Hacker News Reader

Comment by stevenwoo | Hacker News Reader

I heard about this on NPR last week - even if it could make old people's blood vessels youthful, it seems like it would be better to just make the person change their diet and their exercise regimen, assuming exercise was possible. This chemical only affected blood vessel health. This is only one component of health. Bone density requires load bearing exercise. Another recent study pointed out lack of exercise led to nerves to major muscle groups fading away with lack of use - led to muscle loss - one has to use those muscles to use the nerves, age related muscle loss can be staved off by exercise of the muscle groups in question.

View on HN

The supplement or the pill has magical abilities though. Many people who will say "I die when I die" when told to diet or exercise will take a pill with no complaints.

And as a hobby dieter & big loser: Once you realize diet is something requiring long-term conscientiousness, the truth and enormity of the change can hit very hard. It is an emotional roller coaster that can just as easily make people more fat than when they started.

"And as a hobby dieter & big loser" - I love this.

If they don't care about their own health and longevity I would argue their lives shouldn't be extended against their own will.

Should we also give free houses and luxury cars to people who refuse to work?

Shoud we sell stuff to people who refuse to work out?

The answer is obvious yet you're not seeing it.

> Should we also give free houses and luxury cars to people who refuse to work?

I know you meant this as a rhetorical question, but yes, I think society should provide free basic housing for those that can't afford it, whatever the reason.

If they are willingly taking the pill then it's not "against their will" at all?

The difference is crucial.

Is it true that you have to work, put in effort for most things in life? And that people need to learn that? Yes.

But isn't it also true that the science is largely an endeavor of decreasing the amount of work people need to put in to achieve the same result in some area? If you look at almost all of the history - that is also true. This is just another installment of that same centuries-old trend.

Science wants (and should rightfully want) to make a pill that will make something require less effort (staying healthy for long time). If some people would not put in the big effort, but would put in the small effort, given the opportunity - than all the power to them. It's the ultimate goal of science anyway.

Is that what science seeks, or is that what society necessitates science seek?

Take Type 2 Diabetes. Science is putting a significant amount of time and money to "cure" it. The sad irony is, we have a cure. Yes, that takes - evidently - too much effort. But isn't that a matter of perspective?

Cancer is also a byproduct of diet and lifestyle. Seems to me that cancer is more difficult than changing diet and lifestyle.

The point is, science is forced (so to speak) to seek things that are already found. "Easy" or not, what other unintended consequences does "easy" create? Science should be seeking best solutions, at which point it could move on to other things.

I'm not sure what the problem is with "society necessitates the direction of science".

What else do you propose the science be directed by? What else is really there? Are there any other real reasons for science at all?

Science is for us, the humans, the society. Studying things with no reason or benefit for the society, somehow detached from humanity, for what, some vague abstract reasons? I'm not sure I would want to put my effort into that, either in the specific sense, or even in the more implicit sense of funding it through my taxes.

Doing science for the sake of science? What's the point?

Looking at the question from another perspective though - I think a good direction for science would to study how would it be possible to make people take the extra effort, make the difficult choices - that would lead to a natural resolution of many of their problems (like exercise would lead to less cancer). But in this specific case, stopping science from looking for anti-cancer pills, for example, does not seem like a proper way to go. Willingly preventing progress in making lives easier with low-effort methods like pills (if they really do work) does not seem like the best way to promote otherwise healthy behavior.

No problem. Provided the bigger most important things have been solved. When first world science is "forced" to focus on self-inflicted first world problems, __and__ that focus is accepted, if not encouraged, then something is seriously wrong.

>it seems like it would be better to just make the person change their diet and their exercise regimen

That's the easy (conceptually) way. If we wanted that, we would have done it.

But we want to have our cake AND eat it.

So true. Nowadays many of us believe both that we have no free will and that losing weight is just a matter of diet and exercise.

These aren't conflicting positions. :)

True, but one of them is unfortunately common. Some people desperately want to change their harmful behaviors and just can't. I know someone who just had their teeth removed after 30+ years of an eating disorder (acid destroys teeth over time).

The way I see it either

(1) I can will to change my diet and exercise. In which case my will is free, OR

(2) I can't will it. In which case, given that some people have successfully made the change, factors other than diet and exercise must have been involved, so it can't 'just' be a matter of diet and exercise.

In case 2, losing weight is still down to diet and exercise, it's just that these options aren't currently available to you. Neither of these options is at the root of the causal tree (if you can will to change your diet an exercise, there's a reason why) but they're both required at some level.

>Nowadays many of us believe both that we have no free will

I think the difference between nowadays and the past, isn't so much attitude as it is food abundance.

It's easy to blame individuals and say they need more self control. but the reality is we're at a place in history we have likely never been in before.

Maybe it's best to make people eat healthy and exercise while taking this pill.

Well if you eat healthfully and exercise regularly, I think it's a rational question to ask if this pill would give additional benefits. No one is arguing not to eat good food and exercise.

OTOH, if cardiovascular issues are preventing or interfering with diet and regimen, then it might help.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com