A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929 • Hacker News Board

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#151

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 10:50 AM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #38

api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

> Something about vaccines creeps a lot of people out for reasons I don't understand. I think it's the fact that vaccines are heavily pushed on everyone, which is very different than a medication that you choose to take, or your doctor specifically prescribes for you, to address a medical condition. Taking chemicals to cure some disease is different than taking chemicals when you're healthy simply to decrease a risk…

It's the privilege of growing up in a society where most people are vaccinated. People have forgotten (or never seen) how horrifying some diseases can be.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#152

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 10:51 AM UTC

naming_the_user wrote: post #70

api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

Anything that people are forced to do is going to cause this sort of visceral response. A lot of things that we were forced to do during COVID still stick with me and have basically made me intensely distrustful of authority to a degree that wasn't present before. It was just bullshit after bullshit enacted in law and forced on people. Walking in certain directions in the supermarket, going outside for only X minutes…

Where do you live that people were imprisoned over COVID related stuff?

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#153

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 10:56 AM UTC

rqtwteye wrote: post #23

profsummergig wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RFK Jr. is such a case. Anti-vaxx, but uses something to boost his "jackedness". The dude is jacked for a >70 years old guy. Supposedly it's testosterone. If anyone knows what he uses to look so jacked, please share.

That's what he says: “I’m on an anti-aging protocol from my doctor that includes testosterone replacement,” Kennedy said. “I don’t take any anabolic steroids or anything like that and the TRT I use is bioidentical to what my body produces.” I wouldn't be surprised if he mixed in a few other "vitamins"

The man is confused if he doesn't think testosterone is an anabolic steroid.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#154

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 11:11 AM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #141

ceejayoz wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a quick search engine query will show it is used safely in humans as an antiparasite drug That just means it's safer than being infested with untreated parasites. It doesn't mean someone without worms should take it for funsies. Your same Google search will reveal ivermectin carries (as with almost any intervention) potential serious side effects. Doctors prescribing medication balance those risks with the potentia…

> Doctors prescribing medication balance those risks with the potential benefits except for the thousands of doctors who overprescribed opioids due to either ineptitude or their own benefit, or perhaps lack of alternatives yeah, the Sacklers are primarily at fault, but I think people forget that they weren't handing out these pills themselves on street corners, but that __doctors__ were handing them out, triggering t…

I’m not inclined to think cutting the doctors out of the equation and allowing everyone to self-prescribe would have made the opiate epidemic better.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#155

Post by lm28469 » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 12:57 PM UTC

api wrote: post #5

Science has delivered a standard of living to most of the developed world that is greater than that of an Egyptian Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor in numerous ways: health, food, availability of information, ease of travel, physical comfort, etc. Yet visit social media and it's absolutely overflowing with gloom and doom and histrionic political rage and fear bait. Saw a thread recently on Reddit about how many young peopl…

> Science has delivered a standard of living to most of the developed world that is greater than that of an Egyptian Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor in numerous ways: health, food, availability of information, ease of travel, physical comfort, etc.

It also created lifestyles which aren't sustainable, destroyed our ecosystem, made gluttony and sloth our main cause of death.

If you look for the signs they're already visible, it's just that our system has a gigantic inertia. Look at things like ocean acidification and other climate feedback loops, massive wildlife extinction, loss of nutrients in veggies/fruit, PFAS in rain water, micro plastics polluting virtually every living organisms.

Humans work on hope, when things are continuously getting better we're thriving, when things start to fall apart ever so slightly it's much less fun, and we're slowly getting to that point. It doesn't matter how high you start, what matters is the general trend

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#156

Post by tivert » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 1:57 PM UTC

stevenAthompson wrote: post #146

foxglacier wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's right though. People have cultural knowledge which can lead to better outcomes than "correct" reasoning even when those cultural beliefs are factually wrong. The scientific approach has blind spots where it hasn't reached, especially regarding sociology which is something long-lived cultures excel at but modern science falls flat. "intelligent" understanding has blind spots where things are too complicated to st…

We're really far off topic here, but I'll bite because I'm bored. Firstly though, we need to agree on what "good" and "bad" mean, in a moral sense. To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. If you have a different definition, this conversation will be a waste of both our time. > He's right though. He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong. Reason is mans onl…

>> He's right though.

> He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong.

You don't actually know that, because you keep missing the point. How do you know I'm wrong if you can't seem to grasp what I'm talking about?

I don't think you're as clever as you seem to think you are. Maybe you should consider the possibility that the advice I gave up-thread is literally true in your case, and not just a reminder to take a position of humility.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#157

Post by Kamq » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:13 PM UTC

beepbooptheory wrote: post #129

delton137 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi.. original post author here. Interesting point RE the Snopes trial. You are right, evolution is not mentioned in the book as far as I can tell. Even though it is foundational to understanding the human body (in particular some weird features it have which any half-good creator would never design that way.) The SJWs / woke cult are a bit of a personal hobby horse for me. I think it is important to mention, since wo…

When will you feel like you all have won the war here? What is it that you need to happen? Is it simply a matter of removing academics you deem too woke from their positions, or is it more a matter of public opinion becoming less woke? Just really at this point trying to get a gauge for how long we have to live inside this particular discourse.. Because it just structurally is such that it cant last forever, for I ho…

> When will you feel like you all have won the war here? What is it that you need to happen?

I was involved in a previous iteration of the culture war (religion vs atheism) pretty heavily. If this is anything like that, it'll start fading once people feel like the cultural dominance of the group is broken.

If you want a rule of thumb, hollywood being considered non-woke and universities not requiring diversity statements (cultural conservatives consider these to be roughly isomorphic to the old loyalty oaths) would be generally what to look for.

Edit: These institutions losing their influence would probably also be sufficient. There's nothing inherently important about hollywood, so if another locus of entertainment gains prominence, and it has different cultural views, that would also qualify.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#158

Post by bean-weevil » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:29 PM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #137

phs318u wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This encapsulates a misunderstanding of how vaccines work. They do not float around in our bodies for years. They work by (hopefully) training an immune response from our own bodies. The vaccines themselves rapidly breakdown. They do not last because there's no need for them to. As a result, vaccine testing - for all vaccines - pretty much only needs to cover that period. While side-effects (ranging from minor to ser…

I didn't say that the vaccine itself persists. But the effects of its interactions with the body, do persist by design. I had 3 COVID shots; no issues with the first two. But 2 years later, my arm is still quite sore to the touch where I got my shot (and I can feel mild discomfort there even without touching it). So obviously a long-term change there.

Have you talked to your doctor about that?

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#159

Post by stevenAthompson » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:59 PM UTC

tivert wrote: post #156

stevenAthompson wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're really far off topic here, but I'll bite because I'm bored. Firstly though, we need to agree on what "good" and "bad" mean, in a moral sense. To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. If you have a different definition, this conversation will be a waste of both our time. > He's right though. He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong. Reason is mans onl…

>> He's right though. > He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong. You don't actually know that , because you keep missing the point. How do you know I'm wrong if you can't seem to grasp what I'm talking about? I don't think you're as clever as you seem to think you are. Maybe you should consider the possibility that the advice I gave up-thread is literally true in your case, and not just a reminder to take a pos…

> You don't actually know that, because you keep missing the point.

It takes two people to communicate. If you have trouble communicating your point maybe try rephrasing it, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#160

Post by phtrivier » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 3:11 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #90

phtrivier wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, the experiences that people are rallying around (for better or worse) are more going _against_ negative effects (perceived or real) of the scientific / technological world: * Climate Change (caused by the tech of "burning lots of fuels") * PFAS, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, etc... * Opiods crisis, nartotics, etc... * Impact of GAFAM on privacy, social discourse, etc... In a sense, the "white coats…

This is mistakenly attributing the destructive consequences of profit-motivated mega-industries to "nerds with glasses", thereby creating more cover for the ruthless profit-maximizers to continue destroying the world while deflecting all blame.

Well, in part it's the age-long debate about scientists being held responsible for the effects of their research.

In other part, it's also that the bad consequence of what the "suits" ask the "nerds" to do are becoming increasingly more visible and obvious than before.

Of course science is still helping. But it's also hurting. And I would argue that for lots of folks, the hurting is more obvious and tangible than the help.