[ExI] How the world collapses
sondre-list at bjellas.com
Tue May 27 07:33:05 UTC 2014
As Anders mentions, there are way more than 50 and for us living up here in
Norway, we have the issue with a lot of chemicals and pollution coming up
north with the sea and wind. Norwegians are some of the most polluted
humans in the planet ;-) ... Driven by many things, including consumerism
Few days ago it was reported on fruits in Sweden, 9 out of 10 had traces of
chemicals and many of the kind that ain't to good for you. The issues today
with food, is that they all contains less than the maximum limit of
European regulations, but they contains a cocktail of chemicals which
obviously we don't know much on the effects of yet.
There is though, no means for anyone to avoid these chemicals and it's
simply a fact we have to live with for at least some thousands of years
My suggestion: Grow your own food =)
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 17/5/2014 11:01 PM:
> Why aren't you guys worried about chemicals? We are walking around with
> over 50 chemicals in our bodies that weren't there when we were born.
> Just 50? You must be living in some Antarctic nature preserve.
> But 'chemicals' range from the rather benign artificial sulphur
> hexafluoride to natural potent carcinogens like aflatoxins. From essential
> and poisonous selenium to barbiturates produced as drugs or part of our
> natural biochemistry. The real question must always be if they are harming
> us appreciably: worrying about them *all* is irrational.
> When it comes to health, it is worth noticing that the healthspan of
> people in developed countries (where we likely have the richest mix of
> molecules) is increasing and far better than in counties where we can
> expect a more 'natural' environment. Part of this is obviously trade-offs;
> avoiding parasites and infections might help more than bad effects from
> pollutants. Part of it is also getting rid of nasties like tobacco smoke,
> lead or DDT. But I suspect that there are few chemicals around that have
> effects on our health comparable to the old nasties; we certainly worry
> about oestrogen-like substances, but their harms have proven rather elusive
> despite decades of investigation (and we ingest plenty of phyto-oestrogens
> too). A lot of things may be carcinogenic, but cancer incidence is largely
> That doesn't stop people from obsessing about chemicals. But most
> responses I see are more like attempts of achieving ritual purity (often
> using traditional methods bolstered with a pinch of pseudoscience) or
> jumping from fashion to fashion (aspartame! bisphenol-A! manganese!
> vaccines! benzene in soft drinks! acrylamide in fried food!) rather than
> aiming for health.
> My liver enzymes are currently happily chewing up ethanol, modafinil,
> caffeine and arsenobetaine - chemicals that may have some bad effects on
> me, but also have useful effects (or, in the case of arsenobetaine, just
> come with good natural seafood).
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat