their lifetime.
So, I’ve worked on my own economic index recently. I call it the *Young Wealth Index.* Whe older generations pass away, who is left to inherit the wealth and benefits made by that society? If those future generations fail, then society was for naught. The Young Wealth Index of a country is its median income divided by the cube of its median age, or alternatively its GDP per capita (unreliable as the latter may be). At the top of the list are countries such as the United States, Israel, Ireland, Switzerland, and Norway. Surprise candidates are the UAE and Gabon. These nations have a future, where China, Korea, Russia, and Germany do not. *One would be wise to reflect on the transfer of culture and prosperity to younger generations. We thrive when men plant trees in whose shade they know they will never sit.*
GDP is a crap metric when you don't take into account cost of living. Norway for example is giving out this drug to people on the tax payers bill. The amount of immoral things Norway do with the people's money is why Norwegians do not in fact feel rich even as their nation is wealthy
The boomers don't give two shits about the generations that come after them. They will have left their countries in impossible levels of debt and degredation when they die, and they will do so with a smile on their face.
I don't know if you need a "young wealth index" to know that it's good for nations to have a high median income and a low median age. Also, you're only considering the snapshot, present-day median income and median age. But if we're going to make statements about which countries have a future, then you also need to know how the median income and median age are changing over time. So for example, South Korea has a terrible birth rate, which means that its median age is going to be significantly higher in the future, which is terrible for South Korea, but your "young wealth index" doesn't capture that its median age is increasing over time. Still, kudo's for trying to model reality. While I've been a bit critical, any model of reality is flawed to an extent. I do applaud sitting down and creating something new.
@@lightworker2956 Also, how do massive levels of debt affect such judgements. The current unfunded liabilities of many nations, including the US, are staggering.
More succinctly: make property transfer from one generation to the next beyond the reach of the state. Like Pericles, and many others did at the dawn of the *insert golden age here*.
You cannot come to even know yourself unless you do the philosophical work required to begin to change your mind. As a compatibilist the only semblance of free will we as deterministic beings can hope to attain is to be cognizant enough of our determined will to be the deterministic factor that changes our will, but to do so requires introspection. Modern society has limited introspection to a medical diagnosis.
Ozempic can also cause severe anemia, I know 3 people who've had that exact side effect from it. My sister-in-law's mother couldn't get a hip replacement surgery when she needed it because the ozempic her doctor put her on made her too anemic to survive the surgery.
