EPT2: I definitely agree that a bunch of new age alternative medicine etc have been more prominent with leftists, but not really with the political left, rather with the apolitical left. By this I mean they've been fringe positions held by leftists, but they've been too few in number to get influence. Traditionally there was also an apolitical right but I feel they've now been courted and included, while the apolitical left is still more sidelined. Examples can be say, Jill Stein, who is clearly a leftist but has also had some anti science/ conspiratorial views, but who isn't part of the Democrat party, or the significantly more insane MTG who is an elected representative from the republican party.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3965
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28669 Posts
2: I definitely agree that a bunch of new age alternative medicine etc have been more prominent with leftists, but not really with the political left, rather with the apolitical left. By this I mean they've been fringe positions held by leftists, but they've been too few in number to get influence. Traditionally there was also an apolitical right but I feel they've now been courted and included, while the apolitical left is still more sidelined. Examples can be say, Jill Stein, who is clearly a leftist but has also had some anti science/ conspiratorial views, but who isn't part of the Democrat party, or the significantly more insane MTG who is an elected representative from the republican party. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
On June 22 2023 06:54 Acrofales wrote: I have to ask. Why do you think the inability to buy a gas stove in a new construction or a reform of your kitchen is bad? Do you also lament the ability to not use a wood stove in your kitchen? I used to be a huge fan of cooking on gas, but we moved into a house that was all electric in 2016 and induction is just... better. It is cheaper, the heat is equally easy to regulate, and you don't risk setting your house on fire if you forget to switch it off (or it is damaged and leaks). Since then I became a home owner and actually installing induction is considerably more expensive than gas, so we're waiting until we have to reform the whole kitchen anyway, but for a new installation, the expense is roughly similar: the device is more expensive, but you save on having to put gas pipes in the wall. So why do you have a problem if natural gas stoves are phased out in favour of electric cooking? + Show Spoiler [foody stuff] + Really there's only one thing I can think of that induction is truly inferior and that is anything that requires an open flame or a localized source of intense heat. You can generally replace that type of cooking with an oven or an air fryer, and the only thing I cook that really is inferior on induction than on gas is cooking paella, which you just cannot get a good socarrat on with induction. I'm sure there are other super specific types of cooking that work better on gas than induction, but I doubt you're lamenting the ability to get good socarrats on your paellas when you complain about the gradual disappearance of gas cooking. If it is, you'll be happy to know that you can get an even better socarrat with a wood grill! This argument works for Western cooking where generally your pots and pans have a flat bottom. Once you get into Asian cooking where you use woks with round bottoms, they don't quite fit on the flat induction or electric cooktops. Professional restaurants can use specially curved induction tops, but those only work for a specific size and shape of wok and you can't use a flat pan on it. Not great if you have limited space at home. Another issue is with the use of ceramic cookware, which obviously don't work with induction. Clay pot cuisine is common in East Asia, and it is hard to get the same kind of delicious crusting on a metal pot. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28669 Posts
I have induction and definitely prefer it overall, but yes, certain cooking techniques, ones involving curved cookware or requiring open flame don't work/won't work as well. Overall this is more in the 'minor inconvenience' area though, far bigger sacrifices have to be made. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
On June 22 2023 16:40 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yeah I think the fabled 'wok hay' is problematic in the same way socarrat is. I have induction and definitely prefer it overall, but yes, certain cooking techniques, ones involving curved cookware or requiring open flame don't work/won't work as well. Overall this is more in the 'minor inconvenience' area though, far bigger sacrifices have to be made. It is all those minor inconveniences that cause people to be resistant to change though. Think about it. There are over one billion people in China. These people cook with woks every day. How would you convince them to give up their gas stoves? | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
On June 22 2023 16:49 gobbledydook wrote: It is all those minor inconveniences that cause people to be resistant to change though. It's the feeling of I can't do this, and I can't do that, and this doesn't quite work, and that doesn't quite work, so I might as well stick with what I know and like. Think about it. There are over one billion people in China. These people cook with woks every day. How would you convince them to give up their gas stoves? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28669 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4102 Posts
Regarding the obesity crisis, it is definitely correct that it's caused in very large part by genetics. What is not true is the claim that that's the only cause or the claim that individual cases of obesity cannot be combated with diet and exercise. I don't believe these claims were being made though, because the precise phrasing is important. “The number one cause of obesity is genetics,” she said. “That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50 to 85 percent likelihood of having the disease yourself, even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.” This quote pertains to the genetic desease, NOT to the process of weight gain or weight loss. The part of the quote "[...] even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management." refers to the genetic desease. The disease itself will be present regardless of lifestyle choices, and it's caused by genetics. That's what it says, and that's completely true. Furthermore, an individual finding it within themselves to lose weight is not the same thing as a population doing the same. The process for an individual is indeed mainly diet and exercise. But people wrongly assume that that's all there is to it. There are a number of factors, among them being 1) accessibility of (especially cheap and tasty) calorie-dense food, 2) environment (family etc.), 3) occupation, 4) mental state, and several others. Note that I haven't even mentioned genetics. I'm demonstrating how complex weight loss really is for obese people. We can tell a person to change their diet all we want, it will only happen if the circumstances are conducive to the necessary behavioral changes. Just explaining to people why diet and exercise helps them lose weight and encouraging them to do it isn't going to do anything to solve the obesity crisis by and large. This is what Cody Stanford says (paraphrasing "willpower is not the answer") and once again it's completely true. I know some people have a hard time believing this. But the data strongly suggests that individuals are not at fault for being obese. The crisis started during the latter half of the 20th century and it was NOT because people suddenly lost their willpower. The truth is that many years ago the types of food that cause obesity weren't available in large quantities, for cheap and at convenient distances to the population at large. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4729 Posts
On June 22 2023 18:14 Magic Powers wrote: Regarding the obesity crisis, it is definitely correct that it's caused in very large part by genetics. Lol! No. Not at all. See for example here: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/basics/causes.html Quote: Genetic changes in human populations occur too slowly to be responsible for the obesity epidemic. Yet variants in several genes may contribute to obesity by increasing hunger and food intake. Rarely, a specific variant of a single gene (monogenic obesity) causes a clear pattern of inherited obesity within a family. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On June 22 2023 18:14 Magic Powers wrote: Not being conservative doesn't automatically make a person pro-science. This should be fairly obvious. Regarding the obesity crisis, it is definitely correct that it's caused in very large part by genetics. What is not true is the claim that that's the only cause or the claim that individual cases of obesity cannot be combated with diet and exercise. I don't believe these claims were being made though, because the precise phrasing is important. “The number one cause of obesity is genetics,” she said. “That means if you are born to parents that have obesity, you have a 50 to 85 percent likelihood of having the disease yourself, even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management.” This quote pertains to the genetic desease, NOT to the process of weight gain or weight loss. The part of the quote "[...] even with optimal diet, exercise, sleep management, stress management." refers to the genetic desease. The disease itself will be present regardless of lifestyle choices, and it's caused by genetics. That's what it says, and that's completely true. Furthermore, an individual finding it within themselves to lose weight is not the same thing as a population doing the same. The process for an individual is indeed mainly diet and exercise. But people wrongly assume that that's all there is to it. There are a number of factors, among them being 1) accessibility of (especially cheap and tasty) calorie-dense food, 2) environment (family etc.), 3) occupation, 4) mental state, and several others. Note that I haven't even mentioned genetics. I'm demonstrating how complex weight loss really is for obese people. We can tell a person to change their diet all we want, it will only happen if the circumstances are conducive to the necessary behavioral changes. Just explaining to people why diet and exercise helps them lose weight and encouraging them to do it isn't going to do anything to solve the obesity crisis by and large. This is what Cody Stanford says (paraphrasing "willpower is not the answer") and once again it's completely true. I know some people have a hard time believing this. But the data strongly suggests that individuals are not at fault for being obese. The crisis started during the latter half of the 20th century and it was NOT because people suddenly lost their willpower. The truth is that many years ago the types of food that cause obesity weren't available in large quantities, for cheap and at convenient distances to the population at large. What does that even mean? Are you implying that even people that have good diet and exercise and are in really good physical shape still have a genetic disease of "obesity" that they inherited from their obese parents except that it's just in a latent form? Also yes obviously it's hard for people to avoid cheap and tasty food and exercise and do all the right things. Almost nobody wants to be fat. If people could snap their fingers and will more discipline upon themselves I'm sure they would have done that already. It's not about assigning blame or shaming individuals that are obese. It's about accepting reality and not lying to people by telling them that they have no responsibility for the shape they are in and they just got dealt a shitty hand genetically. You're right that people didn't just lose their willpower in the latter half of the 20th century and Drone is right that there wasn't some sudden uptick in fat genes in the latter half of the 20th century. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10711 Posts
Just because fat parents are more likely to have fat children does not mean it's due to genetics... My god this is dumb. Its just pure feel good "politics". | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11511 Posts
On June 22 2023 18:10 BlackJack wrote: fwiw I don't think the gas stove ban is done for efficiency purposes but health purposes, e.g. triggering asthma. Or at least that's how they are selling it. Electric stoves are still considered fine and as far as I know they are pretty comparable to gas stoves in energy efficiency. I've lived in Florida most my life and we don't even really have gas stoves there (only 8% of homes from what I just googled). We don't really need to heat our homes so we don't have gas hookups in the first place. I've used gas stoves while living in other parts of the country and I generally find them much nicer to cook with, but it's generally not something I care about in the least. A big advantage of electric compared to gas, even when at simiar energy efficiency, is that you can power electric stoves with renewables. You cannot power gas stoves with renewable energy. I don't think they work with hydrogen, and using renewable energy to synthesize methane is another massive energy inefficiency that usually makes it prohibitively expensive. Edit: regarding obesity On June 22 2023 18:36 BlackJack wrote: What does that even mean? Are you implying that even people that have good diet and exercise and are in really good physical shape still have a genetic disease of "obesity" that they inherited from their obese parents except that it's just in a latent form? Also yes obviously it's hard for people to avoid cheap and tasty food and exercise and do all the right things. Almost nobody wants to be fat. If people could snap their fingers and will more discipline upon themselves I'm sure they would have done that already. It's not about assigning blame or shaming individuals that are obese. It's about accepting reality and not lying to people by telling them that they have no responsibility for the shape they are in and they just got dealt a shitty hand genetically. You're right that people didn't just lose their willpower in the latter half of the 20th century and Drone is right that there wasn't some sudden uptick in fat genes in the latter half of the 20th century. One thing i notice almost completely missing from this discussion is societal change beyond the individual. We can greatly reduce the probability of people getting fat on a societal policy level. Make healthy food cheaper, make calory-dense stuff more expensive. Make softdrinks more expensive. Make water cheaper. Put less HFC and sugar into fucking everything (limit this by law or whatever). Make biking to places an easy, cheap and efficient way of short-distance travel. Have walkable cities. Both "willpower" and "genes" are pretty obviously stupid as approaches, and almost certainly being lobbied for because they don't cut into company profits. Availability and incentives simply work. If sugarwater is cheaper than healthy drinks, a lot of people will buy sugar water. If every processed food contains 10% sugar, it becomes really hard not to get fat if you don't want to put in a lot of extra work. If high-sugar and high-fat processed crap is cheaper than fresh veggies and fruit, people will by the processed crap. And start in school. Every school lunch needs to be healthy. Any food sold in schools needs to be healthy and cheap. Have restrictions on sugar advertisements aimed at kids. There is a lot of stuff we can do as a society. But it is hard, because corporate lobbying wants the opposite. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On June 22 2023 19:04 Simberto wrote: A big advantage of electric compared to gas, even when at simiar energy efficiency, is that you can power electric stoves with renewables. You cannot power gas stoves with renewable energy. I don't think they work with hydrogen, and using renewable energy to synthesize methane is another massive energy inefficiency that usually makes it prohibitively expensive. Edit: regarding obesity One thing i notice almost completely missing from this discussion is societal change beyond the individual. We can greatly reduce the probability of people getting fat on a societal policy level. Make healthy food cheaper, make calory-dense stuff more expensive. Make softdrinks more expensive. Make water cheaper. Put less HFC and sugar into fucking everything (limit this by law or whatever). Make biking to places an easy, cheap and efficient way of short-distance travel. Have walkable cities. Both "willpower" and "genes" are pretty obviously stupid as approaches, and almost certainly being lobbied for because they don't cut into company profits. Availability and incentives simply work. If sugarwater is cheaper than healthy drinks, a lot of people will buy sugar water. If every processed food contains 10% sugar, it becomes really hard not to get fat if you don't want to put in a lot of extra work. If high-sugar and high-fat processed crap is cheaper than fresh veggies and fruit, people will by the processed crap. And start in school. Every school lunch needs to be healthy. Any food sold in schools needs to be healthy and cheap. Have restrictions on sugar advertisements aimed at kids. There is a lot of stuff we can do as a society. But it is hard, because corporate lobbying wants the opposite. Hm... Is the renewables thing even relevant anytime soon though? Don't we still require mostly fossil fuels to power our grids and the allocation of the power is somewhat fungible? In other words we would still use up all the renewable energy to power other things and it's not like we would have extra renewable energy going to waste because our stoves only use gas. Yes, agree with the second part of your post. The "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is not a serious approach to get people to change their behavior. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44337 Posts
On June 22 2023 16:49 gobbledydook wrote: It is all those minor inconveniences that cause people to be resistant to change though. Think about it. There are over one billion people in China. These people cook with woks every day. How would you convince them to give up their gas stoves? The 1B+ people living in China aren't affected by New York law. For other states and countries that are taking steps to address the climate change crisis, they may choose other avenues besides phasing out gas stoves over time. How China handles things may be different. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4102 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21687 Posts
On June 22 2023 20:11 Magic Powers wrote: The fact that you make a leap to genetic predisposition lying dormant for millennia instead of just the fact that 'we' eat more fat and unhealthy food then ever before is so weird to me.The obesity epidemic only started in the late 20th century. This cannot be explained by people lacking discipline. It is best explained by the fact that a significant portion of people were always genetically predisposed to become obese given a specific set of circumstances. That set of circumstances has arrived with the advance of tasty calorically dense foods being made available to the population at large - something that wasn't the case at any point before in human history. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11511 Posts
On June 22 2023 19:22 BlackJack wrote: Hm... Is the renewables thing even relevant anytime soon though? Don't we still require mostly fossil fuels to power our grids and the allocation of the power is somewhat fungible? In other words we would still use up all the renewable energy to power other things and it's not like we would have extra renewable energy going to waste because our stoves only use gas. I think it is, especially when considering goals like being climate-neutral in 2050 or earlier. Stoves last a pretty long time. Getting people to change out a working stove for a different one is hard, and people tend to get very angry. A much better solution is for people who would get a new stove or replace their old one to get electric ones instead of gas stoves. But that takes a long time, because people don't exchange their stoves often. So you need to start early. If you only start with this once we have the necessary renewable capacity, you waste the 10-20 years it takes for people to actually change their stoves naturally or you make everyone angry by forcing them to exchange their working stoves. It takes even longer if you consider that you need different building infrastructure for electric stoves compared to gas stoves. You no longer need to lay gas pipes, and instead you need high-current power lines. You also need to prepare municipal power infrastructure to take the additional demand that accumulates from electrifying more and more things. Once those electric stoves are in place, nothing needs to change for the people in the houses anymore. Which is good, because people are pretty resistant to changing stuff. But once they have them, their electric stoves will just keep on working. You can change the source of the electricity without the people having to do anything, or feeling any impact on their lives whatsoever. Edit: On June 22 2023 20:17 Gorsameth wrote: The fact that you make a leap to genetic predisposition lying dormant for millennia instead of just the fact that 'we' eat more fat and unhealthy food then ever before is so weird to me. I don't think it is that absurd. For millenia, storing lots of calories when you have access to them was a good survival treat. Getting calories irregularly was a problem that hindered individuals from reproduction, so dealing with that efficiently was good. Getting too many calories was never a problem in history, and especially evolutionary prehistory. So that genetic predisposition makes immediate sense to me. The problem and source of solution is still what we put into our bellies, because we cannot change our genetics anyways. But saying that we had the same genetics that lead to us getting fat when we eat too many calories for millenia is probably also correct. It just wasn't a problem, because we rarely had too many calories available. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4102 Posts
On June 22 2023 20:17 Gorsameth wrote: The fact that you make a leap to genetic predisposition lying dormant for millennia instead of just the fact that 'we' eat more fat and unhealthy food then ever before is so weird to me. I've been reading about the obesity epidemic for years. It's been well established in the scientific literature that only a tiny fraction of the population used to be obese, and the rise in obesity correlates perfectly with the commercialization of processed and ultra-processed food items. Ice cream, chocolate cakes and cookies used to be luxury items that few people could afford. The working class ate bread, potatoes or rice, and they were lucky to be able to afford cheese with every meal. Accessibility of such foods was also not granted to the working class. There's a reason why bread crust used to be "only for the poor" (even though it contains more micronutrients). I don't believe individual choices are the reason for the obesity epidemic. That just makes no sense. I think humans are largely predisposed to behave the way they do, and the environment is the triggering element for most of our behaviors. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On June 22 2023 20:17 Gorsameth wrote: The fact that you make a leap to genetic predisposition lying dormant for millennia instead of just the fact that 'we' eat more fat and unhealthy food then ever before is so weird to me. Yeah the theory works just as well without the genetic component | ||
| ||
