44520297

From reading your comments, it appears you value physical activity over sedentary activity and disagree with the disease model of addiction because of your own experience and belief system. Frankly, individualized belief systems that don’t exhibit generalizable or interrogatable attributes aren’t very interesting. You’re absolutely free to put up walls around your beliefs and experiences and tell us to keep out, but don’t be surprised when the intellectually curious start knocking on other doors.

But you haven't offered any measurable definition of productive, so we have no means by which to self-measure whether we agree with you or not.

More expensive relative to what? In nominal terms, everything gets more expensive because of inflation eventually.

> productive and worth-while.

Productive, as defined by... the people who compile labor statistics, or what? Worthwhile, as defined by... the people who dominate the current cultural narrative?

Everyone who ever invented or discovered anything was engaged in "unproductive" activity.

You are writing in the comments section of a website devoted to the discussion of companies and technologies that have changed the entire world. Technologies that, many suppose, will change the entire nature of labor, specifically.

And yet you ask, "but how will we maintain the world as it is today?"

Invent a better tomorrow. That's what you're here for.

The human body is simultaneously decaying and regenerating constantly, but calling it "rotting" mischaracterizes the process. About 330 billion cells are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells.

There is nothing particular to labor that changes this, people age at about the same rate whether they are engaged in "working" or not.

Sure, but let’s remember that “working” is not the end-all, be-all of human existence. Some will stop working and care for an aging parent. Some will stop working and raise children. Some will stop working and make art. We have the opportunity to maximize human flourishing. Let’s not mistake where we’ve been for where we’re going.

Considering a large portion of the contributors have names originating in a script and language that has no relationship whatsoever to English’s already arbitrary letter ordering, this list configuration is as good as any.

My friend group got busted for gaming AR and we were banned from it. The interface allowed us to sort the books by points, so we took the top 10 books, split them up among us, summarized them, took the tests, and gave each other the answers. The jig was up when they printed a leaderboard and we were all way ahead with an absurd number of points. They took them all away and we weren’t allowed to participate anymore.

All of language is tenuous overlap between speaker intent and listener interpretation. In this instance, how do you interpret the definition of capitalism for this context? Better to add meaning.

>This guy even says they scour social media!

Every, and I mean every, technology company scours social media. Amazon has a team that monitors social media posts to make sure employees, their spouses, their friends don’t leak info, for example.

Cost.

You are free to put addictions in whichever category you prefer. The medical community does not: we treat addiction with medication as well.

> go further than just treating them with drugs alone

This is precisely what the FDA guidance contains: that GLP1s be mixed with lifestyle modifications.

> Does any human technically need medication to eat less calories?

Chronically obese people, who are prescribed GLP1s to enable them to eat fewer calories. Are you interested in the reasons why people are unable to eat fewer calories without medication? It’s a pretty fascinating problem, one that intersects genetics, environment, and culture.