Meanwhile the average Ozempic user probably isn’t cutting her budget for groceries, cigarettes, alcohol, Instagram, etc. by $1,000 a month? I would guess? Maybe it is a positive? I do think that it would be a crowning achievement of postmodern capitalism if the corporate world, in aggregate, was able to make more money by charging people for not consuming stuff than it does by selling them stuff. But in any case it seems like something for universal shareholders to think about.
I personally find the framing within capitalism to be a little limiting. I think that it is the ultimate question of human evolution: confronting the inevitable question of what happens when the...
I personally find the framing within capitalism to be a little limiting. I think that it is the ultimate question of human evolution: confronting the inevitable question of what happens when the design of our scarcity-oriented human biology finally encounters abundance. All life is suppose to be governed by Nature's iron law of scarcity, but human intelligence created industry and circumvented that law.
Other economic systems sought abundance too, and they might've achieved it then too — so the same question would also emerge.
Capitalism or no capitalism, it was inevitable that humans through technology would patch their own biology once they broke the natural framework.
Sure, but the funny thing is that the problem is usually "we can't produce enough" but here we see people finding it more valuable to have the option to not consume something rather than consume...
Sure, but the funny thing is that the problem is usually "we can't produce enough" but here we see people finding it more valuable to have the option to not consume something rather than consume something. Of course the take is slightly reductionist, but we usually think of things as costing money, and not buying things as not costing money, except here this logic is flipped!
Aha, I think that here we see human reason weighing the trade-offs between human biological directives. Eating is 'good', but at some point the cost of eating outweighs its benefits, and that cost...
Aha, I think that here we see human reason weighing the trade-offs between human biological directives.
Eating is 'good', but at some point the cost of eating outweighs its benefits, and that cost is the loss of two other biologically 'good' things: health and sex (appeal).
It's also good for airlines (less fuel needed.) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-29/weight-loss-drugs-ozempic-wegovy-could-reduce-airlines-costs
Ultimately better transportation should encourage walking and weight loss. A drug is only a temporary patch. That said it's encouraging and maybe fast food could get healthier as a result.
Ultimately better transportation should encourage walking and weight loss. A drug is only a temporary patch. That said it's encouraging and maybe fast food could get healthier as a result.
I gained weight when I moved to nyc. Even with all the subway commuting and walking, it was not match for the increase in eating and drinking combined with the extreme difficulty in just getting...
I gained weight when I moved to nyc. Even with all the subway commuting and walking, it was not match for the increase in eating and drinking combined with the extreme difficulty in just getting in a car and going for a hike.
Excerpt:
I personally find the framing within capitalism to be a little limiting. I think that it is the ultimate question of human evolution: confronting the inevitable question of what happens when the design of our scarcity-oriented human biology finally encounters abundance. All life is suppose to be governed by Nature's iron law of scarcity, but human intelligence created industry and circumvented that law.
Other economic systems sought abundance too, and they might've achieved it then too — so the same question would also emerge.
Capitalism or no capitalism, it was inevitable that humans through technology would patch their own biology once they broke the natural framework.
Sure, but the funny thing is that the problem is usually "we can't produce enough" but here we see people finding it more valuable to have the option to not consume something rather than consume something. Of course the take is slightly reductionist, but we usually think of things as costing money, and not buying things as not costing money, except here this logic is flipped!
Aha, I think that here we see human reason weighing the trade-offs between human biological directives.
Eating is 'good', but at some point the cost of eating outweighs its benefits, and that cost is the loss of two other biologically 'good' things: health and sex (appeal).
It's also good for airlines (less fuel needed.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-29/weight-loss-drugs-ozempic-wegovy-could-reduce-airlines-costs
Ultimately better transportation should encourage walking and weight loss. A drug is only a temporary patch. That said it's encouraging and maybe fast food could get healthier as a result.
I gained weight when I moved to nyc. Even with all the subway commuting and walking, it was not match for the increase in eating and drinking combined with the extreme difficulty in just getting in a car and going for a hike.
Do you have a link to or text of the article? This is an excerpt.
This might work: https://archive.ph/LQQBX
(it works for me ..)
This works. Thanks!
You can subscribe to the newsletter (which is free) but sadly it does not seem to be possible to read past articles outside the paywall.
Bypass Paywalls Clean got me through it, but apparently it's been booted from the Firefox add-ons site.