On the lab grown meat section

For those who are instead principled libertarians who genuinely wouldn’t turn this around on a moment’s notice, well, I am sorry that others have ruined this and so many other principled stands.

I am not sure if I understand what is meant by this, but I'm interpreting it to imply that principled libertarians should be against a ban on meat derived from animals.

I think anyone claiming that ought to also provide a justification as to why non-human animals shouldn't be afforded some basic negative rights within libertarian principles?

To argue that one conscious being should be granted full license to do whatever they want with another conscious being doesn't really strike me a pro freedom stance.

Unless you have a reason why it's okay to have an out-group for whom you deny freedoms in order to maximize the freedoms of the in-group? Are libertarian principles just "might makes right" privileging the smallest number of individuals you can get away with?

It's my understanding that the controversy is mostly manufactured by industries with large financial interests in selling foods with added sodium. They pay for misleading/inaccurate studies to be done in order to introduce uncertainty and doubt. Whereas it's my understanding there is a near consensus towards low sodium amongst scientists without direct/indirect industry ties.

I do think there are probably some cases where increasing salt beyond natural levels can be the healthier thing to do given specific health concerns.

That one sounds good!

It wouldn't work for me personally because I have a pathological relationship with refined sugar so the only equilibrium which works for me is cutting it out entirely (which has been successful and rewarding though initially very difficult).

Thanks!

Oh that's a good one! I mostly follow that one already although I do find value in some unsweetened teas and smoothies. I find personally that the immediate trade-offs to consuming alcohol are enough to ensure I only really drink when it's actually aligned with my interests.

Although I do have a rule for alcohol which is "don't consume any alcohol unless people who you're currently being social with are already drinking," I'm not sure exactly how much that rule has helped me because I've followed it all my life and I don't really like alcohol that much, but maybe that's partially because of the rule.

But yes I think the rule you gave is a really good one, especially when it comes to things like refined sugar. A sugar craving could be satisfied in other ways, so there's relatively small trade-offs in that sense, whereas it's very beneficial not to drink refined calories because it's so easy to consume so much that way while not bringing in any significant nutrition alongside it.

Thanks!

Very interesting post! I enjoyed it! Just had some thoughts about the poly section.

If you are polyamorous, and you meet someone plausibly 25% better, or even someone 0% better (I mean the person you are with is pretty good, no?) you are honor bound to try and make it happen.

I'm not sure why you'd be honour bound to make that work. Maybe the phrasing is just being hyperbolic but I don't think refraining from pursuing a romantic relationship damages your poly honour.

Most people are not hyper-skilled in anything. Certainly they are not hyper-skilled in communication, emotional regulation and self-awareness.

If you define "hyper-skilled" as "way more skilled than average" then what you're saying is true by definition. If its not defined relative to everyone else in a given culture, I think you can certainly say most people are hyper skilled at communication, emotional regulation and self-awareness in ways which their culture requires of them.

For example, most people in highly religious/authoritarian cultures are adept at those social skills which prevent them from being ostracized and condemned. Not reacting violently to insults would be considered hyper skilled in some cultures whereas it's the minimum in others.

With that In mind I don't think polyamory is as unrealistic or as demanding in its requirements as you make it out to be. People tend to become hyper skilled socially when it's a requirement for what they're doing, and when it's normalized within their culture. If other structures are in place to replace the requirement for those particular skills, they won't develop.

Polyamory probability selects for people who are socially skilled in the ways that help with polyamory, but being polyamorous also helps to develop those skills.

I think it's fair to say that for many or most people it would be too costly to try to switch from monogamy towards polyamory when they've already been highly invested in developing their monogamy toolbox. I think that's very different from saying only a small percentage of people have the capacity/potential to flourish being poly.

Scott then follows up with a highlights from the comments, where the arguments against polyamory seem convincing

I read most of the comments and I think pretty much all of the arguments against polyamory are coming from monogamous people with very limited/no experience with polyamory or polyamorous people. Not to say that discredits their arguments, but I'm typically pretty sceptical of arguments about lifestyles that are widely considered distasteful, coming from people who are far removed from those lifestyles, based on a couple anecdotes, if any.

Monogamous people are also already having way fewer children, and the type of person deciding to be polyamorous probably correlates pretty strongly with the type of person already deciding not to have kids. I don't think there's really good arguments that kids of poly people will be worse off, most of those arguments refer to practices which aren't essential to being Poly. Many of the arguments appeal to reference classes that aren't particularly applicable to a scenario where things are being done with care intentionally as opposed to as a result of scarcity, neglect, and unforseen challenging circumstances.

If you only eat potatoes you wouldn't die from lack of sodium, the average person would probably become healthier only eating potatoes, it's been done, though I'm not endorsing that. Potatoes and water already have sodium in them, maybe not quite at the ideal ratio per average calorie but it's pretty close or maybe in that range depending on the person.

We certainly need some sodium/salt but I think the extent to which most people crave salt is a result of miscalibration due to overexposure and adaptations which aren't aligned with our current environment.

I minimize added sodium and I don't really have any cravings for salt anymore, unless you count the cravings I have generally for the food/nutrition I need to sustain myself, which contains roughly enough sodium naturally.

If someone is eating a varied diet of whole foods with no added salt it's possible that adding a very marginal amount of extra salt would be healthier in some cases, but that's very far from what is typical.

I agree that seed oils should be avoided yes. I am skeptical of explanations pointing to some element particular to seed oils that is the main source of obesity and health problems, and I'd be worried this might lead people to be less concerned about consuming other unhealthy things.

I'm unsure exactly what points you're making.

I'm saying the idea that it's healthiest to avoid virtually any refined oil is mainstream nutritional understanding. Do you dispute this? I'm not making a point about which refined oils/fats are better than others. I haven't seen anything that has convinced me mainstream nutrition is wrong about that, but I don't think its particularly important when they can all be avoided.

Typical doctors are not particularly reliable nutritional authorities. They have almost no nutrition training.

MacDonalds fries are clearly very unhealthy regardless of what they're fried in. Do you have evidence that they're healthier when fried in beef tallow?

Regardless, the point I was making was that the diets the original commenter mentioned all restrict things that mainstream nutrition already suggests cause health problems.

Refined sugar, refined grains, refined fats, and animal products are all things mainstream nutrition suggests cause health problems. All of the diets listed restrict at least one of those things, so it's not surprising that people would report temporary improvements in health relative to a diet that doesn't restrict any of them.

I am confused by this sort of reasoning. As far as I'm aware, mainstream nutritional science/understanding already points towards avoiding refined oils (and refined sugars).

There's already explainations for why cutting out refined oil is be beneficial.

There are already reasonable explainations for why all of those diets might be reported to work, at least in the short term.

I would consider most bread sold in stores to be processed or ultra processed and I think that's a pretty standard view but it's true there might be some confusion.

Or take traditional soy sauce or cheese or beer or cured meats

I would consider all of those to be processed and unhealthy and I think thats a pretty standard view, but fair enough if there's some confusion around those things.

So as a natural category "ultra processed" is mostly hogwash.

I guess my view is that it's mostly not hogwash?

The least healthy things are clearly and broadly much more processed than the healthiest things.