> People already know what they should be doing—but for most, that knowledge doesn’t change behavior. Humans are hard-wired to conserve energy (see “Born to Rest,” September-October 2016, page 9), for example, and to prefer foods that are fatty, salty, and sugary.
This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease.
Really? What about side effects? Why not work on becoming smart instead of telling people to eat pills?
> Really? What about side effects? Why not work on becoming smart instead of telling people to eat pills?
From the end of the article:
“To treat excessive inflammation, whether it is chronic or the result of an acute tissue injury, we don’t want to block the inflammatory response. We want to stimulate the resolution pathways.”
I realise my comment wasn't very clear. The way the article recommends to stimulate the resolution pathways does imply the possibility of such drugs in the future, but primarily they explain that consuming chicken, beef, eggs, fish, and fish oil or algae (for omega-3 EDA and DHA) will promote the synthesis of these substances in one's body.
Overall they are definitely not promoting the use of drugs over lifestyle improvements. They talk about lifestyle improvements throughout the article and this was my primary takeaway: exercise regularly; don't overeat; eat those things mentioned above.
The quote is assuming people are "machines" hard-wired to eat bad food and don't work out. I deeply believe humans are smart and can reflect and change their behavior. At least, we need to give them the chance to.
Where do you think did I not address the things I quoted?
Where do you think did I not address the things I quoted?
Quote: "People know what they need to do" - your response to that: ignore it, don't address it.
Quote: "that knowledge doesn’t change behavior" - your response to that: ignore knowledge entirely, state that "smarts" changes behaviour.
Quote: "Humans are hard-wired to conserve energy (citation)" - your response to that: don't address it, implicitly dismiss it, state that willpower overcomes hardware (no citation).
Quote: "prefer foods that are fatty, salty, and sugary." - your response: ignore it.
Quote: "This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary" - your response: "really?" doesn't particularly address it. Yes, apparently, really.
Quote: "to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease", your response to global epidemic of disease: "why don't people WORK HARD to be SMARTER, they're ill because they're dumb", i.e. dismiss it as trivial and uninteresting with a throwaway intelligence worship quip.
Hard-Wiring implies software can't change it. This is the fundamental point, if you're to address the things you quoted, you need to address why you think it's not hard-wired in the face of a claim that it is, or why the claim is unsupported. The world's population has become more overweight and obese over the past hundred years - is your explanation that it has become dumber since stopping working to be smart?
If you addressed the things you'd quoted, your comment would have included things like: why you don't think people "know what they should do", why you think people are not hard wired to conserve energy, why you think taste for high energy food is learned or is changeable and not innate, why you think "work to be smart" is a plausible way to address a global disease epidemic and what you think that work would involve, and how it could be taught to the world. Why you think it's possible that work can improve "smart"ness, is there anything to suggest that's true? AND/OR why those claims shouldn't be accepted.
Instead, "nah bro, just work at being smart" is the same quality of reply as "global disease epidemic of cancer may need chemotherapy" "really? why not work on raising your astral frequencies?". It's a feel-good non-solution that doesn't relate to what was said.
You asked me where I think you didn't address certain points. As you didn't address them, I have no text from you to copy or refer to, I can only point around the area where you didn't talk, to show that it exists.
When you say "work to get smarter instead", that says the problem is a lack of work and a lack of "smart", and therefore that people are ill because they're dumb. It follows from what you said, even though you did not write those words out. So yes, I imply that your responses are your responses.
How is that different from telling me I did not supply citations?
I don't want to read citations, I mentioned them as one example of what "addressing a point" could look like, so that the absence of any of these possible things supports that you didn't address them.
I asked questions. I never thought about supplying citations when asking questions. I get the feeling you read lots of judgement into my question. My intention was to create a discussion around the question.
Anyway, I guess there is little value in discussing further. Thank you for explaining your reaction. Definitely food for thought
This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease.
Really? What about side effects? Why not work on becoming smart instead of telling people to eat pills?