I'm not the person you're asking, but I may be able to satisfy your curiosity a little. I have given birth without anesthesia -- in fact, I did so twice. I found it arduous and difficult, and there certainly were moments of pain, but I would not describe the experience overall as exactly painful.
You know how when you've been running for a long time and you really want to stop? That was the primary unpleasant sensation for me. Something between a muscle cramp and a side ache, though quite intense. Really uncomfortable, really hard work. Very distressing if you freak out about it and get frightened, but actually a pretty cool experience if you lean into it. Toward the end of labor there was some significant pain, enough to make me yell, but there was also so much going on that I was very distracted from it. You can experience some pretty significant pain and not be very badly distressed by it if you're super focused on some goal and working hard for it, and boy does childbirth have that effect. ;)
Now, you shouldn't overly generalize from my personal experiences. Every pregnancy is different, and every delivery is different. But I have always thought the characterization of childbirth as the greatest possible pain was overblown. In my experience, it was more like a major athletic event which involved some significant injury - a marathon or a boxing match or something in that neighborhood. You do really injure yourself enough that it takes some weeks to heal, but I honestly think that part of the equation is comparable to a bad sprain. Maybe a bit worse, but much more like an athletic injury than some of the horrible diseases people get.
At any rate, it is not the most significant pain I've personally experienced. That prize goes to an infected gall bladder / passed gall stone. I've also had leg cramps which I thought were more painful than childbirth, though they didn't last as long. To relate it to the original claim, I definitely think it's plausible that dysentary is worse. Internal organs dying is high on the pain scale.
(If you're curious about why I chose to avoid anaesthesia, I hadn't liked it during my first delivery. I had a long and painful labor during which anesthesia was delayed, and when I finally got it, I found it didn't much lift my distress -- I later understood that was because my pain wasn't pain exactly, it was me doing a poor job of working with my body. Aaand I was at a dumb hospital that had put me on my back, which is painful, and I didn't know any better. Anyway. I didn't see it as really relieving my discomfort, but it did confine me to bed for a couple days and robbed me of being my most alert and best self during a very important moment in my life. My second two deliveries were better experiences than my first.)
Yeah, I’m going to say you were pretty lucky. With my first I had pain significant enough to be traumatic, before the stage where I could get an epidural. I used to tell people if I’d gone out and had my husband run over my leg with the car, it would have hurt less and I could have gotten pain relief in the ER. It wasn’t as bad the second time though. It is truly a large range of experiences.
I am a skeptic about the diagnostic criteria for hypertension, and especially about low targets for management. Cochrane did a meta review not long ago that made it sound like the signal was pretty weak below about 160/100 (as you might expect, if the measurement wasn't very accurate, which I don't think it is). I'm not saying it's not dangerous at much higher levels, but if you're freaking out at 140/90 because a chart says STAGE TWO, imo you can take a chill pill.
Not surprised to hear about Cochrane's results. The science does smell funny. I read a bunch of hypertension papers this last year (I have a home machine and wanted to know how to interpret the results). Beyond the fact that inter-reading repeatability is very poor and a lot of the explanations are very ad-hoc ("fear of doctors" etc), there are other issues.
First problem: natural variance across healthy people is huge. Doctors have a target they think everyone should hit but it's just a gross average, they don't seem to take into account the possibility of genetic variance at all.
Second related problem: it's common to be told what a healthy BP is for an "adult" although BP averages for men and women are quite different, and BP is also heavily affected by age (controlling for health).
Third problem: correlation is not causation. It's a cliché because it's a real issue. The public health community is prone to blurring the line between "two variables are found to be related in a study" and "one therefore causes the other" without doing the work to prove causality, and when I went looking for what studies established BP->cardiovascular disease causality it was remarkably hard to locate firm evidence. It could easily be the other way around. Indeed in most hydraulic systems it's understood that pressure is the result of other mechanisms and under/over pressure is the result of malfunction in pumps or piping. In healthcare they argue it's the reverse: that over/under pressure is the cause of malfunction elsewhere. There's probably a circular relationship but all the material targeted at regular people makes strong claims of causality when the underlying literature seems far less certain.
Fourth problem: perhaps unsurprisingly given the third problem I found studies where people were put on anti-hypertensives and there was no improvement. Actually I read one study where the treatment outcome was purely negative: there was no effect on heart disease or other outcomes of interest but there were lots of patients who fainted due to excessively low BP. This study seemed reasonable well constructed but the negative outcome didn't seem to reduce the field's certainty in anything (a super common problem in public health). Doing trials like this is hard because any time anti-hypertension drugs fail to work it's interpreted as evidence that the damage was already done earlier in life thus requiring ever longer studies to detect.
Fifth problem: a lot of the underlying scientific claims trace back to one longitudinal study in a single village in Japan, done decades ago. It's remarkable how often you follow citations and end up back at this dataset. When you look at what the study did it's kinda sketchy and not particularly convincing, but because the BP->CVD link is hypothesized to be a very slow acting effect it takes a huge effort to collect data. The field seems to be caught in a loop where they exaggerated their confidence early, so now there is not seen to be much point in doing better studies because it'd take years (bad for your career) and why study something that's already "known".
There can be only one answer to that - the Bible. Twenty years ago, I was convinced the content alone justified the claims of a divine origin, which opinion has only grown stronger in the years since. Even if you don't believe in it, it is worth reading as literature - an extraordinarily epic story, and a lot of stuff to say about humanity and divinity along the way. Everything else, comparatively, seems to me like it was written by children.
But that's a useless answer, as the purpose of such a question is to generate recommendations, and that's unlikely to be a new one to anybody.
One of the books that's impacted me the most in the last few years is Homer's Illiad. I used to wonder why we read The Odyssey in high school and never talked about The Illiad, but I don't wonder now! I think all the violence in Illiad would warrant more than a PG-13 rating. ;) But it is a great story about men and gods and struggle and war, with a lot to say about what mankind is and what it can be, and a lot of heroes to want to grow up to be someday. The introduction to my copy includes the quote, "It is a good thing that war is so terrible, otherwise we would grow to love it too much." That quote will make no sense to most people; if it resonates with you, this book is your kind of book.
I am currently reading through Heidegger's The Question Concerning Technology, as I am looking for wisdom on how to navigate the highly technological time I find myself in. I haven't finished it, but I find the insights profound, and I see the ideas everywhere. I think it may prove to be the best thing I've ever read on the topic of what it means to interact with technology and remain human.
Shakespeare is legendary for a reason. I haven't read one of his plays yet that that I didn't deeply enjoy. They never hit right in high school, but as an adult I find them profound. I giggled my way through A Comedy of Errors recently and it still makes me smile.
A Christian recommendation - I've very much enjoyed Jeremy Taylor's 1650 Holy Living and Dying. Probably the best book on Christian life I've read, and I've read quite a few - and it's a book that rarely makes people's short lists. It's long and I haven't finished it, but as much as I've read so far continues to impact me.
Edit: I almost forgot! I read The Princess and the Goblin several years ago. It is a fairy tale intended for children, and is yet one of the best books I have ever read on the subject of girlhood, and I have spent a lifetime searching for them. If you have (or are, or find yourself in an occasion to love) a girl, I can't recommend it highly enough.
I'm atheist-agnostic, but I've read the Bible several times and the Qu'ran twice. I think it is important to have at least a passing knowledge of these books, and TBH, as long as you cherry-pick, there is a lot of good life advice in there.
I'm fascinated by both books for their history and authorship, though. Who wrote them? Why did they write them? How did they write them? What parts of their content is backed by historical record? etc.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy
I know, right? These works are deeply mysterious and not to be dismissed lightly. I remember coming away from the Bhagavad Gita with the same sense of Who? What?? How??? What on earth?
An experience not to be missed, to be sure. The world is full of the bizarre and inexplicable, and would surely be diminished by a need to explain everything.
Stick with QCT, I’ve been coming back to that essay for 20 years. Given your other recs, you might want to go back to a few of the Dialogues: the Apology, the Laches, maybe the Phaedrus. And if you’re serious about the divine origin stuff, after reading the Apology, read the third chapter of Walden.
Numbers and Leviticus are the worst slog of a book I've come across. Don't think people are very honest with themselves when they read through it and think, yes God made this so beautiful.
You know, the names of a couple of the oldest books of the Bible in English are not very good. "Numbers" does have a census for the first few chapters, and I'll grant that a census isn't gripping reading. It impresses upon the reader the intended historicity of the account - Illiad has a long description of how many troops and boats came from where for a similar reason. After that, though, the book continues the narrative that left off in Exodus, and is similar in tone and content. The original name of the book, "Ba midvar" or "In the wilderness" is a better title, as it recounts the story of Israel's time in the wilderness.
Leviticus was my favorite book for a long time, and I still regard it with great affection. But I've also heard people deride it as nonsensical, and I get where that is coming from. Throwing the One Ring into Mount Doom has been similarly derided as "the destruction of some jewelry", which is how it must seem if you aren't familiar with the backstory and the symbolism. We live in an age that really likes to downplay context and symbolism and historical connections, and would tend to regard "the destruction of some jewelry" as a reasonable take - maybe even an enlightened take. Such a perspective sees the blood of bulls and rams in Leviticus as nothing else, and it's no wonder it seems gross and uncompelling. To me, that take is missing almost the entire story: if you can talk about the One Ring without saying anything about power, you have basically missed everything of significance about it. And in Leviticus, blood is life, God gives it and God claims it, and we learn from the rituals surrounding it that holiness and life requires sacrifice and death, something both immediately true and a deep truth at many levels. The invisible things, the symbols and connections and significances and virtues, have retreated from the modern mind, first becoming unimportant, then not real, then not even perceptible. I regard this as a tragic turn of events, and I think it is not unrelated to our current civilizational struggles. But any rate, ancient works in general, and the Bible in particular, put a lot of emphasis on the poetic, the symbolic, the deeper meanings of things. If you're going to enjoy such works, you're going to need to see beyond the literal.
For me, Leviticus has this breathtaking mix of the intensely symbolic and the intensely practical. I am often taken aback at the imagery being so on point, and yet so accessible to a poor bronze age people. And I think often on its lessons in leadership as I navigate related challenges. Above and beyond that, it does a lot to illustrate what God is like in terms of day to day relationship with him - an education about how this whole affair works, in contrast to the idols and magicians and cults. This is how things are, this is the sort of God you serve. Plenty of what it has to say about the life of the man of God is profound, perhaps even shocking.
And one more thing - it is unsurprising that an ancient handbook on ritual would seem incoherent to a people who have abandoned all practice of ritual and are energetically at work burning down any stray ones the last generation might have missed. Our individualism has metastasized to the point that it seems all common experiences must be destroyed on principle. I not only hail from that culture, but am doubly poor: as an evangelical protestant, my Christianity is shorn of tradition and liturgy, with sacrament reduced to the bare minimum required by the text. There are certainly historical reasons for that, up sides or at least intended up sides, and I'm not looking to convert. At the same time, I have been thinking recently about the role of ritual in teaching and binding together, in turning individuals into a people, and I can't deny that the body of the Catholic and the Orthodox seems to have a sort of spine to it that the Protestant lacks, and I'm starting to think this is why. Leviticus is ... God's solution to that need, at one place and time. I am a student, likely not even knowing what the poverty of my historical circumstance has left me ignorant of. But it may be not just an example to the religious - it may be that our society could learn a thing or two from this ancient social technology. This religion did survive for millenia, whereas our attempt at an anti-ritualistic, rationalistic, individualistic civilization seems to be fraying after a few short centuries. Maybe we could do with some civilizational mortar.
Anyway - that's some of what I see. I think it would take a lot of education and spiritual experience to get similar things on your own. Leviticus is a hard book. It may or may not help, but you can always look at a commentary to get some of the flavor of what an experienced reader sees. Here's one online example - https://ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc1/mhc1.Lev.ii.html
What is "the Bible"? As many threads in this post have pointed out, the translator and translation have a huge impact on the final product.† Are you referring to ancient Hebrew? A version approved by the Catholic Church or is it something concocted by that German heretic? Something else?
† Sometimes with death sentences handed out for challenges to R̶o̶m̶a̶n̶ papal supremacy!
This is one of my favorite books as well. While I read it several years ago, I still ponder and apply its advice on a near daily basis. The section on Lincoln and criticism should be required reading before getting married.
I have been surprised that it has a reputation for being manipulative, and I suspect people are reacting to what they imagine the book says rather than what it actually says. A recurring theme is that manipulative people may use these techniques, but to inferior results - the secret sauce is to actually care about people and want what is best for them. I have found that the ideas it promotes make me more civilized, empathetic, and considerate.
Edit: On a more serious note, this book actually changed the way I think in a very concrete (and positive) way. The book spurred me to start consciously reflecting on "what about X, specifically, is surprising" and/or "what about X, specifically, is confusing". It's impossible to quantify, but the habit has definitely, definitely, boosted my ability to disentangle complex situations and make better decisions.
Physical security isn't an intractable problem, but effective security requires expensive expertise and maintenance. The cost of good security is why you keep your spare couch in a self storage center but your jewelry in a safe deposit box.
In theory, a well designed security system at a self storage center could be good enough to deter thieves relative to the value of what's stored there. In practice, the fact that owners pay for the security, insurance pays for break ins, and customers are supposed to evaluate the whole mess leads to a lot of naivete and show and not a lot of effective solutions. Show me a self storage place that guarantees you against the loss of your stuff and I'll show you a storage place with effective security. I'll also show you one that's more expensive that the competition and doesn't have much to show a consumer to justify the surcharge.
Looking at self storage places locally, they all seem to compete on price. When I eventually found one that seemed to be competing on security, it was 50% more expensive.
There are companies that will sell you rental car insurance as a standalone policy. Google "Rental Car Insurance". Last I was dealing with this problem myself, the policies were something like half the cost of what the rental car place wanted.
While I don't want to get involved in a political and radioactive topic (and don't intend to participate in an ongoing discussion), it seems to me there is something important to be said here.
To my mind, there are two critical moral differences between war and terrorism. The first is that the soldier attacks those who are fighting him - if not exactly the guilty, at least the active and resistant. The terrorist doesn't care if he attacks the weak and innocent and in fact prefers it. The second is that the object of a soldier's attack is to break the resistance, and he minimizes evil and suffering in pursuit of that goal. The terrorist maximizes it as a point of strategy.
Of course, fighting is sometimes necessary - evil must be resisted or it will dominate the earth. And in a messy real world, fighting often unavoidably hurts the innocent and the uninvolved - or even the involved in unnecessary ways. The desire to do things perfectly has to at some point yield to the need to do something - insisting that only perfect actions be taken is the same as saying no actions can be taken.
So what makes a fighting action moral? There isn't a bright line. At the margins, this is a judgement call. What level of violence, of what sort, is acceptable is something good people will have differing opinions on. But to suggest that the existence of a spectrum and the necessity of exercising judgement erases the categories is to commit the beard fallacy. The fact that we cannot say exactly when stubble becomes a beard does not mean there is no such thing as a beard - it just means the edges of the definition are fuzzy. That's actually normal! Most definitions have fuzzy edges, and have weak meaning on those edges. If one person wants a clean shaven man for some purpose and another wants a bearded man, both may consider a week old shave unacceptable for their purposes. Definitional edges have their interests, but don't necessarily inform how we think about centers.
Most ethics in war and in fighting turn on these ideas of innocence or powerlessness and necessity. Soldiers take prisoners (and treat them well) because taking someone out of the conflict is the honorable goal of war, and causing suffering once that is accomplished is evil. Criminals in prison (should) still have human rights for the same reason. I once heard a federal law enforcement official describe a shootout with a criminal, stating that the criminal was shooting at him and didn't care who else he hit, while the LEO was unwilling to return fire against the backstop of an occupied apartment building because that would be evil.
It does cost something to do things right - you pay for it in the blood of your own soldiers and in your chances of victory. One reason to seek an overwhelming force is to have the luxury of doing things as cleanly as possible. In a more even fight, at higher stakes, necessity may look different. People do take capabilities and circumstances into account when they judge you.
Nonetheless, there is a very big difference between doing the right thing imperfectly or even badly and doing the wrong thing. There are matters of degree between going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and accepting more of them. That does not mean intentionally targeting civilians exists on that spectrum. That's crossing an entirely different line.
On a personal level, in a self defense scenario, you can be taking actions to stop a threat or to hurt a person. The first is moral and legal; the second is immoral and illegal. And while you sometimes do the second in the course of doing the first, the minute you are doing it for its own sake, you are over the line. While we may disagree over where exactly the line is, that doesn't mean you can put it anywhere you find convenient. There is a moral truth to the situation.
Every criminal says they're acting in self defense through some twisted line of reasoning. And every terrorist can tell you why their targets are legitimate and their actions necessary. It is entirely possible to argue along such lines and to be wrong. Further down the thread, someone argues that targeting civilians is justified when those civilians vote for the government you are fighting. This is an example of careless moral reasoning that seeks to justify evil - you cannot know who voted how, and we do not kill people for how they vote or we find ourselves in the position of killing huge numbers of people. This is a thin justification for violence as a goal in itself. Likewise, someone argues that targeting the innocent is justifiable in a very asymmetric conflict. Again, this is a very thin justification. It is true that you are judged by the precision of your weapons and the options available to you, but a tenuous relationship to some strategic advantage doesn't justify egregious and pointless violence. At some point, it starts to look like the violence is the point to you and you're just evil.
These lines of argument highlight why I feel the need to respond. This erasing of the line between war and terrorism, which has apparently happened in the minds of a lot of people here, has an effect that is doubly harmful. It has the effect of hampering necessary and legitimate war by miring it in endless criticism and confusion about legitimacy. This is bad - when we fight evil, we need to be able to have intelligent conversations about how to acceptably do it. Overly hampering our capabilities helps evil be a little more dominant - keeps the bad guys a little more in control on the margins. Calling war terrorism commits this evil. But perhaps a worse evil is committed by calling terrorism war - it has the effect of justifying it! There are people in this thread who think that targeting voters and children is okay because they are confused about the concepts of innocence and necessity and in their confusion are incapable of intelligently evaluating reasoning that involves those concepts. It is not a great leap between finding terrorism morally acceptable and being willing to support it.
The ethics and morals of violent conflict - whether writ small between individuals or writ large between nations - have been a topic of discussion for all of civilization. While we don't always agree, a lot of important, intelligent, moral things have been said on the topic - things worth learning. We have concepts like war crime and terrorism for reasons. Contrary to (apparent) popular belief, there are not merely ugly sounds, linguistic weapons wielded for power. They are important and specific ideas, given to us by generations of thinkers, that help us distinguish between good and evil and understand the moral meaning of things. You erase those in your own mind at the risk of supporting and committing atrocities. It is important to know when the price of winning morally obligates you to lose, and when the price of losing morally obligates you to win. The ability to tell the difference comes, not from erasing lines, but learning how they are drawn and why.
On the other hand, overly sanitary spaces don't seem to make us healthier overall. Living life fully necessarily entails some risk. :)