Is it really in the best interest of society to allow food makers to advertise superstimuli-level [1] food products that we know in aggregate make is less happy and likely to die earlier? Why? We regulate all sorts of substances that we know are harmful when ingested. We shouldn't make exceptions for things that happen to be called food. Even if we don't want to enact anything as drastic as a "soda tax" or a ban on r…
At what point do people take responsibility for their own bodies and their own lives? We all know the secret to not being obese. Asking the government to step in and help us just seems... childish. Are we not adults? Do we have no agency?
This question touches on some very deep and controversial ideas kicking around in the current conversation. The question of whether we have an inherent "human nature", a biological substrate that informs our capabilities and behavior, touches on everything from education to tech employment. I don't want to debate the subject generally.
But can we agree, for the specific case of food consumption that
1) we have very strong impulses that are difficult to consciously resist; that
2) these impulses originate in biology; that
3) the existence of exceptional willpower is a mark of exceptional self-discipline, a level not practical to achieve for most; and that
4) advertisers prey on the difficulty most people experience in controlling their food behavior?