IRC log started Fri May 9 22:00 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on "Healthy Living and Objectivism" and will be moderated by Jay Allen. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Go ahead, Jay. Thanks, Sube. In the face of mountains of medical evidence, many people - even some students of Objectivism - still insist in engaging in destructive behaviors such as smoking and overeating. They say that "quality of life" is more important than quantity, and that they'd rather live ten or 20 fewer years than give up "the simple pleasures" they "love". Tonight, we'll explore the philosophical issues behind this position: What is quality of life? What behaviors truly diminish it? And how does this impact your personal health decisions? In the process, we'll uncover and explore some truly interesting epistemological issues. I'll fix the bot. Keep pasting but a bit slower, Jay. That was it for the paste. If everyone got that, I'll move on to the questions. go ahead, Jay. I think the term "smoking" should be stated as "over-smoking" in this context First: Define "quality of life" in the context of man. Blue: We'll get to that. (Flood limit's now 30 messages per minute) Jay: measurement of well being quality of life means living as a human to the fullest possible level, meaning exploiting or enjoying those aspects that are human. Quality of life is determined by the measure of happiness in the life of a rational man joe, Tym: And what does that mean, specifically, for man? maximization of life qua man. "Quality of life" means the overall pleasantlness or values contained in one's life. I'd say it has to do with happiness as well. Clearly if someone is acting in a way that makes happiness or full happiness impossible then it's destructive Jay: state of unimpaired vitality, physical mental and emotional health it means the happiness possible to a being whose consciousness is at the conceptual level I like "unimpaired vitality," Tym. me too. :) Jay: Peikoff's term :) "Quality" is also qualitative as well as quantitative. The quality of ones life can be serene or exciting or creative or boring. Quality of life is the degree to which a man's life is conducted and enjoyed according to a rational standard of life, ie., 'man qua man'. how to live a happy and productive life Brad: Right. Which hooks into Tym's statement. For man, that involves achieving values. it's the maximization of enjoyment and achievement of values. Isn't "perception" an issue too? er, insert "degree to which one..." I still think it's a matter of happiness. That includes all the antecedents to happiness, such as objective values and their fulfillment. segelbe: I would agree, except I'd emphasize that the enjoyment follows from the achievement. It's not something extra tacked on. ah, I'll go with that. Happiness requires the achievment of rational values; QOL measures the degree to which a man pursues and is able to achieve these values. Sube: I think what Jay is looking for is what kind of existence provides that happiness then are "happiness" and "quality of life" synonymous? Tym: But that's not "QOC". Implicit in there is an idea of some balance as well. Someone achieving at work 16 hrs/day will end up having no time to pursue a romantic relationship for instance QOL Hey folks -- this sounds so ABSTRACT. We're talking about LIFE --- Your life. I think two components are specifically necessary: a man's own action, as well as existential conditions around or about him, conducive to achievement and happiness. Quality of Life should be a measure of how happy you are with yourself and the world. That depends on a huge number of things, all of which have to come before it. Is there a dichotomy between living well and enjoying life? Tom: We'll get to that, actually. Sube: I'd say it's the other way around absolutely not, as long as you choose your standard of "living well" rationally. hi all How's that, Tym? hi Finkel. Sube: happiness is a measure of QoL Afternoon Legendre Sube: So you don't think that the ability to pursue and achieve values is the fundamental aspect of QOL? Tym: I would say QoL is a component of happiness. hi segelbe. how are you? Tym: That could be. I see them as much the same. JayA: Of course they are. But try being happy without doing those things. E.g., if I have a set of machines keeping me alive in a vegetative state, my QoL is poor because of my inability to achieve value qua man. PONG JaY: yes that is a good def I'd still like to know where "perception" of happiness gives way to the concept of happiness? Sube: I agree with that completely - it's not possible. So, we are trying to define "quality of life"? I think QOL means living life qua man rather than merely qua physical animal. hi all. hi midas The difficulty with "qua man" is that it's a very broad abstraction. Tom: We've established that. I also think we've established QoL rests firmly on the ability to achieve one's values in accordance with one's personal purpose. Tom: but interestingly, QOL covers the aspects of our lives that we share with annimals, namely phisical comfort, pleasure, physiological health jay: Ok. Tym: lol! joe-: Sure, that's why physical pleasure/comfort is important. Okay, so quality of life is the degree of satisfaction or happiness you get from life, which depends on having objective values and the freedom to pursue them, and success in the effort. Right? Folks, several people have raised some interesting side issues. Please forgive me for breezing past them for now so as to keep the discussion on track. To concretize QOL and make it less abstract it's probably helpful to focus on daily life -- the typical day that one experiences and what makes it happy or not and why Depends optimally on objective values. Happiness can come from subjective values, but it's unlikely to last. Phil: That'll be a good netx step. Do you want to lead? Jay: I'm glad you mentioned PERSONAL purpose. That's very relevant to REAL quality of life. Reality: that would be JayA. Jay: What I had in mind was the typical cycle of a day -- which involves typically the sort of personal work one does, the friends or s.o. that one is with, the food one eats, etc. Betsy: Of course. You can't maintain any semblance of happiness or satisfaction if, e.g., you're forced to abandon the line of work you love. You plan for the future, but live today Jay: Within the realm of the rational there are many optional, personal values which give definition and color to a particular person's quality of life. Jay: I think that your happiness must be based on more than "your line of work" Blue: That was why I said "e.g.: the things you do for pure pleasure There's a whole interesting sideline there -- is any human activity "pure pleasure"? :) Seriously (as opposed to having some integration with thought) Or do you mean non-work related, Gautum? Phil01: as vs. work Ok Phil: Sex comes pretty close. ;-) Phil" pleasure is a sensation Phil: I was about to pursue that thought along the lines of Betsy's note about optional values and QoL. That'll be an important principle to establish before we move on. Betsy: Ok :) Well, it should be integrated with thought, but there are times when you focus on the sensations exclusively. To me, pure pleasure could be range of the moment hedonism. JayA: or a celebration of life I don't think it is an issue of "pure pleasure" vs thought. I think "pure pleasure" comes from livin g according to your rational thoughts. JayT: Some people say pure pleasure is Sara Lee cheesecake. :) Reality: Check out http://www.hypermall.com/geekspk - any other questions, ask me later after the discussion or email me at pankaj@uic.edu are we talking about pleasure or happiness? I think there's a difference here we need to distinguish. but the pure sensations do not have meaning or purpose unless you intergrate Betsy:very true or the pleasurable physical and mental sensation resulting from smoking cigarettes or even crack... But if such activities are detrimental to your health, to that extent that are objective negatives Rachie: You generally do not have to integrate pleasures consciously. Your emotional mechanism does it automatically. Betsy: but notice what virtues one must have to enjoy cheesecake. In what context do these "little pleasures" people are mentioning *lose* value for man? In what context are they valid? Betsy: but conscious awareness of pleasure seems to heighten it. the little pleasures lose value when they make the bigger ones more difficult to reach. If you're at risk for cancer, smoking is folly. If you weigh 300 lbs, eating 1lb of cheesecake a day is too. etc. ;) But can consuming seriously addictive drugs like nicotine and cocaine be defended as *rational*, which is one of Jay's opening questions. Someone can choose such an objective negative because they believe it improves quality of life. Rand did so with cigs, to the regret of many of us. If you have a lactose intolerance, cheese cake is NOT a good idea. So one wonders what ought to be weighed here. BradA: I challenge the premise that nicotine is that seriously addictive...but i guess we'll get to that. Nicotine is only as addictive as your lack of willpower. Brad: That's exactly where we're headed. After that, we'll attack the slightly cloudier (for msot people) cases of smoking and overeating. Jay: Little pleasures lose value when they are "no longer" a value to you.When they start to have a negative impact on your happiness. Tom, baz: nonsense I really dispute the oft held notion that AR's smoking was irrational. She lived an above average length life given the time in which she lived and most of it was healthy and quite happy As Wesley Crusher commented on Star Trek, in response to the point made by Tasha that drugs are not immediately addictive: 'But you get addicted eventually, so why even start?' segelbe: good point (re:little vs bigger) Brad: Nicotine is not "seriously addictive" despite the propaganga. I was a 3 pack a day smoker who quit cold turkey and there are plenty of people like me. Brad: but you don't get addicted. Blue: And at what point is that? When, and how, do they negatively impact your happiness? Phil: can we please leave AR's smoking out of it? :) I smoked for five years, between one and two packs a day, and I quit cold turkey too. segelbe: That was in ref. to someone else's remark Brad: hardly persuasive Tom: It is seriously addictive, as any smoker or former smoker can attest. Kim also quit cold turkey. All you have to do is decide you're not going to smoke another cigarette - and then *do* it. let's move off that issue, folks. it's not all that important. Smoking has other health effects, which are far more relevant to this discussion. Smoking can have health effects. There are a great many people who have no major ill effects from it. baz: guess it depends on whether yr speaking of addiction as amoral or physiological sense Durn...forgot to change my info line. Betsy: And you just suddenly had no craving for nicotine? No even physical withdrawal symptoms? Jay: They impact on your happiness when they adversly affect your health and life. Smoking does not do that. Over smoking does, as well as overdoing other things. the fact that you *can* abandon addictions doesn't change the nature of addiction, viz a chemically or psychologically induced compulsion -- an objectively diseased mental condition. Addiction can be mental or physical--so? We sort of wandered off the main point I wanted to discuss for the moment: At what point does a "simple pleasure" cease to be a value? Or in what context is it never a value? BradA - I know when I quit that I often had to consciously stop myself from picking up a cigarette. It was a habit ingrained over years, and just as I had to learn that habit, so I had to unlearn it. Let's stick to Jay's questions, please. Jay: When it starts to harm you. Jay: at the point where it affects yr health Should we consider degrees? Say 2 cigs/day is OK, if you feel ill effects then a line has been crossed. Jay: simple pleasure ceases to be a value when it is no longer pursued as a value,but rather as a "pain blocker" a simple pleasure ceases to be a value when it interferes with your achievement if larger values. if=of Jay: Depends on what you mean by a "simple pleasure." I mean, since man's life is the standard, just about anything can be overdone -- including drinking water. gautum: That's the next issue we'll get to - standards of judgment. Joe: That's an important point. Some risk is acceptable if it produces something of value. If addiction is not a mentally compromised condition, then we might as well define Obsessisive-compulsive disorder out of existence, since man has free will, and such patients could really stop doing it if they tried hard enough. Again, begs the question of the existence of the compulsion. betsy: ? I can't think of a value that doesn't involve some risk in the pursuit. Right, TOm. I'm talking about the activities people explicitly pursue that are simply relaxing or pleasurable in themselves - eating a slab of cheesecake, getting a massage, etc. _Life itself_ is one big risk ;) BradA: I don't smoke obsessively or under compulsion. The entire concept of risk comes from the possibility of harm or death i.e. from being alive Joe: If you are taking a risk to pursue a genuine value -- rather than to escape from an unpleasant feeling -- it can be a reasonable thing to do. betsy: ok tom: so why do you smoke? How about taking a nap? Is that a pleasure in itself or to avoid fatigue? Jay: A pleasure can be defended when it doesn't logically lead to a life damaging situation or consequence. Betsy: Getting rid of unpleasant feelings isn't bad either. I take the chance of ulcers to get rid of the unpleasant feeling of a headache. I assume you're including unpleasant sensations among "feelings". jay: any of those are excessive if they interfer with living life qua rational animal -- i.e. if those pleasure take over, rather than being short-term ends-in-themselves. I think it's a very legit question to ask _why_ so many people smoke or whatever. It leads to the question of the importance of _pleasure_ in QOL Sube: she probably means as a defense mechanism Sube: would you take aspirin, though, if your risk of developing ulcers were greater than the probability of eliminating the headache? PONG Seg: No, of course not. But that's not what I said. Aspirin can cause bleding too though. subetai: was that referring to my comment? i was specifically to the attempt to alleviate anxiety by drowning it in Is good QOL synonymous with happiness? Phil: Pleasure in life is NOT an optional value. Listen to Peikoff's "Thinking, Feeling, and Not Being Moralistic." He makes that point very well. damn scripts going haywire again. Joe: No bleding=bleeding pardon the "PONG"ing people Betsy: Yes, tho I don't think I've heard that unfortunately There are a couple of issues on the table. I think we can all agree that a "simple pleasure" is outside the realm of rational action if it harms your physical or mental well-being - i.e., damages you. I think it would be very helpful to contrast coffee and cigarettes, both of which are optional pleasures. One however, is basically benign, overall, whereas the other is highly deleterious to the health. Jay: i think that's too broad a way of putting it. How can a simple pleasure do one harm? Only if it is done excessively? The BIG task, however, is defining what that *means* in practical terms. What are examples of pleasures that exist outside the realm of rational action? Jay: There can be a legitimate trade-off in many cases where there is a slight risk of harm vs. a great deal of value involved. JayA: In principle, yes. But the harm has to be established and quantified and balanced against a possible harm if you didn't do it. Jay: Would it be a "simple Pleasure" is it was harmful to you? BradA: If one drank a cup of coffee for each cigarette one smoked, one would get one heck of a caffine headache. So it does not seem to make sense to indulge in a pleasure whose consequence is so dire. It would seem to be sacrificing context and evading long term consequences of immediate behavior. So.. no one should hang-glide.. wind surf...parachute... no matter the value that experience brings their life? Those are dangerous hobbies to pursue. One could compare the irrationality of indulging in spending on some triffle today, when one knows one absolutely needs the money for rent tommorrow. Amy: what Betsy said You can turn this around too: What is the objective risk of an insufficient amount of pleasure in your life? What's the maximum downside of dreariness or depression in various stages? There is a false dichotomy being set up here: pleasure vs. health. The nuber of pleasurable things that are bad for you is trivially small. Amy: They can be rational as well. I do not understand what was meant earlier about pleasure not having to be inagrated. Joe - agreed. joe: I think that links back to TOm's point: *Quantity* is important. "Everything is harmful, it matters only the dose." Brad: you just described the actions of an irrational mind, not a rational one I agree, Betsy. there's a difference between a *risk* of harm versus inevitable consequences. If one prusues a 'simple pleasure" in a compulsive manner, it means one pursues it *in exclusion to* everything else. that's why compulsory behavior is bad for you. JayA: cocaine is reported to be enormously pleasurable -- it is also highly addictive -- so is it rational to indulge in occassional cocaine use, under the hope one will not become addicted? Jay: no, not even. Is eating a whole cheesecake every day really pleasurable? Eating cyanide is a VERY bad idea. Smoking cigarettes is a not-so-good idea. :) seg: But there's also a difference in degrees of risk. Russian roulette has pretty good odds, by some people's standards. Brad: conceivably, for some people. For most people, no. Isn't this a case of where *abstraction* and a conceptual approach must come in? i.e., the notion that the risk is too great *in principle*. JayA: But with Russian Roulette, where's the VALUE to justify the risk? BradA - pardon me for borrowing a term with bad connotations, but what about the measurements? The principle is that one shouldn't do things that lead to one's death. Betsy: So everything's just a matter of weighing risk versus value? How do you quantify those things? How do you make a decision in any given context? (this goes back to your questions, Brad.) Baz: or: one shouldn't do things that have no consequences *but* death. You make a decision based on YOUR context. The application is incredibly wide and varied, and this is what we're talking about. Personally, I'm offended by the attempt of some to show cocain and nicotine are of equal "addictiveness" or "harmfulness." I mean, when is the last time someone robbed a bank because he was high, and therefore irrational, after smoking a cigarette? Remember the old Spanish proverb that AR liked so much too: "God said, take what you want, and pay for it." The range of values to be pursued is endless, including those with relatively low risk or downside BradA: If it is an immediate life-or-death risk (cyanide), then it is a matter of principle. If it is a moderate risk which gains some values (cigarettes/pleasure) it is a contextual judgement call. Tom: I'm sure there are plenty of smoking bank robbers :) Remember the "Twinkie" defense? Tom: Who is trying to equate these? However, they each have their bad consequences. I would say the QOL of a prison inmate and a dying cancer patient are probably commensurable. jayT: can you summarize in a sentence? I can't remember what it is. Tym: Don't try to be cute...it wasn't the smoking that made them irrational, whereas cocaine does that. TOm, Tym: That's a side issue. Let's table it for now, please. Jay: I smoke occasionally because like a drink, a cigarette is a de-stresser. I monitor my health carefully. I think the trade off between an occasional cigarette and a quick relaxant makes it worth it for me. So if I may become concrete for a moment - the chances of a cigarette smoker contracting lung cancer are 1 in 100. I assume this is long-term smokers, at least a pack a day (I don't remember precisely). Dan White killed two men and blamed it on a sugar high from eating Twinkies. He was acquitted. baz: i think it's higher than that. As a matter of fact, smoking sharpens your mind and helps you focus. Nicotine is a central nervous system stimulant. That is one of the GOOD things about smoking. What we need to do is establish some *principles* of judgment here. How do I, in an individual case, quantify risk and value, and make an appropriate decision about whether or not to engage in a certain behavior? There are other reasons not to smoke, though: it makes everything stinky and smelly. baz: interesting. Dinno it was ever quantified Cancer risk depends on individual genetics too baz: Er, i mean lower. I don't think 1 of 100 smokers get lung cnacer. JayA: By first carefully defining what you have to gain or lose. Betsy: yah, but I read of a study that showed that concentration actually declines slightly over the long term Phil - when I smoked, I figured I had as much chance of getting cancer from smoking as I would getting cancer by living in LA and breathing the smog. Sube: Yes, that's the first step. But then how do you equate the results? Jay: You do it the same way you make all the other choices involving relative values and risks like how you spend your time, your money, etc. But if I had a value I wanted to pursue in LA, I'd sure move there. JayA: again I object to value and risk being linked: you are setting morality (life) against pleasure. Baz: I'm saying that some people seem to be genetically predisposed to cancer. With future knowledge about one's own genetics, the risks can be more objectively quantified in individual cases for that and other things baz: Just as a quick aside - why did you decide to quit smoking? joe: all action entails some risk Reality:yes. joe: How so? Jay: It's hard to do, specially since you're talkkking about a real, immediate gain versus a potential, long term loss that may or may not happen. There's no easy answer. You look at the full context of your knowledge and try to balance the two BradA: And _inaction_ implies risk too Joe: Risk is not a moral issue. Taking a risk is not, per se, immoral. Jay, I liked what Subetai had to say about monitoring. It seems germane to your question about how to weigh risk vs. value. The term monitoring conveys to me paying attention to reality, the reality of your particular life. I think a philosophic argument can be made that being alive entails risk every second you are alive Brad: how does eating broccoli or going for a walk entail risk? Phil: certainly, but I was just addressing joe's point -- you have to do a cost/benefit analysis on everything joe: You could get hit by a car. The broccoli could be treated with pesticides. JayA - 1) it was expensive. 2) I was starting to become very congested from it. 3) One morning I coughed up blood. 4) One morning I happened to read a Reader's Digest article on what four people who smoked had happen to them (various grotesque surgeries and deaths removed). I felt physically ill after reading it, and afterwards I had only two more cigarettes. Joe: you could get hit by a car or poisoned by bad broccoli or (if you cook the veggies) burnt by the stove. broccoli: choking, food or additive poisoning; walking: getting mugged, hit by a car, getting robbed while away. Etc. Joe: The walk could use time and energy you could be spending more profitably elsewhere. joe: Getting out of bed entails risk - you could trip and slam your head on the floor. baz: How much did those persons smoke. Generally, those kind of scare stories the people smoked more than three packs per day. Some do that and life a long helthy life. You wouldn't eat broccoli if you ahd reason to believe it was tainted. You wouldn't go for a walk in the bad sections of many cities. Betsy: What do you mean by "profitably" in this context? JayA: no,the risks of those activities are so negligible that in principle they are non-existent. I object to the notion that more pleasure entails more risk (threat to life). AR emphasizes the opposite: pleasure *coincides* (in general) with life. TomM - I'm sure that's the case. And I only smoked about a pack a day.. but I decided it was a risk I didn't want to take. I think we agree that most activisties entail some risk. The question we're debating is what makes an activity worth doing anyway, given a quantifiable amount of risk. I'm not trying to rationalize, by any means. Just pointing out that if you smoke excessively (more than your body can handle), then yes, there will be dire consequences. SUbe: Yes. If I could have limited my smoking to a few cigarettes a day, I'd probably still smoke. (I'm kinda compulsive.. you should see how I down the coffee! :) Gautam: You could be using your "walk time" to write a book, learn something, do a project at work, or otherwise achieve something of greater value. !seen vayde baz: Too much coffee can give you ulcers. The benefits of being rational are that one can identify one's one tendencies to compulsive action and take steps to avoid it :) !seen sparklee baz: And a gerneral nervousness. to add to what i said above: "risk" means a threat to you life and values. Pleasure (happiness) is related to values, not risk Tom - I don't get the shakes any more. Betsy: Then wouldn't it be wrong to walk. One would rationally walk to get refreshed. That's profit too. If you care for someone, I can understand trying to interfere with an activity you feel is dangerous to them. Otherwise - simply trying to force your personal "measurements" on someone else is wrong. Why bother argueing over that? Jay: I'd say getting the real, full picture is the first step. When it comes to risks, statistics is of limited usefulness. A better guage is examining what the activity actually does to YOU. Gautam: It could be. You have to assess the relative values of things you can do in a limited amount of time. Amy: I agree SO the principle seems to be that assessment of risk versus value (for actions that are not blitheringly anti-life to begin with) is a context judgment: Even with risk and value quantified, there's a lot of leeway in the final decision. Why is that? Jay: Life is full of options. JayA: partly because of the uncertainty in quantifying risk. It's not an exact science. Jay: Because the range of values that can be pursued are immensely larger than one can pursue in a lifetime or 1000 There are so many variables. Jay: people have different tolerences to "risk factors." I would say it's also because the amount of risk deemed acceptable is itself a highly individualized factor. I can eat anything I like and my cholestrol stays low :) Right, so out of that immense range people pick their own unique set of choices If they do selfishly, they have a high chance of having a good QOL :) As far as concentration is concerend. I have found that doing a number of things is as helpful as smoking, such as chewing caraot sticks, or chewing gum. Seems that doing something physical helps when one is doing something mental. Amy: I mentioned earlier that 65% of all heart attacks are with people with "normal" cholestrol. :( Tom: sometimes in order to even think I have to go for a long walk :) BG: maybe then high cholesterol is the real way to avoid a heart attack? ;) Tym: Sure, napping helps too. But is that 35% the same %-age in the population, BlueGreen? If it's less than 35% then elevated chol. is a higher risk factor Jay: you cannot weigh "risk vs. value". Value means value in the broadest context, which includes any risks involved. it is not healthy to have to many windows open :( We haven't got to eating fat, yet. but I was going to point out the movie "Lorenzo's Oil" as an indication that one needs fats. i.e., it is totally meaningless to say this cigarette is a value, but i must weigh that by how much it will shorten my life. I think of it like this. If, by living in a 6x6 cell with no contact with other people and with no food except a protein paste, you could exist for 200 years - would you do it? baz: or look at all those long-lived monks :/ baz: but that is the equivalent of lifeboat ethics! Baz: I think Clinton is looking for volunteers for that now that you mention it baz: good example. Baz: will I get to have books in that room? the fact is that the healthiest lifestyle is also the mst pleasurable: good food, thrilling activites, etc. Joe - no, not really. What my example shows is that while length of life can be a value, there are many other things (such as what you do with what length of life you have) that are more valuable. joe-: It doesn't make sense looked at that way, I agree. But I'm not convinced smoking will *necessarily* shorten life expectency. How about the guilt one puts on themselves for the little pleasures they inenjoy Isn't this a version of "pay your money--take your choice? rachie: maybe that guilt comes from accepting the morality that pleasur is evil? Blue: I don't think having books per se would help much. Why have an active mind if you can't act on it? Sounds like torture to me. Hello everyone! baz: no, your example is artificial: living in a 6x6 cell would kill you in 5 years. Hey, Brian. hi MrSubtle Hello MrSubtle @:-) jay: did we resolve anything? Tom: Working up a summary now. Joe - I can work on a better example, but do you get my point? :) baz: no :-) By the way, i don't think weighing the risks vs getting the pleasure is the right way of approaching this topic. Hi Tom, Segel, Nick,Blue, and so on! It sounds too hedonistic. joe-: I think extreme examples set a boundary. Then one can examine subtle cases. I think we established unequivocally that people shouldn't smoke. ;) Tom: We haven't done it that way. It's been weighing risks against *value* - which might include pleasure as a component. TomM: There are rational pleasures and pleasure is necessary for life. I don't think we established anything of the kind, Brad. It's better to say: getting a value entails acting to aquire and maintain/use it, vs the value that comes from it. Brad to what extend to you carry that idea, should we have someone guilt about smoking. Taken in a broad sense, if it's the pleasure one gets from a satisfying career, then it's especially crucial. Who wants an unsatisfying, miserable career? Betsy: sure, but casting it in terms of risk I think is the wrong approach. TomM: Why? rachie: Well, I am not sure my contention has been established, or particularly to the satisfaction of many present. :) TomM - are you saying that you should look at it rather in terms of choosing a higher value over a lower one? Betsy: the only risk to take into consideration is the risk of *not* getting the value. TomM: That's what risk always means. where in objectivism is the concept of risk assessment? baz: No, I'm saying one must act to aquire values. The risk is on the aquiring side, not on the value side. healthy living is more than cherrycheesecake and cigarettes, healthy living has to do with a productive and thinking life. A healthy mind promotes happiness Tom: Sorry, missed your post about the books.If I was in a 6 X 6 room, I would not be able to survive without the books. If survival was my goal. With the books (of my choice) I could escape mentally to many different places. "Take what you want and pay for it", joe. If you can pay for it and if you don't get maimed or killed in the process ... What I'm trying to say is that russian roulet is not a good example of the proper approach. Joe: Everywhere. Risk is just the negative way of looking at your chances of gaining or keeping a value. Risk comes in _degrees_ there are possible consequences to every action, since nobody is omniscent and knows exactlywhat's going to happen. risk is not always negative either TomM: I don't think Russian Roulette is a good model of rational risk taking since there are no rational values to be achieved. Blue: Having books would help only in the short run. But you wouldn't be able to maintain and active mind if you couldn't act on your knowledge or desires derived from reading those books. Betsy: yes. and=and In "my" context, Hagen Daz is a value. Ben and Jerry's isn't. So, I'm off to get some. One note: We've touched on the risks of death or dismemberment in this discussin, but not on the issue of *diminished capacity*. E.g., both smoking and improper eating (the latter especially) can have harmful effects without ever killing you. JayA: Again, the principle would be the same - balance costs versus benefits. jay: True. I'm not against a scientific finding of amounts vs damages in either case, but i don't think that has been done to a large degree. So it is good for scare tactics only. Tom: With food, I disagree very much. night all. I'm sleepy. :) night sheggie Jay: It's not like eating fatty fooods for the taste will give you health problems if you do it in moderation -- i.e. according to known factors. night Shrub. Jay: Why are you associating smoking and improper eating in the same vein?? smoking and eating are equivalent. over smoking and over eating are equivalents Read _Enter The Zone_ by Dr. barry Sears, and then try out his ideas in practice. The type of food you eat and the quantity in which you eat it can mean the difference between abundant energy and just barely being able to drag yourself through the day. BG: Not quite. You don't eat, you die. People survived before they knew about tobacco. Jay: Sure, I don't doubt it. But you said it as if eating fatty foods (in any amounts0 will have dire health consequences. Fat is just concentrated energy. If you eat too many calories of *anything* you'll become overweight. Tom: I never said any such thing. Eating no fat is a health disaster. Subetai: I don't know of anyone who calims health (physical health) benefits from smoking, though they used to. Tom: Me neither. Jay: Ok, didn't know your full statement. TomM - I have always been slightly hyperactive, and cigarettes calmed me somewhat. Cigarettes can have good mental effects. Baz: Cigarette do help you concentrate. baz: Yes, and it can help digestion to some degree. But mostly i think the benefit is psycho-sematic. BG: smoking and eating are not equivalent. Any evel of smoking (to various degrees) is *always* bad for you. Eating, on the other hand, can be extreemely good for you. hello. Yes, that is the main reason people smoke. TomM: Don't knock psycho-somatic benefits! Subetai: My reference was in terms of smoking and over eating. "smoking" does not imply overindulgence where over eating does. Smoking is relaxing in small amounts. If you overdo it, you will become quite fidgety and irritable. Betsy: i'm not! I agree it's beneficial. Nicotine has dose dependent effects. And you can control the dose. At low doses it is a stimulant, and at high doses it's a depressant. Joe: Smoking is bad for you, but it is also good for you. It is enjoyable, helps you focus, can be enjoyed _while_ you are working, etc. The biggest problem with smoking is the delivery vehicle: all the tar and and other noxious substances in the smoke. Betsy: yes, I agree. Also, its effect varies with the basal state of the body. Depends on how active you were to begin with. joe: I do not agree that "any" level of smoking is is "always" bad. Betsy: I enjoy food while working :-) That warm feeling in your throat and chest is one of the best parts! If a gaseous inhalant were developed, say one that was cool or cold, it might be equally pleasurable, but far less unhealthy. Brad: actually if the active ingredient were vaporised at the temmperature of a cigarrete lighter, it produces very lttle smoke Also, smoking is undeniably cool. But still, I can't see how the overall package (excuse the term :) ) can be justified. Brad: What about all the waste products that come from eating? I mean, one has to go to the bathroom because one eats. The lungs can clean themselves, if smoking is done in moderation. BlueGreen: do not the 500+ other chemicals in cigerettes constitute "bad?" bazyar: but you can get that same warm feeling after an intense game of tennis or windsurfing in a nice 30-knot breeze. Finkel - how about the 500+ chemicals in the processed food you eat? :) Joe: But can you do that while writing code? tom: I have met very few 'moderate' smokers. Unlike, say, drinkers. baz: well retorted :) test Brad: very good point Sube: Apparently you don't have one of the new water and shock proof portables ;) Joe - I used to smoke *and* play tennis. :) Sube: sure :-) Finkel: That's a good point. And no one knows at this point if the cacer comes from the cigarette tobacco per se, or the additives. Why all the fuss about cigs, but not cigars? baz: ! Hello all, I am the one who asked the email ? about smoking baz: At the same time? :) Finkel: bad...as defined by whom? Please cite the proof of it being objectivly "bad" cacer=cancer. 'lost in thought' Well, folks, I came here ready to toe a pretty hard-line position on smoking, and find myself somewhat more educated. Sube - that sounds pretty un-addicted to me. baz: apart from peaches which i know has high levels of arsenic, i know of few other foods that have the degree of chemicals that smoking does. (cont) Subetai: i don't smoke at work either, mostly because i can't do it inside. I'm at about 1/2 pack (ten cigs) per day. That was a wonderful discussion. Thanks for moderating, Jay. :) Jay: Gary Hull maintains that if you smoke less than six cigs a day you won't get addicted Baz: right. I would say this in summary: Behavior which is harmful if done to excess can be integrated into your otherwise healthy lifestyle if done in a controlled fashion. bluegreen: ill see if i can hunt up a newscientist article that had it That fresh strawberry pie with whipped cream I had tonight being an excellent example. :-) Sounds good jay: REal whipped cream, or a substitute? ;) Jay: I agree. The key is to know the facts, weigh them by a good standard, not arbitrarily, then do what increases your QOL. To reiterate my objections: You guys are effectively saying that pleasure is proportional to risk. And since risk means the threat to you life, you are effectively saying that pleasure is inversely proportional to life. I disagree completely. Tom: For about one to two weeks at a time, I consume under 2000 calories with a 40-30-30 balance of cabrs, protein and fat. When I eat whipped cream, you can be damn sure it's real whipped cream. ;) popboy: no. What does it mean tho? :) Brad: Even alcohol? joe: That's why i am against that formulation. I don't think anyone has shown that smoking less than a pack a day is risky. Yup. Brad: oh jeez Alcohol can be a great relaxant, and a quick burst of energy I had a different nick, but had to change it,... met someone named popgirl one evening, decided I'd be popboy, for lack of something better. Tom: it's been shown :-) I have a glass of good wine every night. Or...he could be the "real" Uniboomer. :) joe: Where? You don't hear much about that guy anymore Well, alcoholic beverages are bi-modal. Alcohol is like nicotine. A stimulant at low doses, depressant at high doses. A final comment, to joe and others: I don't think risk vs. value assessment falls into hedonism or cost-benefit analysis traps, because in the context in which we've discussed them, they apply to cases that subsume lots of data and factor in many individual variables. Tom: from what i have read over the years it seems well established. Now I really must go. Hazlitt, and then bed, awaits. Thanks for having me, Sube. JayA: It's not purely a cost-benefit analysis because it doesn't abandon principles. Thanks for the discussion, Jay. :) Thanks Jay. bye jay Night Jay. SUbe: Right - it's done within the context of rational values. thx Jay :) thanks Jay.