Readit NewsI'm right of centre and think RFK is a fruitcake, I have no idea how the guy above is aligned politically but I do know he doesn't know wtf he's talking about.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
The standard of living for the median worker has improved significantly in forty years let alone two hundred, lifestyle inflation is definitely rapid as you would expect with progress, wage growth has outpaced inflation for everyone but public sector workers.
Bad as things may seem now, we are all richer than ever before.
As a heuristic it correlates quite well to many measures. The more someone’s diet falls on the ultra-processed end of the spectrum and the less they eat of unprocessed foods, the higher the rate of health problems.
A simple example of the effects of processing would be considering an apple: Eating a whole apple is the healthiest because you consume all of the fiber and the digestion process is slowed because you have to break it down. Crushing it into something like apple sauce preserves much of the structure but now it absorbs faster and it’s easier to overeat it before your body can recognize it’s full. Processing it further to apple juice removes the fiber and now makes it spike your blood sugar and it’s easy to consume a lot of sugar.
Ultra processed would take this even further, packaging it in a container with added sugar and some preservatives for shelf life. This is where it enters kids (and adults) diets, where it is far removed from the unprocessed Apple it started as.
False, based publicly available data, even data pushed by the UPF cultists there is no correlation between UPF consumption and 'Life Expectancy at Birth', 'CVD Deaths per 100K', 'Heart Disease Deaths per 100K', 'Cancer Incidence Rate per 100K', 'Stroke deaths per 100k', '%age Population with High Blood Pressure ISCED standard', 'Mean Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHG)', or shockingly 'BMI'.
In fact, in some cases there is an anti correlation such as life expectancy, now it would be absurd to suggest UPFs increase longevity of course but the reality is richer countries eat more processed foods and richer countries live longer.
Deleted Comment
But regarding China specifically it has been the gradual transition to a more market led economy.
I don't think that's the case. I think most people are not self-interested, or at least not in the selfish sense. I think most people are more than willing to sacrifice _some_ direct personal gain for better community gains.
The problem is that capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish, so it incentivises even the more community-oriented people to always put themselves first, a lot of the time even in detriment to their immediate vicinity.
Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few, and everyone else is just constantly fighting for survival.
> being authoritarian which will inevitably leads also to surveillance
That's exactly where capitalism is taking us.
Wasn't a requirement, self interest doesn't imply malice.
>capitalism only allows selfish self-interest to flourish
How's that then?
>Capitalism is a form of authoritarianism in that it really only serves a few
You're cooked, market liberalisation has led the world from >80% in poverty to <10% in under 40 years, even removing huge entities like China.
But a general observation that the more processed a product is the more likely it is nutritionally garbage is pretty universally accepted and is generally valid, however vague and debatable the specific tiers might be.
>but here especially because you broadly accused HN of being anti-science on this subject
Do you imagine yourself to be the universal "HN"? I made no such claim. Nor is there some pro-UPF faction dominating HN that you seem to imagine. Seems to be a pretty mixed group, many legitimately curious and learning and coming at it from different perspectives and levels of knowledge.
Then there's you, spouting nonsense and looking for an argument while you muddy the waters.
Again, though, your shrieking about artificial sweeteners again just betrays that you're a hyper-polarized person just looking for an argument at whatever cost. Humorously I've defended and encouraged artificial sweeteners on this very site many times.
I am not shrieking, I'm cool a cucumber. In general I try to avoid this subject because of how divisive it is and because the loudest voice in the room is the one decrying the subject despite all evidence to the contrary.
It is absolutely reddit-tier to say "grass isn't actually green because these two people say so" only in this case the grass is behind an abstraction that requires a bit of minor gathering and analysis, yes my own analysis counts for nothing I am aware, but I encourage everyone to do it themselves, the data are free and ubiquitous.
Do I see myself as HN? no, but evidently the original guy sees himself pushing back against the tide of uninformed HNites without realising what that actually implies.
Not nonsense, not debunked, not shrieking. Muddying the waters? maybe but I'm fed up of this fucking stupid shit popping up every other week on here and having sandal-clad neo hippies and anti-science right-wing fruitcakes sperging out.