There is no escaping the fact that feeding addictions is a great business model.
Are churches a predatory business? If the answer is no, then why are sugar manufacturers? If the answer is tradition etc., then that basically proves my point.
the institution that invented Tithes? The institution that if you go and put money in every sunday will help you organize weddings and funerals which are very important dates for people? Which will take old women aside and talk about getting into heaven and helping missions in poor countries full of poor little children?
That institution might have a predatory business model?
The threat of hell is certainly very uncoercive yeah
> if you go and put money in every sunday will help you organize weddings and funerals which are very important dates for people
So basically you're paying for a service? Your argument would be much better if they didn't actually help people with important stuff.
That is the kind of situation the funeral thing was highlighting, not the provision of a service, but the creation of a coercive incentive for social hierarchy and emotional support around a very difficult moment.
Its the same reason predatory loans are predatory, not because loans are bad but because you find people at their lowest and provide a service where they are incentivised to make reckless financial choices
Similar to shark loans, creating alternatives will always come with compromises. either we have public lenders that will lend money that will never be returned, or we leave a strata of society without access to capital.
But diagnosing the predatory nature of shark loans does not mean the proposal of an alternative.
I think the church model is coercive, specially when threats are existencial. Hell is beyond any threat you could make to someone who believes in it. Does not mean that I can come up witha. universal, generalisable model for providing adequate funeral rites, emotional support and remove social status from society.
THe big challenge is separating the good from the bad commercial interests. It's not a challenge because differentiating the good from the harmful is difficult, but because bad actor industries also make A LOT of money that buys a lot of political power and also employ a lot of people, so removing them from economy would have negative economic and political consequences.
Basically it's like a dead man's switch in a mutually assured destruction weapon.
Killing the tobacco industry for example would have incredibly positive economic consequences, despite the job loss.
Yeah but both tobacco industry employees and smokers vote. If they make up a large enough voter base, then this is political suicide in any democracy.
Hence how it took until 2019 to ban indoor smoking in my EU country, even though it was known for a long time it's a public health issue.
Algorithm, food, intoxicants, anything that has manipulative potential.
Except banning heroin clearly didn't work so well! There's still a lot of people using it. And the profits from selling it go to criminal gangs. And the people using it often die due to inconsistent dosing.
How do you define "manipulative potential"? If you ban sugar in drinks, do you ban fruit juice too? Where do we draw the line for "acceptable harm"? Personally I don't want to live in a society which bans huge numbers of things.
I’m not sure why we’d consider oils, emulsifiers or fortification and indicator of poor health outcomes.
Whole grain cereals are associated with positive health outcomes so I’m not sure why something being a liquid cereal would be a negative.
FWIW I would agree that oat milk is probably an inferior milk to dairy in most aspects except fibre content, but that’s not because of the reasons you gave. And soy milk seems either equal or superior to dairy milk in all outcomes that I’ve seen.
By whom? Oils are not necessarily bad for you.
And the low fat milk in the carton is pretty far from natural, where oat milk in example seems to be pretty simple process based on quick googling:
https://www.loveandlemons.com/oat-milk/
Of course any industry can make anything ultra processed, like oat milk, but the generalization was wee bit hefty here.
According to Wikipedia, organic food does not offer any advantage over ordinary food.
There was a time when alcohol dealing led to an awful lot of that sort of violence. We put a stop to it when we legalized Alcohol and regulated it.
Our bodies interact with extremely large amounts of elements in the environment and behavior that act beyond our conscious comprehension.
Sometimes in our favour and some others against us.
Banning everything that at some point worked against us is just establishing human life full of total deprivation. Worse than living in jail. Good luck maintaining a society in those conditions.
The individual and the society should instead focus on educating and teaching how to navigate an environment full of those elements.
There is a strong correlation between someone making money and someone arguing that people being able to make money is about freedom.
And here we are a few centuries into capitalism and people say that they are conflicted because personal freedom = making money off people. Effectively.
Yet there are many freedoms that are not profitable. We just have to sit down in a chair and think it through for ten minutes. Preferably without the corrupting influence of a scren.
The power asymmetry behind and in the front of the six inch screen is immense.
It wasn't too much like an academic publication, there were plenty of those, but lots of times a breakthrough would be reported anyway, and everything was more commercially oriented by far.
You know how trade publications can be kind of uninteresting for non-insiders, IR could be so boring that college professors wouldn't even read it.
But you could tell when an author had recently left academia and joined industry though because their papers appeared more academic than very seasoned ones.
It's still a challenging transition to make, but I'll never forget how it was addressed one time in the back pages. Where you get the occasional cartoon comic like you would in consumer media.
There's two scientists in lab coats working at their benches, the boss comes on the intercom and they look at each other as he blasts from the overhead speaker:
"Hey you guys in Research, get off your butts and invent something that's habit forming".
Which technically isn't hard because criminal enterprise is pretty damn inefficient!
We litearlly can't ban everything that is bad in the large. That would simply be to many things.
Cigarettes were already regulated.
More like banning was applied to advertising and indoor smoking in lots of places.
>without doing a full baning.
This is why it worked, as good as it did.
That was enough regulation of the prominent, growing hazard & risk, for the vast majority to experience how much better it was than before, and usage snowballed downward as much as it could.
Without fully prohibiting anybody.
Advertising has huge persuasive ability.