Peter Brown

How bad is soft drink?

57 posts in this topic

What is the consensus among objectivists with regards to man-made products ?

First, in case you don't know, "Objectivists" is a proper noun, so the "O" is capitalized.

Science clearly shows that a diet of man made products is usually far worse than that of natural products (by natural I in no way mean "organic", I simply mean not heavily processed !).

Second, science has shown no such thing. It has shown that consuming processed foods like a maniac in harmful, but then taking in that many "natural" calories is almost as nuts. (There seems to be very little inherent in proccessed foods that could hurt the average human being if he were to keep to a reasonable number of calories per day and stay under ~400 calories per meal.)

Just to clarify something regarding organic or so-called pure foods : I'd bet 98% of the best organic and "pure" food available is man made. Further, there are very few strands of organic produce around that haven't been genetically engineered (man has been playing around with genetics for 10K years.) Same goes for almost all the red and white meat sourced from people who have elevated "natural" to a mystical state. Even some of the fish that's raised "naturally" has been bred a certain way by Man. (Once one of these outfits has any leftover capital, one of the first thing they do is strengthen the gene pool of their "pure" stock; if they don't they go under rather quickly, or their business turns into a "labor of love" and/or a non-profit effort.)

So my question is : What is the objective here? Optimal health or enjoying all the pleasures of man?

This is a false either-or. Ayn Rand's smoking doesn't mean she was a hedonist. Nor is it a lock that smoking will adversely affect everyone who smokes (Again, it seems to be more a matter of dosage, but even heavy smoker studies show a wide range of consequences, from seemingly almost no consequences, to a definite link between smoking and terminal illness.)

FYI: The moment Miss Rand's doctor IDed smoking as a potential contributor to her failing health, she quit on the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephane,

Your statements about "natural" or "organic" and man-made foods are wrong as there is no documentation that shows that the so called "organic" or "natural" foods are any better nor any safer that man-made foods. And as a matter of fact most of the so called "organic" foods carry their own chemicals that are considered to be "natural" pesticides that have been show to cause problems to our endocirine system, act as neurotoxins and act as carcinogens. When man genetically enhances or produces man-made items these problems are usually gotten rid of.

But I have already written about all this and more many times. So, below is a link to another thread (of the many on this and similar subjects) where I have quotes of studies links to studies and so much more.

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...l=\organic foods\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's been said, but it should be, that the very existence of the FDA is immoral. Why? Because its purpose is preventive LAW, which is destructive to man's life in principle and in fact. The FDA generates regulations that require-by-law (that is, by force) private entities to follow government guidelines for testing and labeling of foods and drugs before offering them for sale. Without going into the inevitably arbitrary nature of such guidelines:

In a proper society, such testing should and would be done by private facilities, entirely voluntarily, and only to the degree that the market demanded it. Coercion (particularly by government) that interferes with private contracts between individuals, or between legal individuals (which include corporations), is an abrogation of individual rights.

That's the political principle, and I doubt that I'll write any more about it. If one wishes to understand the Objectivist view, he should try doing some research about what Ayn Rand said concerning the topic. Look it up (preventive law - The Ayn Rand Lexicon is available online for free at the Ayn Rand Institute) -- and try your best to understand what Ayn Rand said about it. It's not that difficult. She is an excellent writer and can explain her philosophy very well, so long as one pays attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know if it's been said, but it should be, that the very existence of the FDA is immoral. Why? Because its purpose is preventive LAW, which is destructive to man's life in principle and in fact. The FDA generates regulations that require-by-law (that is, by force) private entities to follow government guidelines for testing and labeling of foods and drugs before offering them for sale. Without going into the inevitably arbitrary nature of such guidelines:

In a proper society, such testing should and would be done by private facilities, entirely voluntarily, and only to the degree that the market demanded it. Coercion (particularly by government) that interferes with private contracts between individuals, or between legal individuals (which include corporations), is an abrogation of individual rights.

That's the political principle, and I doubt that I'll write any more about it. If one wishes to understand the Objectivist view, he should try doing some research about what Ayn Rand said concerning the topic. Look it up (preventive law - The Ayn Rand Lexicon is available online for free at the Ayn Rand Institute) -- and try your best to understand what Ayn Rand said about it. It's not that difficult. She is an excellent writer and can explain her philosophy very well, so long as one pays attention.

Preventive law is a species of non-objective law. That topic is listed in the Lexicon under Law, Objective and Non-Objective. Ayn Rand wrote this specifically about preventive law:

[...] What Mr. Kennedy is here attempting to establish is the legal hallmark of a dictatorship: preventive law -- the concept that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent by the permissive rubber stamp of a commissar or a Gauleiter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft drinks loaded with sugar can rot your teeth. So can fruit drinks. If you must drink something sweet from sugar brush your teeth immediately after you are done drinking.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soft drinks loaded with sugar can rot your teeth. So can fruit drinks. If you must drink something sweet from sugar brush your teeth immediately after you are done drinking.

Bob Kolker

Sugar and acid from the drinks softens the enamel. Brushing the teeth immediately after drinking will wear down the enamel. It's better to rinse with water and have a xylitol gum after drinking and eating. Wait atleast 30-45 minutes before brushing your teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with aspartame in my opinion is that its everywhere. That's the real danger. Deserts, gum, sodas, artificial sweetner, many things "diet", etc. You can find it in everything.

Yes, aspartame is almost everywhere and high-fructose corn syrup is everywhere. Based on what I've learend about these I try to avoid them as best I can. It's pretty easy, actually, once you start paying attention to what you stuff in your pie hole. Combine that with regular, high-level exercise and I think it's no accident I'm one of the few guys my age I know who's not taking any prescription meds.

The modern American mindset is that you can eat whatever, and fail to get enough exercise because your doctor can give you some pills to fix whatever springs up. I can't tell you how many people I know who take cholesterol-reducing meds but will eat pizza and cheeseburgers....along with their diet soda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites