This is exactly right. Let the market decide. If people want to use new experimental drugs, why not let them have at it. They oughta be responsible for their choices
Ozempic was approved for medical use by the FDA in diabetics in 2017, seven years ago. Meaning it passed phase 1, 2, and 3 trials. So it's not exactly an experimental research out of China like a brand new fentanyl analogue.
To me at least, celebrating individuals using drugs that support an unhealthy lifestyle does not appear like a positive for society at large. I thought medicine was about aiding people to become healthy, not providing quick fixes to common problems. Why is this being celebrated?
EDIT: I do not mean to say Ozempic is useless or dangerous, only that celebrating it as a solution to the problem of obesity is. It is certainly a tool that helps people. I don't think it should be relied on continously. People need to live healthy lives to be healthy. I am not perfect, no one is. Losing weight is hard.
They don't support an unhealthy lifestyle any more than a miracle pill that stopped a harmful drug addiction would. Would you oppose its release since it's not actually "natural" to use medicine to stop your addiction, when you should instead use pure willpower? This simply doesn't make sense.
We live in a world of enormous abundance, exacerbated by companies min-maxing foods to have the most addictive properties humanly possible, at cheap prices.
I realize obesity is a major problem, but so is neuroticism about health, weight, and diet. I agree with the nagging feeling that using a drug to address hunger is likely to have negative consequences for some people.
I don't think this is true at all. Peoples' obsession with solving obesity as a cure-all for human health deserves pushback. There's also a concerning degree of moralizing it that has no place in our culture but has taken firm root.
I think you may be right that there's room for nuance about obesity, especially moralization about it, but you simply cannot deny that it's a huge problem in the US
> I think you may be right that there's room for nuance about obesity, especially moralization about it, but you simply cannot deny that it's a huge problem in the US
Of course not. I just don't like how most conversations about health get subsumed into the much less productive conversation about how destructive obesity is.
I mean obesity slowly kills you. It's no different than being an alcoholic or a smoker. There's really no healthy way to be those things, the thing itself is destructive.
The reality is, to me, obesity is born of addiction. Which is why ozempic is exciting. Because it's not a solution that relies on moralizing or fatphobia or shaming.
I don't oppose the use of this drug or its release. People should be allowed to do what they will. I see harm in celebrating the drug as a cure to obesity. Of course, certain diseases may make it easier for you to gain weight. Though obesity is not like cancer, it is a condition brought on by unhealthy behaviours
Think I generally agree with your sentiment, but my understanding of how Ozempic works is that it kills your appetite. The "unhealthy lifestyle" you're referring to is one of overeating. Ozempic doesn't support a person to continue overeating, it removes the desire to overeat. From that perspective it is aiding people to become healthy.
Sure, yes it is aiding people to become healthy in that sense. Is it healthy to rely on drugs to change your thought and behaviour patterns? I definitely see this drug as a useful tool when combined with a plan to not continue using it for the rest of your life. I see relying on this drug continuously as a problem, thinking "oh, there's no need to try and change my behaviours on my own, this drug will do it for me."
> Is it healthy to rely on drugs to change your thought and behaviour patterns?
That is the same question people were asking about Prozac thirty years ago, with the same concern about continuing to use a drug for the rest of one's life. The idea may sound scary, but in practice people make a simple calculation: so long as the drug continues to make your life better, why wouldn't you continue taking it?
If a drug has zero side effects, than it is obviously healthy.
Ozempic has side effects, so we cna do a cost benefit analysis to argue that the various benefits of not being obese outweigh its problems. We clearly see many people are unable to loose weight without it, given nearly 50% of people are at an unhealthy weight, thus its likley a net positive.
Effects or side effects, using a drug changes things. It is not easy to suggest that someone is unable to lose weight, except for clearly disabled people
I propose plans that involve the temporary use of medical tools like Ozempic that involve also changing your behaviour and living a healthier lifestyle, especially after losing weight
> involve also changing your behaviour and living a healthier lifestyle
Ah, so the same thing that has repeatedly been tried and failed every time everywhere around the world for the last 50 years. Yeah, let's just keep on giving that a go.
It depends on the person. Major depressive disorder is an inexplicable depression that is not brought on by the circumstances of your life, I think SSRIs are a suitable treatment for that. I think that it's important to consider all factors of a persons life when deciding whether or not they should be prescribed medication that suppresses ALL emotion, not just negative emotion. Positive constructive therapy to help people better their lives ought to be considered in cases that may not necessarily be a disordered condition (i.e., they have a shitty life and need to be a better person to themself and others to be happy and feel good about themself)
This medicine literally aids people to become healthy. They will gain years of life from the lost weight.
Their lifestyle changes to be healthier by eating less, which many are unable to do without help because the human body has millions of years of baked in evolution demanding we overeat if able
My father has used ozempic. He hails it as a wonder drug, yet he does little to nothing to change his behaviours because he can rely on this crutch. I see that as concerning
Weird, this drug chemically changes behaviour, so how can his behaviour stay the same?
It's been reported to reduce cravings related to food, alcohol, and cigarettes, you are saying your father while on the drug consumes the same?
Or is it that he uses it for a while, then lapses, repeat ad naseum?
If it's the second scenario, that's personal responsibility, not much to do there really, he has been given all the tools to improve but chooses not to, and that will catch up to him, no matter ozempic usage.
I dont really think an ancedote is a good argument. We have studies showing many people eat less on ozempic and loose substantial amounts of weight, and its main effect is not even the weight loss but reducing heart problems and fixing blood sugar in diabetes patients
He lost substantial amounts of weight. He sees it as a solution to his problem of being overweight and does nothing to change his lifestyle. I'm concerned that celebrating this drug as a simple solution to Obesity sends that message to other people as well
EDIT: celebrating Ozempic as a simple solution to obesity is literally what I'm referencing my Dad doing
You should keep in mind that you’re disapproving of your father’s lifestyle choices and his choices were not determined by the drug.
Many people make different choices on those drugs. Eg once they’ve lost some weight and it’s easier to move, they move more and the sedentary lifestyle changes. Similarly, I’ve seen antidepressants used to get enough functioning and control back that the chain of causes and effects can start to be addressed and intervened in.
You're suggesting that appetite is the cause of obesity. I don't agree with that notion. Repeatedly giving into your "appetite" will reinforce overeating
Its being celebrated because it is an amazing development? I think I can agree that, ideally, people will bootstrap healthy lifestyles and not need the aide long term. I don't know how you could justify that as a reason not to be glad the aide exists, though?
Ozempic doesn't make you sit around, eat like a pig and you lose weight. That's not what it does.
Ozempic makes you eat less, curbing overconsumption. People on Ozempic are also much more likely to exercise. It does not "support an unhealthy lifestyle". It literally does the opposite.
> People need to live healthy lives to be healthy
Okay, Ozempic helps people live healthy lives. Just like having a personal trainer helps people live healthy lives.
Would you say having a personal trainer is "supporting an unhealthy lifestyle"? Of course you wouldn't.
I've struggled with weight my entire life (I'm in my forties). Back in 2019, I lost 80 pounds. I carefully regulated my calorie intake to 1,800 per day. I discovered I have an absolutely terrible sense of portion size, and absolutely never feel "full" or satiated. I also made it a point to close all three Activity rings on my Apple Watch every day. I felt better, I had more energy, and I was able to enjoy more things in my day-to-day life. Even with all of those positives, a series of difficult life events during the first year of COVID took me out of my routine, and I haven't been able to bounce back. I would like to try a GLP-1 to see if it could give me a boost in the right direction again. I have no interest in being on it, or any medication, forever.
Thankfully, I've never been addicted to anything other than food. I never liked alcohol, nor did I get any positive feeling from it. So, I don't drink. I've never been enticed by drugs, so I've never used them. I went to Atlantic City once, but have never gambled another day in my life. Being spared from these other addictions isn't a matter of my amazing willpower. I'm simply not drawn to those addictions. Nor do I think that people who battle those addictions simply have a lack of willpower. I believe it's much deeper than that.
I agree that celebrating a medication as a cure-all solution is problematic. But, I don't think that's what most people think about GLP-1s. I think most most people simply want, and deserve, a little help in a difficult and complex world.
From their FAQ: "Ozempic® is a medicine for adults with type 2 diabetes that, along with diet and exercise, may improve blood sugar. While not for weight loss, Ozempic® may help you lose some weight."
They literally never tell you that. I'm so fucking sick of people just making shit up about medicine and doctors in general!
"Oh they'll all tell you you don't need to do anything just takes this pill and then the pill fixes you hurr durr!" Okay nobody says that. Nobody has ever said that. You made that up, everyone who says that makes that up.
If you go to the doctor and you smoke the first thing out of their mouth is "quit smoking". If you're obese they're gonna DRILL "lifestyle changes" into your skull.
Where the fuck is this absolute delusion that "big pharma just gives pills!!1!" coming from? This has literally never been how medicine works.
< Where the fuck is this absolute delusion that "big pharma just gives pills!!1!" coming from?
The way this is phrased is a little rude, but hey it's the internet.
I'm actually curious where this idea comes from as well. I hear it all the time, but have never experienced anything close to it in all of my years on the planet. Is it some kind of political trope? Something that used to be true that older people haven't realized changed a long time ago? Does it come from 70's sitcoms?
It's certainly never happened to me with any of the doctors I've ever seen, met, or worked with, and I have decades of experience in healthcare adjacent fields. All of the doctors I've known actually really cared about their patients and would often complain that the patient just wanted pills and weren't more compliant when it came to things like diet, exercise, and quitting their vices.
> I thought medicine was about aiding people to become healthy
This is exactly what this medication does. I don't understand what confusion there is - this medication undoes the damage that a poor lifestyle choice creates, then gives the user to choose again.
Imagine if there were a button on your head that when you pushed it all alcohol in you blood would be cleared out with no negative effect on your liver. In that case, heavy drinking would NO LONGER BE an unhealthy lifestyle. Kids would be able to drink alcohol with no problems.
What I’m afraid of is that this just ends in an arms race of ever unhealthier lifestyles versus medication to counter-balance that. These aren’t wonder drugs. People just need to stop eating garbage food, and too much of it. And the government should pass laws to facilitate that to counter lobbyists
This is a drug that literally turns off the part of your brain that craves overeating. Governments can’t legislate against human nature, as much as the nanny state wants to. We fixed food production without fixing the scarcity mindset that got us here. Now we’ve fixed that too.
Obesity is the main cause of myriad health problems. It is both treating a symptom, and fixing a problem. On average, somekne imwho is obese will love a much healthier life that is years longer than it would be without the drug. If that isn't an amazing outcome for medicine, than what is? Everyone dies, so all medicine treats symptoms at some level
Its weird that people are celebrating the fact that our lifestyle and food supply is so bastardized that it's causing people to become unhealthy to the point where they need a lifelong drug to overcome it. I get why the manufacturers and big pharma likes it, but it seems that it's also celebrated by many individuals, like you see in this and other HN threads.
This drug is a symptom of a sick culture, and not cause to celebrate. I don't at all blame the individuals that have this prescribed to them for taking it, but it just seems like a technochratic solution addressing superficial symptoms of a much larger problem.
Smoking causes lung cancer. I don't smoke, but if they found a cure for lung cancer I would celebrate that rather than griping about "personal responsibility" or whatever it is your grievance here is.
This thing objectively and subjectively improves the lives of the people you share this world with. If you have a problem with that it might be time to turn your gaze inward.
I'm upset that we just accept a society that requires a lifelong commitment to purchasing a drug as an appropriate answer, rather than looking at real causes of why people are so unhealthy. I don't think it's exclusively a matter of personal responsibility, rather a supply chain and incentive structure to produce sick people that need medication to be healthy. This is a band aid.
> rather than looking at real causes of why people are so unhealthy
I'll answer this one.
The human body is designed and built to eat as much as possible, as often as possible. The brain will prod, poke, and even force you to eat.
For all of human history and prehistory, this is incredibly advantageous. A greedy approach to food consumption allows lower risk of starvation, and fat reserves can be utilized to provide survival mechanisms when food is short.
For the first time in human history and prehistory, we have an abundance of food.
Some humans, a minority, are able to simply fight their biological urges or they may not even have those urges. If this were 10,000 years ago, they would surely be one of the first to die. Now, however, this is advantageous.
Every single part of our biology is in contradiction with modern society. It's not a shock that humans have a problem with obesity. If I gave my dog infinite kibble, I give him a month before he has killed himself.
I don’t buy this fatalistic attitude at all. Japan has an abundance of food as well, and Japanese humans are also human. Yet I don’t see nearly the same level of obesity here. The difference is entirely cultural, and yet you argue that we poor humans are destined to overeat. It’s not like the poor Japanese are suffering not to overeat every day of their tragic lives.
Instead the same measures that work here work in western countries as well. Free food at schools in the US and Europe has led to less obesity. Teaching cooking at school has led to less obesity. Teaching appreciation of the own physical self as a gift that one is responsible for rather than a burden has led to less obesity.
None of this requires throwing even more money at pharma to balance out the out-of-control American food industry (originating from the unscrupulous tobacco industry) which pays pharma to create more addictive foods. And yes, our bodies did not evolve to handle those ultra-processed foods laden with additives, but that is not normal food! Look up how the American food industry wreaked havoc in Latin America, leading to insane rates of obesity in mere years.
I don't think that anything you said here is wrong, however I don't see how any of it is relevant either.
I mean, sure... We should fix all the everything, but we can also help the people who are dying right now while we do that. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Imagine rejecting a cure for cancer because it might encourage smokers to continue. That would just be silly.
Yes, and like a band-aid it will help sick people heal. Which is a good thing, that should be celebrated.
I don't believe that I've ever heard anyone espouse the idea that nothing else in the patients life should change, or that the drugs alone are a complete answer. Although, that seems to be the counter position to your argument.
Everyone knows that fat people need to eat less and exercise more, including the fat people. These drugs help them do that. The drugs are advertised, sold, and prescribed that way and include advice to that effect in the informational pamphlets they come with in addition to usually including a lecture from your physician.
What else do you need before you can just be happy for people that are struggling a little less now?
I'm happy for that, I repeated that I don't blame the people that get it prescribed. And I was using the term band aid in the colloquial term, as in 'something that doesn't address the root issues'.
Obesity, diabetes, have all risen, especially in kids since the 90s, what changed, and what caused this? Are we still having the same causes, or because we can get a lifetime prescription to Ozempic and cover up the worse symptoms, we're ok with it? This is a massive red flag that something is wrong with this situation, not because some people are losing weight, but because some people are getting people sick and others are selling a cure at their expense. Encouraging another lifelong prescription is not addressing the causes and encouraging people to benefit off of making people sick.
I can accept that there may be larger root causes left to address, as long as we can also be clear that these drugs are also a huge win for individual health while society works on those, possibly intractable, root causes.
It's obviously going to be faster to treat individuals than it is to change our entire societies relationship with food and how we produce it, and we shouldn't just let all the fat people die while we figure it out.
> Sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that while the Optimus prototypes were able to walk without external control using AI, employees stationed remotely oversaw many of the interactions between the bots and attendees during the “We, Robot” event.
> At least one video from the event displayed an Optimus bartender acknowledging that it was being “assisted by a human.”
In what sense is your mind free in a world where psyotropics are prohibited? LSD and psilocybin aren't addictive or habbit-building, think about that. Don't knock it 'till you try it.
That Salvia divinorum is somehow legal (varies by jurisdiction) always blows my mind...
My personal opinion is that most people won't be able to regulate any large caches of the above-commented drugs... but after one or two rides on Salvia most'll keep a wide birth [which I recommend as "the worst experience possible; if somebody suggests you try Salvia they're bullying you; try something else"].
DMT is a drug I’d highly recommend everyone take once but only once.
The experience of existing for a short time without the concept of self, experiencing zero sensory filters, and finally having your brain rebooted as it has a kernel panic (and going through the brain kernel load process as it does so) is mind blowing.
It’s enough to convince you that we live in a highly advanced simulation. Or one could just be high af.
Also I’m pretty sure it was based on an old version of Linux because I’m convinced I saw the kernel message “Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039“.
Do all of them. To me, government exists to mediate interactions between parties. Not to get involved in personal choices. If someone wants to rip fat lines of coke, good for them. Not my business.
Do you think people who rip fat lines of coke will never interact with society in any way that affects you?
Of course government gets involved in personal choices. Every crime committed by a person is a personal choice. Interactions between parties are interactions between people. The distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't exist.
Legitimate crimes have a perpetrator and a victim. That's two parties in conflict. Drug possession only has 1 party, the person possessing or doing the drugs, and drug sales have two parties who aren't in conflict.
We don't live in libertarian utopia, let's first focus on substances that are *obviously* misclassified, the ones cited before have actual benefits, the most obvious one being psilocybin.
This technology, like all technology, increases humanity's collective capacity to create solutions to problems and implement them. Faster travel means more time to solve problems. LESS planes and LESS speed make the world a worse place.
Sure, new technology does create new issues, and can make others worse, that doesn't mean, however, that technology doesn't also increase our ability to continue improving and doesn't make the world a better place.
I have a 3 year old pug. He'll run through the house searching for the right family member if you count down from 10 and say "Go find X! Where is he?!"
That's too cute! I like to imagine that you have hardwood floors in this house, and he skitters around in a frantic panic Tokyo-drifting his way to that family member
The depth of a book is vastly different than the 10min youtube video summarizing said book. I’ve tried both modern and legacy form factors and honestly I’m on camp book more and more as the years go on.
The modern stuff feels like total fluff compared to a book, which in turn feel like total fluff compared to the academic papers it is based on. These days I would rather spend 2 hours reading a good book or paper than 10 minutes watching an engagement-optimized edutainment video.
And for the really good stuff you have to go even more legacy – conversation with an expert. A medium older even than books. That’s where you get the stuff that hasn’t made it into papers yet, let alone the downstream half-digested edutainment stuff.
I got back into reading books after a long hiatus and was pleasantly surprised by how much I missed them. The depth of thought and nuance is just totally different than an article or youtube video. I still consume plenty of modern media but feel like I get more out of books on average.
For anyone who wants to get back into reading books my advice is to start with whatever sounds fun. A lot of people fall into a trap of feeling like they need to read something useful or serious and just get turned off to the idea. But reading lighter books are still great and provide a lot that you won't get from tv and similar mediums. Over time your interests will evolve naturally into new areas.
Hey if you’re getting the depth of a book, it’s a book no matter the format. My objection is to surface level edutainment formats that feed your brain chicken nuggets but trick you into thinking it was steak.
Lots of surface level books that are the length of a book and the value of a 5min tiktok too.
Yes. Same thing applies: the book is deeper and more nuanced than the movie. There’s just more room.
Modern 8 to 10 episode series can get close to being as nuanced as a good book. You simply need space to go deep, no amount of cleverness will help you do that in a short format.
Well, can you name a computer game that is a great artistic work? There are many that are good, but I can't say there are any that are on a par with, say, "The Lord of the Rings" or "War and Peace" or "1984".
There are many innovative and critically acclaimed titles in the independent game scene, though they are obviously judged on different criteria by taking advantage of the interactive medium. Inside, Disco Elysium, and Kentucky Route Zero, just to name a few.
Mainstream gaming is still getting there, but to me titles like The Last of Us Part 2 are on par with classic HBO shows like Six Feet Under.
I have read many books and seen many movies that I feel are worse artistic works than the best games, but I also think it's a hard comparison to make.
There is no music that compares to "War and peace" or paintings like "1984", nor is the movie "Alien" like any book. Describing H R Gigers monster design with words will not have the same artistic impact.
I think different creations can be be great artistic works on entirely incomparable axes.
Posterity only remembers the most acclaimed pieces, there are plenty of airport novels no one remembers and that have nothing to envy to modern Tiktok.
Yes, there are. I made a deliberate decision about 10 years ago to only read good novels just because I'd read so many terrible ones! But I'm hoping my question will lead to some good narrative game recommendations.
Red Dead Redemption 2 is one great artistic work. If you haven't played it, you haven't experienced the peak of a massive wildly recognized medium. Last of Us (the show) was essentially copied verbatim from the video game, scene for scene.
On the entire opposite side of the complexity spectrum, both Limbo and Inside are great artistic works.
please play gorogoa for an artsy, moving puzzle game.
(for me personally the benchmark is the last express, but i guess generally reviews are mixed but please take a look, too)
That's a great question. It's a mixture of technical skill and intellectual depth.
For example, throughout Scotland placenames are a mixture of old Gaelic, modern Gaelic and Norse, and then there are the Anglicised versions on top. So learning what placenames mean is something I did in school and it's a fascinating subject.
So when Gildor is talking with Frodo, and mentions the "...Branduin, that you call the Brandywine..." (quote from memory; might not be correct), that's exactly what happens with placenames. It's that level of depth (in all aspects, this is just an example) that makes it a great work. You can read more on just the name of a river at https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Baranduin
Enjoyment of art is, as you say, totally subjective, but anyone who's artistic can generally identify when something is a great work even if they don't personally like it.
Everything has shortcomings but as a work of literature lotr is very obviously a great artistic work and the fact that you don't know that tells me immediately that you've never produced anything worthwhile.
I think books are still the best way for a single mind to communicate complex ideas. Movies and games are teamwork, many ideas from several people (for better and worse).
Maybe generative AI will get to the point where a single author can create a comic, movie or game with similar depths as that of books but it hasn't yet.
Hardly it almost always a shortened more approachable summary of something described in a book. Also (IMHO) videos are a horrible format for transferring knowledge, it’s slow AF compared to reading and impossible to search, you have to consume it mostly sequentially
Sure, you could buy a book about snes (not even sure if any good ones exist) and read about that... but you're not that interested into the topic, because it's something old and not something you'll actually do... but here's a 6 minute video, that you'll probably watch... and if it's interesting, you'll go down a playlist and see "how thing were done" "back then" and learn something new.
Ever heard of Tefifon music player? Neither have I, until i saw the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqfVS6ahArs ... i would have never bought a book on ancient music players, but I learned something new by watching a short video.
Sometimes all you need is a summary, you're not a chemist, SNES programmer or an old music player collector, but you still learn a lot, and all those things are topics, where you just don't buy a book, because th 10, 20 minute video covers all that you need and want to know.
I dont think so. For "great works" all that stuff has been covered somewhere if you really care.
You're putting way too much faith into people's intelligence (or projecting your own onto them) if you think people are picking up the nuanced bits just by reading.
Which still to the thread starts point. All of that stuff could be captured in a diff medium and to my point if it's worth capturing in the first place can be summarized and the additional stuff you're mentioning written as bullet points.
This is a process vs product issue. Yes, the product ("here's what this is / is about") can be captured wherever, but the process of engagement is the valuable bit.
Of course no one - no matter how intelligent! - will pick up every bit of nuance. That's why engaging with what other people think (also a process!) about [whatever] is an important part of skill development. I don't think anyone is incapable of engaging in this - even if their sophistication will always be limited by their intelligence / affinity / time / etc etc etc.
This is a useful paradigm under which to consider other skills. Computer code (product) is (approaching...) wide availability from LLMs, but the skills necessary to be a good developer come through a process that involves independently solving problems and asking questions that have (at least at first!) already been addressed by others.
Reading a good book is a closest approximation we have to actually meeting the author in person. There are books that I read years ago that had such a big emotional impact they probably affected my personality in some way. I barely remember a single youtube video I watched last week.
Why bother doing anything difficult or burdensome if one has the option to take the easy route?
This man sounds like he has a real passion for what he does. He's been doing it for quite a long time, and like you pointed out, he could've checked out and got a salary job at some company. He didn't. He gets to live his life doing something exciting that he loves.
Living your life always doing what's safe doesn't sound very intriguing.
