When you drink your coffee without caffeine in your 30 for escaping a harm from caffeine, but end up with Parkinson in your 60+.
By 2021, 279 of the Camp Lejeune veterans, or 0.33%, had developed Parkinson’s versus 151 of those at Camp Pendleton, or 0.21%. After adjusting for differences in age, sex, race, and ethnicity, the scientists found veterans from Camp Lejeune had a 70% higher rate of Parkinson’s disease than the Camp Pendleton group.
I guess it can be encouraging news for some people. My mom died with Parkinson's and I've almost certainly had less exposure to TCE than she did. I'm aware that there isn't really a known genetic link, it's just nice to occasionally see evidence that it can be exposure related. The increase in prevalence mentioned in the article isn't good, but that can be due to better techniques for diagnosing it.
Not to mention when getting it has been the whole point of drinking coffee in the first place.
What they actually mean is that something natural will tend to be better - and there's nuance about why that might be so (having benefitted from evolutionary pressure and adaptation, a thing empirically tested and shown working, more effortessly fitting to our biology, and so on). Of course we're talking of man-made stuff thus-far, not some futuristic utopia where we know how to make everything better.
So unless the claim is "all natural things are always better", it's doubtful how the "fallacy" accusation actually applies in real life arguments. Does it address the claim that "X is better _because_ it is natural"? Well, doesn't that being the case or not, depend on the quality of the specific non-natural alternatives to X?
If those aren't any good, then X is indeed better not by chance, but precisely because it's natural. That is, because it had millions of years to evolve, millenia to be used and tested by humans, and so on, and it had all sort of evolutionary pressures to improve it.
If their argument is not about morality but instead about risk avoidance, would it still be fallacious reasoning? They could even still be wrong (because they incorrectly calculated the risks) without suffering a fallacy, right?
I am genuinely asking. I don’t know the answer.
Not to mention that the use of fallacy listings is the lowest form of argumentation (or, in any case, close).
"Like regular coffee, decaf coffee begins as green, unroasted beans. The hard beans are warmed and soaked in liquid to dissolve and remove the caffeine in one of four ways: using water alone, using a mixture of water and solvents (most commonly methylene chloride or ethyl acetate) applied either directly or indirectly, or using water and “supercritical carbon dioxide.”"
Even our local coffee roaster replied and said they only use Swiss water process on their more expensive organic beans - the rest of their lineup uses MC.
It's not exactly the most delicious drink.
Would not drink it if not for the caffeine.
The history of coffee is interesting to me. Although I don’t have a link, coffee was introduced to addict populations to facilitate trade. It’s funny that trading companies were key to the adoption of tea and coffee consumptions so they had a commodity that they could trade across the world. It’s kind of like oil in that the world needs lots of it and there’s money to be made in production and transport.
Or it could be that people just really like tea and coffee and the trading companies just met the unrealized need.
That's a bit of a stretch. You could say that about any popular products - smartphones, soap, ...
Some say the industrial revolution was facilitated by the switch of Western people from alcohol based drinks to caffeine based ones.
> Those who drank coffee instead of alcohol began the day alert and stimulated, rather than relaxed and mildly inebriated, and the quality and quantity of their work improved … Western Europe began to emerge from an alcoholic haze that had lasted for centuries.”
Optimal consumption of caffeine seems to be a decent-sized initial intake, then smaller doses over time to maintain (eg take a few more sips). There's no good way to do that with pills.
But it barely matters, it's not like I'd inject the whole cup into my veins and then see what happens.
If the caffeine was too high (within reasonable variations), you'd notice and slow down consumption before it mattered. If it's too low, you can just drink more. You can do it by feel, which is I think what just about everyone does.
Some of it might be placebo, but if so I'm not sure it changes anything really, since the goal is just to feel a certain way anyway.
I drink it because when I need caffeine, decaf has enough for me. When younger, I drank it to fit in.
With enough sugar and milk, it tastes great, but so would anything. I am sure high-end coffee is great, but it’s never worth the effort to me, so I don’t know about that.
I've dropped caffeine but still really like good coffee, so I'll occasionally go out and get a cup of decaf.