Oy. Well, full disclosure, I didn't read this in depth--I skimmed your boldfaced questions, it looks like you did a good job holding his feet to the fire.
We are becoming increasingly disembodied as a species thanks to technology--now devolving into technocracy--so if the goal is further disembodiment, then yeah, this is the answer.
However, if you think about food as a key anchor point of human nourishment--not just calories but also culture, tradition, and connection--then hi-tech food makes complete sense as a key to eradicate all of that. What we're left with, then, is a dystopian, Maoist-style situation where corporations and government become our source of sustenance.
Marcella, I very much agree with your idea of food quality being essential to a good life. That said, I also take Anthony Lo Sasso's point that obviously healthy food is not nearly as affordable and available as cheap ultra-processed foods. But this is where society should start demanding more of its lawmakers to enforce nutritional clarity, instead of taking industrial food producers money to keep food labels and consumers intentionally ignorant of the consequences of their food choices.
Well, yes, and ... in order for all that to happen we have to get out of the GDP-based economy. As long as being fat, sick, and nearly dead is profitable, we can pester lawmakers all we want, but the bottom line is still the bottom line. Robert Kennedy Sr. said, "The GDP measures everything but that which makes life worthwhile." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPgN_fSubKQ
Indeed. He apparently had a massive spiritual awakening right before he was killed, as did MLK. Listen, if you haven’t already, to RFK’s “Ripple of Hope” speech, MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam,” absolutely relevant to today. And then there’s the short speech RFK gave in Indianapolis when MLK was shot. Stunning.
This kind of thing makes my blood boil! Thank you, Paul, for challenging Mr. Lo Sasso's position, but I can't help but think that he wrote this for attention, as in "any press is good press". Utter madness.
Amy, I appreciate you reading. There's certainly a boost that comes with publishing an opinion piece in a national newspaper. My sense from my conversation with him is that Anthony Lo Sasso thoroughly believes what he wrote, and I appreciated his willingness to speak with me at length knowing that I fundamentally disagreed with him.
That said, I hear your outrage. Big Food is not all that far behind Big Tobacco in its willingness to addict people to things that make them die faster.
How many people can take these drugs and tolerate the side effects? They just don’t work well for everyone. And even if you take drugs to help lose or maintain weight wouldn’t you still want a diet consisting of mainly healthy foods? It’s clear that for some people GLP-1 drugs work well. They are also discovering other uses for these drugs. Still it’s not clear what percent of people should take them
Mark, good points. I think the professor would say respond by saying we're focused on the granularities rather than the sweep of history that he's talking about. That said, I'm with you.
Probably, but the professor says this as if it's our fate and it seems to be mainly a US things. So why is obesity so much worse in the US than say many European countries? Maybe the higher smoking rates in Europe help them in some way as far as food consumption goes. Maybe the food culture is different. Maybe they are more active than US people. They have a fair amount of poverty there too yet the processed/cheap carb food doesn't seem to affecting them to the same degree as here. The European obesity rate lower than ours but it is not zero either so clearly there are still issues. I'm not sure what demographics in Europe suffer obesity at a higher rate. Maybe that portion of the population would be good candidates to try GLP-1.
But I do believe there is a good point to be made that something seems endemic in the US culture that has clearly created a problem that is not easily solved by simply telling people to eat better, providing people with information to understand what that means and telling people to be more active. It might be overly idealistic to believe that we have the will to create a giant shift in our behavior and do things like fight against the processed food industry and direct people to focusing on preparing their own food from inherently healthier ingredients. It seems wrong not to at least try and correct behavior even if it's an uphill batter.
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue in an era that lacks it! Lo Sasso has a 'gosh gee willikers' adoration of modernity that seems to preclude any questioning of how we got here/is this where we want to be...
"If we want to preserve all that we have, which I can't stress enough how wonderful and amazing this is, it's going to require continued innovation and scientific advancement. "
I'm sure it is amazing and wonderful in some places but I live in Appalachia. Obesity and diabetes are blooming like wildflowers. Continued innovation and scientific advancement has given us ultra-processed food, electricity, running water and C8 in our rivers. Bit of a mixed bag...
I would note that your first question mentioned 'calorie dense food' and subsequent dialogue used the term 'nutrient dense'. I believe it is important to differentiate between these terms. It is actually difficult to over-consume nutrient dense foods as those have been the evolutionary norm for the majority of our time here on the planet. Calorie dense/nutrient deficient foods are a relatively recent addition to the food chain. As are the increasing prevalence of heart disease, obesity, diabetes... Thank you for your writing and your Wednesday fitness postings- much obliged!
Oy. Well, full disclosure, I didn't read this in depth--I skimmed your boldfaced questions, it looks like you did a good job holding his feet to the fire.
We are becoming increasingly disembodied as a species thanks to technology--now devolving into technocracy--so if the goal is further disembodiment, then yeah, this is the answer.
However, if you think about food as a key anchor point of human nourishment--not just calories but also culture, tradition, and connection--then hi-tech food makes complete sense as a key to eradicate all of that. What we're left with, then, is a dystopian, Maoist-style situation where corporations and government become our source of sustenance.
No thanks, Bro--I'm heading out to the garden. 🪴
Marcella, I very much agree with your idea of food quality being essential to a good life. That said, I also take Anthony Lo Sasso's point that obviously healthy food is not nearly as affordable and available as cheap ultra-processed foods. But this is where society should start demanding more of its lawmakers to enforce nutritional clarity, instead of taking industrial food producers money to keep food labels and consumers intentionally ignorant of the consequences of their food choices.
Also, I want to garden!
Well, yes, and ... in order for all that to happen we have to get out of the GDP-based economy. As long as being fat, sick, and nearly dead is profitable, we can pester lawmakers all we want, but the bottom line is still the bottom line. Robert Kennedy Sr. said, "The GDP measures everything but that which makes life worthwhile." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPgN_fSubKQ
Wise words from Sr.
Indeed. He apparently had a massive spiritual awakening right before he was killed, as did MLK. Listen, if you haven’t already, to RFK’s “Ripple of Hope” speech, MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam,” absolutely relevant to today. And then there’s the short speech RFK gave in Indianapolis when MLK was shot. Stunning.
Marcella, thanks for mentioning these three speeches. I'm going to look them up.
Thanks for posting this interview
Julian, I'm glad you found it useful. Thanks for reading.
This kind of thing makes my blood boil! Thank you, Paul, for challenging Mr. Lo Sasso's position, but I can't help but think that he wrote this for attention, as in "any press is good press". Utter madness.
Amy, I appreciate you reading. There's certainly a boost that comes with publishing an opinion piece in a national newspaper. My sense from my conversation with him is that Anthony Lo Sasso thoroughly believes what he wrote, and I appreciated his willingness to speak with me at length knowing that I fundamentally disagreed with him.
That said, I hear your outrage. Big Food is not all that far behind Big Tobacco in its willingness to addict people to things that make them die faster.
How many people can take these drugs and tolerate the side effects? They just don’t work well for everyone. And even if you take drugs to help lose or maintain weight wouldn’t you still want a diet consisting of mainly healthy foods? It’s clear that for some people GLP-1 drugs work well. They are also discovering other uses for these drugs. Still it’s not clear what percent of people should take them
Mark, good points. I think the professor would say respond by saying we're focused on the granularities rather than the sweep of history that he's talking about. That said, I'm with you.
Probably, but the professor says this as if it's our fate and it seems to be mainly a US things. So why is obesity so much worse in the US than say many European countries? Maybe the higher smoking rates in Europe help them in some way as far as food consumption goes. Maybe the food culture is different. Maybe they are more active than US people. They have a fair amount of poverty there too yet the processed/cheap carb food doesn't seem to affecting them to the same degree as here. The European obesity rate lower than ours but it is not zero either so clearly there are still issues. I'm not sure what demographics in Europe suffer obesity at a higher rate. Maybe that portion of the population would be good candidates to try GLP-1.
But I do believe there is a good point to be made that something seems endemic in the US culture that has clearly created a problem that is not easily solved by simply telling people to eat better, providing people with information to understand what that means and telling people to be more active. It might be overly idealistic to believe that we have the will to create a giant shift in our behavior and do things like fight against the processed food industry and direct people to focusing on preparing their own food from inherently healthier ingredients. It seems wrong not to at least try and correct behavior even if it's an uphill batter.
I appreciate your willingness to dialogue in an era that lacks it! Lo Sasso has a 'gosh gee willikers' adoration of modernity that seems to preclude any questioning of how we got here/is this where we want to be...
"If we want to preserve all that we have, which I can't stress enough how wonderful and amazing this is, it's going to require continued innovation and scientific advancement. "
I'm sure it is amazing and wonderful in some places but I live in Appalachia. Obesity and diabetes are blooming like wildflowers. Continued innovation and scientific advancement has given us ultra-processed food, electricity, running water and C8 in our rivers. Bit of a mixed bag...
I would note that your first question mentioned 'calorie dense food' and subsequent dialogue used the term 'nutrient dense'. I believe it is important to differentiate between these terms. It is actually difficult to over-consume nutrient dense foods as those have been the evolutionary norm for the majority of our time here on the planet. Calorie dense/nutrient deficient foods are a relatively recent addition to the food chain. As are the increasing prevalence of heart disease, obesity, diabetes... Thank you for your writing and your Wednesday fitness postings- much obliged!