this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
186 points (91.9% liked)
Science
3247 readers
226 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Your third point is largely correct(cheers), but it's not as easy to solve poverty, depression, or war as you think it is.
If you want to lose weight, all you have to do is stop putting food in your mouth, or put less food in your mouth each day. Simple, but not easy for many people.
Clinical depression, on the other hand, is caused by various complex chemical imbalances influenced by various environmental and social factors, so you can't simply disentangle yourself from those chemicals and circumstances the same way that you can choose to stop putting food in your mouth.
Wait, you're saying that there are nuances and subtleties that my simple solutions don't take into consideration?!?
/s (I didn't think this was necessary, but given your response...)
Yep, exactly!
Do you seriously think that eating - arguably one of the most fundamental and instinctual things that living things do - is not subject to complex chemical, environmental, and social factors? Really?
The solution "don't eat so much" really is as naive as telling a clinically depressed person "just be happier" or telling a poor person "just go earn more" or telling Israelis and Palestinians "just don't fight do much".
Yes, the solutions really are that simple, at one level, but pretending like the knowledge of this solution gets us anywhere in terms of actually addressing the problem is just silly.
Misattributing your own false arguments to others doesn't prove you any less wrong.
I'm not talking about eating, I'm talking about the solution to obesity.
They are not the same.
The difference between eating less food is much simpler and has fewer steps(one, if you are having difficulty counting) than the solutions to a war or depression.
The solutions for war and depression are not as simple as that of obesity.
Obesity? Eat less.
War? Stop selling Israel weapons from the US. But where does Palestine get their weapons? Issue a UN resolution. But nobody is bound to follow that resolution. Declare two states. But does each country agree to that? What about boundaries? And on and on. Every proposed solution comes with multiple various considerations that you haven't taken into account.
Obesity? Eat less.
The facetious solutions you're proposing to stopping a war or ending clinical depression are not as simple as you imagine, are actually impractical and will not work, while eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity.
And continuing to push your facile argument doesn't make you any more right.
Fight less.
Of course not! That's what makes them facetious! But "fight less" is as useful a solution to war as "eat less" is a solution to obesity. Which is to say it's trivially right, but not actually a solution at all.
Right. It's the same with obesity. Do you honestly think that obese people don't understand the link between eating and weight gain? Do you think that they don't spend their entire lives with people admonishing them for their weight?
If you're aware that you're making facetious arguments, then stop being facetious and implying false equivalents and try a practical solution.
Eating less will solve obesity.
You're wrong in equating war with someone carrying extra weight, they are not the same situation at all.
War is often a very complex problem without a simple solution.
Eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity that unarguably works.
What obese people understand and whether they get admonished is immaterial to solving their obesity.
Eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity.
Not fighting would solve war. Wouldn't it?
Right. Exactly! And obesity is a complex problem without a simple solution. Eating less is a trivially correct solution to obesity just as not fighting is a trivially correct solution to war. Please see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
My point is that if it were actually so easy, it wouldn't actually be a problem, would it?
I'm not implying anything, I'm offering analogies. And the sarcasm is a rhetorical device that seems to have flown right over your head. I'm sorry about that. I didn't think you would actually believe I thought that the solution to war and poverty and depression was easy. They're not. I'm trying to get you to see (argument by analogy, check the link again) that the solution to obesity is not either.
If your response is just "yes it is," if you think that the trivial solution hasn't been tried over and over again by millions of people who have desperately wanted to lose weight and keep it off, but have failed, you're being willfully ignorant.
Hunger is a primal urge. It's governed by a complex series of hormonal and neurological feedback loops. It's influenced by sociological and psychological factors as well as the non-caloric nutritive content of available and tolerated foods. Those factors are shaped by culture and economics and history etc etc
When I say all this and you say "eating less is the solution", it sounds just as silly and naive as when you talk about war being the result of historical factors, religious animosity, geopolitics etc, and I say the solution is not fighting. Which is to say, very silly and naive.
There's nothing silly about the complexity of war, what is silly is you equivocating a complex situation like war with being obese
If you stop eating or eat less, you will lose weight.
Inarguably, eating less solves obesity and is simple to do. It is not as easy to eat less as it is to eat more, but it is much easier to stop eating food than it is to stop a war.
It is within most people's personal power to control their appetite, it is not within most people's personal power to stop systems of war, poverty or depression.
You're promoting an absurd false equivalence.
Don't worry, everyone understood your attempt at sarcasm, but the simplest way to help you understand how ridiculous your ambiguous inaccuracies are was to respond to them at face value, which obviously worked, as you're now aware of how silly the arguments you were making were.
It's good you understand that a war is a complex situation now. Next, you just have to wrap your head around how simple eating less food is, and how the characteristics that complicate issues like depression or war or poverty do not similarly complicate a basic symptom of overeating like obesity.
War, poverty, depression require complex solutions. Obesity requires a simple solution.
This has nothing to do with your tangents about nutrition or false equivalences or false claims about eating less not resulting in losing weight, this is about solving obesity which only requires a simple solution that can be implemented at any time without any preparation.
Stop eating or eat less.
Of course you will. This does not mean it's a solution to obesity.
Except it's not. It's not sustainable. Even with medical intervention, the vast majority of weight is regained.
Except it's not. The long term success rate of dieting (again, in the context ofa medical study) is 15%
Except it's not. And the repeated weight loss and regain experienced by most dieters is arguably worse for health than just being overweight.
You can keep simplistically stating that it's easy, despite all the evidence, and you will continue to sound as idiotic as a rich person floating on their inheritance and saying that poverty would be solved if people just weren't so lazy.
No, poverty is another complex issue that does not have a single, simple solution, like obesity does.
You agree that if you stop eating or eat less, you will lose weight. Great. We'll have to disagree on the definition of a solution, because you do not find a method that solves a problem to be a solution.
I know Americans think it's difficult to stop eating, but this is a localized problem in wealthy countries with a lot of food and marketing.
Also, you keep pretending that it's easy, I keep saying that it is simple. Those aren't the same word, if you're confused.
Cutting off someone's leg will also cause them to lose weight. This is pretty simple. Is it a solution to obesity?
A large nuke dropped on Gaza would end the fighting there. Also simple. Is it a solution?
No, no, I hear you saying, these actions would lead to other problems, don't solve the underlying complexities etc etc.
I'm having trouble believing that you can write in complete sentences but are too thick to understand how "just eat less" suffers from the same problems. So you must be trolling me - congrats! I'm ashamed it took me so long to recognize you're just playing dumb.
I've cited a bunch of scientific papers showing why just eating less isn't a solution. It may lead to temporary weight loss, but doesn't solve the issue long term, and causes other harms. If you want to provide any evidence for your claims or to dispute mine, go for it. Otherwise, cheers! The solution to your ignorance is you just need to learn more. Simple!
Eating less food does not suffer the same considerations or consequences as cutting off a limb or dropping a nuclear weapon on a country undergoing a genocide.
These are further immaterial false equivalences.
If you temporarily eat less food but regularly eat too much food, you will gain weight. Similarly, if you temporarily eat too much food, but regularly eat less food, you will lose weight. This can be connected back to our earlier agreement that it is excess food you put in your body and do not burn that causes weight gain.
If you regularly eat enough, but not too much or too little, food for your body long-term, you will maintain a healthy weight long-term.
Now we have a simple solution to obesity and, at your prompting, a simple solution to long-term weight maintenance.