Enlightenment now and meaning of life

[DrZoidberg]

What? The poor's main struggle today is with obesity. Historically that's extreme luxury. So you're so incredibly wrong on this is bizarre. And frankly, I don't even understand how you're thinking or what you mean?

He wasn't talking about food alone, though? Health, happiness, and prosperity are not enjoyed by the majority of people living today, as long as you don't fall into the conservative trap of calling everybody in the United States royalty because most of us have access to running water, which is about all I get from your "historically" clause.

Ehe... yes I am. And why not? It is factually correct that a member of the western poor working class today has a better life, materially and healthwise than queen Victoria had. They have a lot less to fear in life. The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance.

I'm a lefty btw. This isn't a conservative opinion IMHO. It's the opinion of anybody who gives it any thought. Or should be.

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

 

[PyramidHead]

What? The poor's main struggle today is with obesity. Historically that's extreme luxury. So you're so incredibly wrong on this is bizarre. And frankly, I don't even understand how you're thinking or what you mean?

He wasn't talking about food alone, though? Health, happiness, and prosperity are not enjoyed by the majority of people living today, as long as you don't fall into the conservative trap of calling everybody in the United States royalty because most of us have access to running water, which is about all I get from your "historically" clause.

Ehe... yes I am. And why not? It is factually correct that a member of the western poor working class today has a better life, materially and healthwise than queen Victoria had. They have a lot less to fear in life. The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance.

I'm a lefty btw. This isn't a conservative opinion IMHO. It's the opinion of anybody who gives it any thought. Or should be.

You've lost the plot, my friend. Looking at material wealth and health in absolute terms betrays a vast ignorance about social mobility, freedom to pursue aspirations, to relax, to have some control over the course of one's life, to have a say in the way society is run... you're leaving all of that to the oligarchs because poor people today have cell phones and TVs and Queen Victoria didn't.

Compared to her, do the poor of today have the freedom to choose whether or not to sell their labor for the majority of their lives?

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

I have lots of black friends and they seem to be doing okay. I don't know what these civil rights people are so uppity about. Slaves are better off than they ever were in Africa, right?

If you're trying to present a caricature of the very worst and most stultifying impulses in civilization, as a contrast to the anger and dissatisfaction that has enabled every luxury you enjoy, you're doing a fine job. But you are most assuredly not a lefty. I would place your views in what Tariq Ali has called "the extreme centre" along with compassionate conservatism and moderate libertarianism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... yes I am. And why not? It is factually correct that a member of the western poor working class today has a better life, materially and healthwise than queen Victoria had. They have a lot less to fear in life. The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance.

I'm a lefty btw. This isn't a conservative opinion IMHO. It's the opinion of anybody who gives it any thought. Or should be.

You've lost the plot, my friend. Looking at material wealth and health in absolute terms betrays a vast ignorance about social mobility, freedom to pursue aspirations, to relax, to have some control over the course of one's life, to have a say in the way society is run... you're leaving all of that to the oligarchs because poor people today have cell phones and TVs and Queen Victoria didn't.

Compared to her, do the poor of today have the freedom to choose whether or not to sell their labor for the majority of their lives?

Are you high? WTF are you talking about? Everything you just listed used to be way worse and for everybody. Social mobility? Not that long ago most of the rungs of the modern ladder didn't even exist. What's the social mobility in that? I was thinking about stuff like antibiotics, refrigerators and aircondition. All stuff that queen Victoria didn't have.

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

I have lots of black friends and they seem to be doing okay. I don't know what these civil rights people are so uppity about. Slaves are better off than they ever were in Africa, right?

If you're trying to present a caricature of the very worst and most stultifying impulses in civilization, as a contrast to the anger and dissatisfaction that has enabled every luxury you enjoy, you're doing a fine job. But you are most assuredly not a lefty. I would place your views in what Tariq Ali has called "the extreme centre" along with compassionate conservatism and moderate libertarianism.

Again... wtf are you talking about? How is anything of what you wrote in this paragraph relevant to anything I said? Saying that life today is pretty fucking amazing for everybody, isn't the same thing as saying that everything is perfect, and that we should stop trying to make it better. Which I've never said.

It's fucking hilarious that you manage to label me as conservative. Whatever drugs you're taking, you should probably cut down. That shit can't be healthy.

 

[untermensche]

What? The poor's main struggle today is with obesity. Historically that's extreme luxury. So you're so incredibly wrong on this is bizarre. And frankly, I don't even understand how you're thinking or what you mean?

He wasn't talking about food alone, though? Health, happiness, and prosperity are not enjoyed by the majority of people living today, as long as you don't fall into the conservative trap of calling everybody in the United States royalty because most of us have access to running water, which is about all I get from your "historically" clause.

Ehe... yes I am. And why not? It is factually correct that a member of the western poor working class today has a better life, materially and healthwise than queen Victoria had. They have a lot less to fear in life. The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance.

I'm a lefty btw. This isn't a conservative opinion IMHO. It's the opinion of anybody who gives it any thought. Or should be.

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

The Queen knew where her next meal was coming from.

She did not have to submit to some "boss" and do mind-numbing labor daily.

She had healthier food.

 

[rousseau]

Are you high? WTF are you talking about? Everything you just listed used to be way worse and for everybody. Social mobility? Not that long ago most of the rungs of the modern ladder didn't even exist. What's the social mobility in that? I was thinking about stuff like antibiotics, refrigerators and aircondition. All stuff that queen Victoria didn't have.

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

I have lots of black friends and they seem to be doing okay. I don't know what these civil rights people are so uppity about. Slaves are better off than they ever were in Africa, right?

If you're trying to present a caricature of the very worst and most stultifying impulses in civilization, as a contrast to the anger and dissatisfaction that has enabled every luxury you enjoy, you're doing a fine job. But you are most assuredly not a lefty. I would place your views in what Tariq Ali has called "the extreme centre" along with compassionate conservatism and moderate libertarianism.

Again... wtf are you talking about? How is anything of what you wrote in this paragraph relevant to anything I said? Saying that life today is pretty fucking amazing for everybody, isn't the same thing as saying that everything is perfect, and that we should stop trying to make it better. Which I've never said.

It's fucking hilarious that you manage to label me as conservative. Whatever drugs you're taking, you should probably cut down. That shit can't be healthy.

These two things can be true at the same time:

- we're better off than we were before
- we're not, as a whole, well off, unless your metric for well off is 'not starving to death on the regular', which as it turns out is actually still fairly common

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... yes I am. And why not? It is factually correct that a member of the western poor working class today has a better life, materially and healthwise than queen Victoria had. They have a lot less to fear in life. The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance.

I'm a lefty btw. This isn't a conservative opinion IMHO. It's the opinion of anybody who gives it any thought. Or should be.

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

The Queen knew where her next meal was coming from.

She did not have to submit to some "boss" and do mind-numbing labor daily.

She had healthier food.

No, she had godawful food loaded with sugar that caused her teeth to fall out because they, at that time, knew nothing about nutrition. The 19'th century recipes had extreme amounts of sugar in them.

And she lived in constant fear of even the most mundane infection. Doing absolutely anything before antibiotics was potentially lethal.

Her life was extremely limited. She might not have had a boss. But the alternatives available to her were very limited.

Any shitty hairdresser in Luton has travelled more widely than queen Victoria did. Have met more cultures. Met more interesting people.

Life sucked back then for everyone. A lot has changed. We're all better off today. Everybody.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are you high? WTF are you talking about? Everything you just listed used to be way worse and for everybody.

But not for Her Highness. Which was my entire point. Your comment to rousseau was off base; the poor of the world today are not better off than the rich of yesteryear just because they have air conditioning.

Saying that life today is pretty fucking amazing for everybody, isn't the same thing as saying that everything is perfect, and that we should stop trying to make it better. Which I've never said.

It's ignorant and trivializes the actual suffering of poor people in a way that nobody on the left would ever do. It's taken straight from the playbook of the propaganda machine that strives to limit everybody's conception of "trying to make it better" to encompass no more than "make incremental changes within the system and don't inconvenience anybody too much". Basically apologia for oppression. Tell someone in adult diapers on an assembly line in Taiwan for 16 hours a day that her life is fucking amazing because she can keep her food cold all day long, and that she is less susceptible to bacterial infection than the former Queen of England, who lived in a castle waited on by Indian servants because she was born. And keep outside of throwing range if there happen to be any rocks nearby.

The left = solidarity with the poor and working class, period. Saying "The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance" is the opposite of solidarity with the poor.

 

[rousseau]

Are you high? WTF are you talking about? Everything you just listed used to be way worse and for everybody.

But not for Her Highness. Which was my entire point. Your comment to rousseau was off base; the poor of the world today are not better off than the rich of yesteryear just because they have air conditioning.

Saying that life today is pretty fucking amazing for everybody, isn't the same thing as saying that everything is perfect, and that we should stop trying to make it better. Which I've never said.

It's ignorant and trivializes the actual suffering of poor people in a way that nobody on the left would ever do. It's taken straight from the playbook of the propaganda machine that strives to limit everybody's conception of "trying to make it better" to encompass no more than "make incremental changes within the system and don't inconvenience anybody too much". Basically apologia for oppression. Tell someone in adult diapers on an assembly line in Taiwan for 16 hours a day that her life is fucking amazing because she can keep her food cold all day long, and that she is less susceptible to bacterial infection than the former Queen of England, who lived in a castle waited on by Indian servants because she was born. And keep outside of throwing range if there happen to be any rocks nearby.

The left = solidarity with the poor and working class, period. Saying "The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance" is the opposite of solidarity with the poor.

In fairness, I understand where his argument's coming from, but I think it's a matter of definition. He's right that the world is better off in absolute terms, but he's wrong that this is some kind of accomplishment of science, and not just an unintended consequence of a bunch of capitalists trying to make money.

And in the long-run this growth in absolute terms is probably ephemeral, because there is no such thing as 'growth', there is only an 'increased rate of consumption' of the world's resources. The scientific revolution coincides with what historians are calling an energy bonanza. People are more food secure because of fossil fuels.

 

[untermensche]

Ehe... yes I am. And why not? It is factually correct that a member of the western poor working class today has a better life, materially and healthwise than queen Victoria had. They have a lot less to fear in life. The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance.

I'm a lefty btw. This isn't a conservative opinion IMHO. It's the opinion of anybody who gives it any thought. Or should be.

The norm for most people who have ever lived is constant grinding poverty. Long periods of meagre rations and reoccuring starvation. Extremely one sided diets. Chronic malnutrition. I've personally never had to starve more than a couple of hours in my entire life. That's pretty high marks for a civilisation

The Queen knew where her next meal was coming from.

She did not have to submit to some "boss" and do mind-numbing labor daily.

She had healthier food.

No, she had godawful food loaded with sugar that caused her teeth to fall out because they, at that time, knew nothing about nutrition. The 19'th century recipes had extreme amounts of sugar in them.

21st century foods have extreme amounts of sugar in them.

People's teeth are still falling out.

But the Queen did not have all the added chemicals in her food that people do today.

And she lived in constant fear of even the most mundane infection. Doing absolutely anything before antibiotics was potentially lethal.

People did have immune systems and most infections did not kill you.

It is doubtful anybody lived in constant fear of some rare event that effected other people.

Her life was extremely limited. She might not have had a boss. But the alternatives available to her were very limited.

She had the power to walk away at any second.

Life sucked back then for everyone. A lot has changed. We're all better off today. Everybody.

Life sucked if you were not connected to the ruling dictators called "royalty".

 

[bilby]

But not for Her Highness. Which was my entire point. Your comment to rousseau was off base; the poor of the world today are not better off than the rich of yesteryear just because they have air conditioning.



It's ignorant and trivializes the actual suffering of poor people in a way that nobody on the left would ever do. It's taken straight from the playbook of the propaganda machine that strives to limit everybody's conception of "trying to make it better" to encompass no more than "make incremental changes within the system and don't inconvenience anybody too much". Basically apologia for oppression. Tell someone in adult diapers on an assembly line in Taiwan for 16 hours a day that her life is fucking amazing because she can keep her food cold all day long, and that she is less susceptible to bacterial infection than the former Queen of England, who lived in a castle waited on by Indian servants because she was born. And keep outside of throwing range if there happen to be any rocks nearby.

The left = solidarity with the poor and working class, period. Saying "The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance" is the opposite of solidarity with the poor.

In fairness, I understand where his argument's coming from, but I think it's a matter of definition. He's right that the world is better off in absolute terms, but he's wrong that this is some kind of accomplishment of science, and not just an unintended consequence of a bunch of capitalists trying to make money.

And in the long-run this growth in absolute terms is probably ephemeral, because there is no such thing as 'growth', there is only an 'increased rate of consumption' of the world's resources. The scientific revolution coincides with what historians are calling an energy bonanza. People are more food secure because of fossil fuels.

Resources are not consumed, they are just moved around. Energy is consumed to keep the entropy low; But as long as we have cheap energy and the technology to produce and exploit it, we cannot run out of anything.

The sun will provide free energy for at least a few more eons; Thorium can do the same - so we have two independent sources of effectively limitless energy available. All we need in order to never run out of any resource is to implement means to cheaply produce that energy in a useful form, and to cheaply distribute it to where it is in demand. With cheap nuclear energy, it's even fairly easy to reconcentrate and extract the excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

The only irreplaceable 'resource' is biodiversity.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you high? WTF are you talking about? Everything you just listed used to be way worse and for everybody.

But not for Her Highness. Which was my entire point. Your comment to rousseau was off base; the poor of the world today are not better off than the rich of yesteryear just because they have air conditioning.

Yes, also for Her Highness and denying it is incredibly ignorant. That's not a conservative nor leftist opinion. That's just fact. Life is so much better now that for almost any metric. Unless you're counting number of servants. But then again modern people have less of a use of servants. So perhaps not even that is a relevant metric.

Saying that life today is pretty fucking amazing for everybody, isn't the same thing as saying that everything is perfect, and that we should stop trying to make it better. Which I've never said.

It's ignorant and trivializes the actual suffering of poor people in a way that nobody on the left would ever do. It's taken straight from the playbook of the propaganda machine that strives to limit everybody's conception of "trying to make it better" to encompass no more than "make incremental changes within the system and don't inconvenience anybody too much". Basically apologia for oppression. Tell someone in adult diapers on an assembly line in Taiwan for 16 hours a day that her life is fucking amazing because she can keep her food cold all day long, and that she is less susceptible to bacterial infection than the former Queen of England, who lived in a castle waited on by Indian servants because she was born. And keep outside of throwing range if there happen to be any rocks nearby.

The left = solidarity with the poor and working class, period. Saying "The only reason some people might think that the poor today have it bad is frankly just ignorance" is the opposite of solidarity with the poor.

Jesus fucking Christ, what fucking rock are you living under? Working conditions aren't so much different around the world any longer. I used to work with a Chinese woman in Sweden who moved back to China because she liked working there better. It's hard to keep Indian staff in Sweden, because most of them prefer working in India. Did you know that Taiwanese factory workers work 41 hours a week? Compare that to Sweden's 40. Or USA where most workers work more than that. Taiwan is not a poor country any longer. They're doing better than southern European countries. Here's what I think. I don't think any Taiwanese workers work in adult diapers (unless they suffer from some medical condition that demands it).

I can't even say that you've swallowed some leftist myth, because these aren't any longer. This is myths that died in the 90'ies... except in your head. BTW, factory work in the poorest part of world is many times better than the agricultural work they left. In the west we often make the conceptual mistake of equating the current rural exodus with the western rural exodus of the 19'th century. The difference is that the west back then was completely de-regulated. There was zero protection of workers. This coupled with social-darwinist (which has nothing to do with Darwin) ideas that it was socially destructive to help the poor. This created extreme misery for the poor. It's not nearly as bad for factory workers in the developing world today. No, it's not great. But these are a world apart. Not to mention that these to have access to modern technology and healthcare. A huge problem today when it comes to antibiotics resistance is that in many parts of the world poor people are often taking antibiotics everyday as if it's health supplements. Because they have a vague idea that it's a miracle drug. Well... it ain't cheap, which suggests that even the most poor today have disposable income. 3/4 of all humans today have a smart phone. Smart phones aren't cheap. That implies lots of things. It implies they have access to modern shopping. Access to electricity. Access to payment plans, bank accounts and everything else we associate with an advanced economy.

You live in a complete fantasy world. Wake the fuck up.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No, she had godawful food loaded with sugar that caused her teeth to fall out because they, at that time, knew nothing about nutrition. The 19'th century recipes had extreme amounts of sugar in them.

21st century foods have extreme amounts of sugar in them.

People's teeth are still falling out.

But the Queen did not have all the added chemicals in her food that people do today.

I suggest reading up on 19'th century consumption patterns. Unless you lived on a farm you never ate fresh vegetables. That was as true for queens and urban factory workers. Because there was no way of keeping them fresh. Or transporting them quickly.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/13/lifeandhealth.britishidentity

Food back then was adulterated with all kinds of horrific stuff. They'd add lead to drinks to make them more colourful, because they had no idea that lead was poisonous. They'd also add heroin to all kinds of candies and things without informing the consumer. I think it's safe to say that queen Victoria had an astonishing amount of toxic crap in her diet because people then thought it was healthy. Bizarre eating fads isn't something we started with in the 90'ies. It's been around as long as industrialism. And they used to be way worse than today.

If people's teeth are falling out today it's because they can but aren't taking care of their health. We all need to take responsibility for our actions. Swedish factory workers in the last half of the 19'th century would eat nothing but sugary buns. Morning, noon and night. Sometimes all year round. No vegetables. No meat. Just that. All the time.

BTW, food itself is chemicals. Food without added chemicals is an empty plate.

And she lived in constant fear of even the most mundane infection. Doing absolutely anything before antibiotics was potentially lethal.

People did have immune systems and most infections did not kill you.

It is doubtful anybody lived in constant fear of some rare event that effected other people.

Perhaps not. But they should have been. Instead they just prayed extra hard to God.

Her life was extremely limited. She might not have had a boss. But the alternatives available to her were very limited.

She had the power to walk away at any second.

And do what? What would she have done with her life if not being the queen? The available options for women was extremely limited back then. Even queens. The money belongs to the crown. If she leaves the crown, she leaves the money. How would she support herself?

Life sucked back then for everyone. A lot has changed. We're all better off today. Everybody.

Life sucked if you were not connected to the ruling dictators called "royalty".

Nah... life sucked for them as well. You can't even exercise royal privilege and screw around without being at great risk of getting syphilis. Not to mention that they had no idea how syphilis was even contracted back then. It was in Victoria's lifetime doctors finally agreed that diseases were contagious. When she came to power nearly all doctors rejected the idea that diseases were contagious. Which we today think is a bizarre idea.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a question to those who thinks science and reason can give us a satisfying meaning of life. How is it doing that for you? I'm seriously curious.

 

[untermensche]

I suggest reading up on 19'th century consumption patterns. Unless you lived on a farm you never ate fresh vegetables. That was as true for queens and urban factory workers. Because there was no way of keeping them fresh. Or transporting them quickly.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/13/lifeandhealth.britishidentity

Food back then was adulterated with all kinds of horrific stuff. They'd add lead to drinks to make them more colourful, because they had no idea that lead was poisonous. They'd also add heroin to all kinds of candies and things without informing the consumer. I think it's safe to say that queen Victoria had an astonishing amount of toxic crap in her diet because people then thought it was healthy. Bizarre eating fads isn't something we started with in the 90'ies. It's been around as long as industrialism. And they used to be way worse than today.

If people's teeth are falling out today it's because they can but aren't taking care of their health. We all need to take responsibility for our actions. Swedish factory workers in the last half of the 19'th century would eat nothing but sugary buns. Morning, noon and night. Sometimes all year round. No vegetables. No meat. Just that. All the time.

BTW, food itself is chemicals. Food without added chemicals is an empty plate.

And she lived in constant fear of even the most mundane infection. Doing absolutely anything before antibiotics was potentially lethal.

People did have immune systems and most infections did not kill you.

It is doubtful anybody lived in constant fear of some rare event that effected other people.

Perhaps not. But they should have been. Instead they just prayed extra hard to God.

Her life was extremely limited. She might not have had a boss. But the alternatives available to her were very limited.

She had the power to walk away at any second.

And do what? What would she have done with her life if not being the queen? The available options for women was extremely limited back then. Even queens. The money belongs to the crown. If she leaves the crown, she leaves the money. How would she support herself?

Life sucked back then for everyone. A lot has changed. We're all better off today. Everybody.

Life sucked if you were not connected to the ruling dictators called "royalty".

Nah... life sucked for them as well. You can't even exercise royal privilege and screw around without being at great risk of getting syphilis. Not to mention that they had no idea how syphilis was even contracted back then. It was in Victoria's lifetime doctors finally agreed that diseases were contagious. When she came to power nearly all doctors rejected the idea that diseases were contagious. Which we today think is a bizarre idea.

From your link.

The figures are astonishing. Britain's annual per capita consumption of sugar was 4lbs in 1704, 18lbs in 1800, 90lbs in 1901 - a 22-fold increase to the point where Britons had the highest sugar intake in Europe.

It does not appear things are better now than in the past. It appears sugar consumption has gotten worse.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I suggest reading up on 19'th century consumption patterns. Unless you lived on a farm you never ate fresh vegetables. That was as true for queens and urban factory workers. Because there was no way of keeping them fresh. Or transporting them quickly.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/13/lifeandhealth.britishidentity

Food back then was adulterated with all kinds of horrific stuff. They'd add lead to drinks to make them more colourful, because they had no idea that lead was poisonous. They'd also add heroin to all kinds of candies and things without informing the consumer. I think it's safe to say that queen Victoria had an astonishing amount of toxic crap in her diet because people then thought it was healthy. Bizarre eating fads isn't something we started with in the 90'ies. It's been around as long as industrialism. And they used to be way worse than today.

If people's teeth are falling out today it's because they can but aren't taking care of their health. We all need to take responsibility for our actions. Swedish factory workers in the last half of the 19'th century would eat nothing but sugary buns. Morning, noon and night. Sometimes all year round. No vegetables. No meat. Just that. All the time.

BTW, food itself is chemicals. Food without added chemicals is an empty plate.



Perhaps not. But they should have been. Instead they just prayed extra hard to God.

Her life was extremely limited. She might not have had a boss. But the alternatives available to her were very limited.

She had the power to walk away at any second.

And do what? What would she have done with her life if not being the queen? The available options for women was extremely limited back then. Even queens. The money belongs to the crown. If she leaves the crown, she leaves the money. How would she support herself?

Life sucked back then for everyone. A lot has changed. We're all better off today. Everybody.

Life sucked if you were not connected to the ruling dictators called "royalty".

Nah... life sucked for them as well. You can't even exercise royal privilege and screw around without being at great risk of getting syphilis. Not to mention that they had no idea how syphilis was even contracted back then. It was in Victoria's lifetime doctors finally agreed that diseases were contagious. When she came to power nearly all doctors rejected the idea that diseases were contagious. Which we today think is a bizarre idea.

From your link.

The figures are astonishing. Britain's annual per capita consumption of sugar was 4lbs in 1704, 18lbs in 1800, 90lbs in 1901 - a 22-fold increase to the point where Britons had the highest sugar intake in Europe.

It does not appear things are better now than in the past. It appears sugar consumption has gotten worse.

But that's from eating garbage. Not regular dishes. It's easy to avoid sugar today if you want. Back then normal food had sugar in it. Today you'd have to eat at McDonald's for that.

 

[untermensche]

But that's from eating garbage. Not regular dishes. It's easy to avoid sugar today if you want. Back then normal food had sugar in it. Today you'd have to eat at McDonald's for that.

Hand waving.

Most people are consuming more sugar than the Queen ever did.

And sugar is not the only problem.

The over consumption of meat is a problem too.

Meat loaded with antibiotics and steroids.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But that's from eating garbage. Not regular dishes. It's easy to avoid sugar today if you want. Back then normal food had sugar in it. Today you'd have to eat at McDonald's for that.

Hand waving.

Most people are consuming more sugar than the Queen ever did.

And sugar is not the only problem.

It's not hand-waving. It actually matters. If your food is almost entirely sugary bread with almost no protein or fats, nor vegetables you are not going to be healthy.

The over consumption of meat is a problem too.

For environmental reasons. As far as health is concerned, it's not a problem.

Meat loaded with antibiotics and steroids.

Antibiotics and steroids in our meat is not harmful for us. Unless we take juice from the meat and inject it intravenously, it's not going to impact us. Antibiotics in meat is bad because it creates antibiotic resistant bacteria, which can be horrendous. But it will have no impact on the healthiness of the meat. Rather the opposite. That meat tastes much nicer. Same deal with the steroid meat.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's not hand-waving. It actually matters. If your food is almost entirely sugary bread with almost no protein or fats, nor vegetables you are not going to be healthy.

The over consumption of meat is a problem too.

For environmental reasons. As far as health is concerned, it's not a problem.

Meat loaded with antibiotics and steroids.

Antibiotics and steroids in our meat is not harmful for us. Unless we take juice from the meat and inject it intravenously, it's not going to impact us. Antibiotics in meat is bad because it creates antibiotic resistant bacteria, which can be horrendous. But it will have no impact on the healthiness of the meat. Rather the opposite. That meat tastes much nicer. Same deal with the steroid meat.

For once in this thread we agree!

 

[untermensche]

The over consumption of meat is a problem too.

For environmental reasons. As far as health is concerned, it's not a problem.

Not true at all.

It is a major contributor to obesity and artery disease and all that comes from those two.

Antibiotics and steroids in our meat is not harmful for us.

It leads to greater antibiotic resistance which is very bad.

And steroids have very potent effects.

Consuming them constantly has many effects, in some cases it can make cancer more likely.

 

[steve_bank]

Here's a question to those who thinks science and reason can give us a satisfying meaning of life. How is it doing that for you? I'm seriously curious.

For me scince is a toll. More sophisticated but just as much a skill as carpentry. You get knowede, experience, and a paying job.



You gave to define reason and then the ensuing debate on the meaning of reason.

If you mean reason as logic based thinking reasoning based on reality then no. Globaly the depth to which the supernatural is buried in culture says otherwise.

We have Christian politicians who have gone to top schools chronically invoking god making bizarre statements on policy vs theology.

It is the way our brains are wired.

For some science imparts a sense of cosmic grandeur. Sagan and his billions an billions of stars wistfulness. That is up to the individual. AE was emerged in it 100%. It was his life entirely. I worked with a physicist who had worked at MIT Limcoln Labs. As he put it for most it was a job. Come in in the morning, work on your project, and go home.

Science is more work a day than you may think. My physicist friend was into road rallies and amateur sports car track racing. People like AE are the exception.

Anything can and does provide meaning. While it is bogus Scientology provides meaning in exchange for money. Heffner found meaning in surrounding himself with young women.

People find meaning in gardening and cooking.For fans of pop science, science is an escape.