Sugar industry, tobacco industry, oil industry.
Which other industries have distorted reality, and which future ones will be revealed in the coming decades?
Which other industries have distorted reality, and which future ones will be revealed in the coming decades?
Great book about it The Fish that Ate the Whale.
https://www.amazon.com/Fish-That-Ate-Whale-Americas/dp/12500...
imagine if they were as rare as dragonfruit or durian
Only because sugar is bad for you does not mean fat is good for you. Evidence is rather on the side of complex carbs, high fiber, moderate protein, moderate unsaturated fat and low saturated fat intake.
But I would say that in general, 'x is good/bad for you' is a harmful oversimplification. Sugar is also not 'bad for you'. It's not that simple. Glucose is important and sometimes extremely beneficial to consume (in any form).
As for saturated fat: it's complicated. Correlation != causation. For transfats we have a pretty good idea via which causal mechanism problems arise. For saturated fat we only have correlations. Given how hard nutritional research is and especially how hard it is to draw conclusions from it, I would say it's better to refrain from feigning confidence on substances where the jury really is still out.
Right, in small amounts though. You don't need that much. Eat a handful of nuts and you're good.
It's like a teaspoon of sugar in your tea won't cause huge issues. Cold drinks with 10 teaspoons in a bottle however are a problem.
Frankly, the number of carbs and fiber you need throughout your life is 0.
Sincerely, what are you talking about? It's been well-known a diet high in fiber lowers your risk of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases.
Also, no carb diets are largely bullshit. There's plenty of complex carbs with many nutrients. The problem is while "no carb" might be somewhat effective, it's not sustainable for the vast majority of people. That, to me, makes it very close to worthless.
For most of humanity, humans ate 100+ grams of fiber a day and had a diet almost entirely composed of carbohydrates. Access to farmed meats is a very new phenomenon. I think this is the part people are missing - they believe paleolithic humans ate mostly meat. They didn't. They ate mostly carbs. Also, the meats they did have had very little saturated fats because they were game meat, not farm meat.
A burger isn't really the same thing as a wild antelope.
Most industries employ honest people, don’t have to cover up anything major.
There’s a big difference between slightly misleading marketing (say, calling your 10% hand stitched clothes “hand stitched”) and outright paying scientists to cover up genuine harms to health and the environment.
Think of the places where corruption is endemic. Having an outlook of "well, everybody is corrupt" normalizes the behavior and makes it easier to justify sliding into corruption oneself.
If the outlook were useful, it would help to fix the problem instead of doing the opposite.
The disillusionment doesn't offer any benefit that can't also be gained with a touch of common sense alone. But going from "some people are terrible, sometimes" to "everybody is terrible" forecloses any possibility of improvement.
To ignore gradations of disappointment is to excuse everything via apathy.
One thing can be bad, while another is worse.
tell me about how netflix dumped millions upon millions of gallons of oil in the ocean and wiped out entire ecologies.
There are definitely egregiously-bad actors compared to those that aren't.
Someone has a vested interest in the side of the story you’re getting, and they may have even paid for it.
In addition, transporting glass is inefficient, and it is much more prone to breakages.
The real issue is the fact that every company gets to have their own plastic bottle design, with 3-4 different plastic types that have to be triaged. They typically also want way thicker bottles than required because they feel more premium.
A government that mandates a specific shared plastic bottle designed to be recyclable would be much, much ecologically effective than switching back to glass.
I don’t know if metal cans or tetrapack are better.
Given the thread we're in that bottle will some type of unimaginable cancer after 30 years and in 2070 people will be talking about how big plastic captured government.
Glass on the other hand is the definition of inert, who cares if it's more expensive if it keeps us alive longer?
Also, it doesn't further enrich/entrench the oil industry to the same degree as most plastics based manufacturing does.
Those are not environmentalist, but people who are trying to find any excuses to oppose renewable energy. Environmentalists know that wind turbines kill a fraction of the numbers of birds killed by things like house cats or power lines.
I've got an old 7up bottle that was about 20 years old when I bought it in a 6-pack.
It definitely is great to be recycled but hauling around cullet in diesel trucks that is further away than your raw materials might not be the best decision.
Eg:
> Fiber cannot, however, be recycled endlessly. It is generally accepted that a fiber can be used five to seven times before it becomes too short (as a result of repulping and other handling) to be useable in new paper products.
- https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/...
I thought the same about glass but that turns out to be genuinely endlessly recyclable. Good to know!
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -Dwight Eisenhower farewell address 1961
Did we listen? Nope.