SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A high-salt diet is not only bad for one's blood pressure, but also for the immune system. This is the conclusion of a current study under the leadership of the University Hospital Bonn. Mice fed a high-salt diet were found to suffer from much more severe bacterial infections. Human volunteers who consumed an additional six grams of salt per day also showed pronounced immune deficiencies. This amount corresponds to the salt content of two fast food meals. The results are published in the journal "Science Translational Medicine".
Five grams a day, no more: This is the maximum amount of salt that adults should consume according to the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). It corresponds approximately to one level teaspoon.
In reality, however, many Germans exceed this limit considerably: Figures from the Robert Koch Institute suggest that on average men consume ten, women more than eight grams a day.
This means that we reach for the salt shaker much more than is good for us. After all, sodium chloride, which is its chemical name, raises blood pressure and thereby increases the risk of heart attack or stroke.
But not only that: "We have now been able to prove for the first time that excessive salt intake also significantly weakens an important arm of the immune system," explains Prof. Dr. Christian Kurts from the Institute of Experimental Immunology at the University of Bonn.
Journal Reference
Katarzyna Jobin, Natascha E. Stumpf, Sebastian Schwab et al. A high-salt diet compromises antibacterial neutrophil responses through hormonal perturbation [$], Science Translational Medicine (DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay3850)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @12:07PM (16 children)
Like I'm going to follow the advice of an organization that is lying for china's 'feelings'.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @02:11PM (14 children)
But still, you'll put your absolute unquestionnable blind trust into a narcissistic mentally unstable child-molesting psychopath who's been pathologically lying through his teeth again and again and again, for decades.
You don't even have to tell that you're a Trump supporter. Trumptards have this unmistakable stinch that can be smelled from miles away.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2020, @02:37PM (8 children)
WHO says CV-19 drops like a rock with a 1 meter range: https://www.ibtimes.com/covid-19-fact-check-what-who-says-about-coronavirus-airborne-theory-2948790 [ibtimes.com]
MIT makes that 8m: https://www.wired.com/story/they-say-coronavirus-isnt-airborne-but-its-definitely-borne-by-air/ [wired.com]
One must wonder why the WHO is giving this 1m advice when it is self-evident that fine mists float in air currents. Anyway, trust and credibility is easily lost and the WHO has managed to lose it handily.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday March 30 2020, @04:26PM (6 children)
It's one thing to call the WHO bad scientists - "previous modeling might have suggested that 5-micron droplets can travel only a meter or two".
It's something else completely to insinuate they know better and are actively lying to us. Why? Who knows. Probably something sinister.
Let's keep this about scientific quality, which can be discussed rationally. Leave the boogeyman and the wishy-washy "trust and credibility" talk out of it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Sulla on Monday March 30 2020, @05:26PM (2 children)
The WHO went out of their way to say this was not a pandemic and that everyone was over-reacting because Chyna had it under control. As soon as Chyna claimed they had no more cases WHO said it was a global pandemic and that the rest of the world wasn't trying hard enough and that Chyna did a great job.
Fuck the WHO
Taiwan reported the virus back in December and were ignored because of CCP influence over the WHO
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3904054 [taiwannews.com.tw]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52088167 [bbc.com]
Fuck the CCP
China lied, people died
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2020, @08:41PM (1 child)
If it was only affecting China then, by definition, it was not a pandemic yet.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday March 30 2020, @09:19PM
This virus was a clear danger, we saw cases outside of China, yet until it was claimed to no longer be a continuing problem for China the WHO chose to downplay the effects. While we were fortunate in that we ignored the WHO and closed our borders early, most of the world was unwilling to act because of WHO lies. The CCP learned the risk of allowing a non-controlled WHO to exist with SARS. WHO honesty in 2002 cost the Chinese economy ~1% due to SARS, they increased their investment in and control of the WHO since that time to ensure that the WHOs "mistake" did not happen again. We see the results from this control in Italy and the remainder of Europe who thought the WHO to be independent. Hell, the WHO even named it in a way that was friendly to the Chinese propaganda. This is SARS-nCoV-2, but recognizing it as a SARS virus would cause civil unrest in China where any mention of SARS causes a panic.
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 [who.int]
They waited until there were 114 countries with confirmed cases before they said it was a pandemic, what the fuck.
Past pandemics had a lower bar to reach to get that qualifier than SARS-nCoV-2 did, and were less infectious. They slow walked this one to protect their benefactors and thousands are dying because of it. They are ignoring places in the world that are currently autonomous but the Chinese claim as their own (Taiwan). Taiwan warned about the danger of this in late January and were ignored. The interview the other day for a HK outlet asked about whether Taiwan should be able to join the WHO, interviewer was ignored and when asked a second time hung up. When the interviewer called them back the WHO official said they have already discussed China and do not need to cover the issue again.
As the CCP said this was no issue they bought PPE in Australia to ship home to China
https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/90-tonnes-of-supplies-shipped-to-china/3983282/ [thechronicle.com.au]
Now Australia and other countries are having shortages and being shipped "PPE" from China we are finding to be defective
https://www.nydailynews.com/coronavirus/ny-coronavirus-netherlands-recalls-600000-faulty-face-masks-20200330-o6wnrp55rre7piqmrhtvbs2tei-story.html [nydailynews.com]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday March 30 2020, @07:49PM (2 children)
The WHO is repeating a line as if it is authoritatively true when the evidence that people in real world situations experience airborne contagions is long standing. And people die: https://www.heraldnet.com/northwest/dozens-from-skagit-valley-chorale-have-covid-19-and-two-died/ [heraldnet.com]
And then of course there is the MIT study referenced above which demonstrates the obvious -- micorfine globs of mist float.
So I wonder -- why is the WHO so hell bent on keeping people crammed together? I don't know the answer, but I wish I did.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday March 31 2020, @02:36PM (1 child)
I'm with you until that last line. For one thing, 1m apart is not "crammed together". As to why?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." [wikipedia.org]
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 31 2020, @10:38PM
I suppose it depends on where you come from -- 1m is definitely jammed to me. For people from NY or similar, maybe that isn't what they might consider jammed based on being conditioned out of having personal space, but it sure is inside exhalation range. Even pre-corona, a person within a meter of me would have me taking backward steps. Way too close.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday April 01 2020, @01:03AM
It is possible that the WHO and the MIT researchers are operating at different levels of probability of spread. The WHO is all about reducing spread over a population to below unity per vector (thus causing the number of affected people to continually reduce until the zero line asymptote is reached), whereas the MIT study is all about how far to be to get that probability close to zero.
This means that the 1m proposed by the WHO and the 8m proposed by MIT are not aiming for the same result, and therefore are only tangentially related. The WHO clearly realise that expecting people to stay 8m apart is not possible for the vast majority of cases, and therefore the advice will not be useful and be ignored. They may have chosen 1m because it reduces the probably significantly compared to direct contact. The probability clearly goes down the further away you are, and there will be a point of diminishing returns where the advice is either ignored or doesn't significantly change the contagion rate. The trick for epidemiologists is to find the optimum value that will achieve their goals (which I presume are not nefarious).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2020, @05:50PM (4 children)
China lying about coronavirus: Bad
Trump lying about coronavirus: Good
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:59PM (3 children)
Please give evidence of US "Lies" that were not in reality just bad information we had to rely on because of LIES from the CCP and the WHO
(Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 30 2020, @08:38PM
"Nobody knew there would be a pandemic or epidemic of this proportion"
"It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle – it will disappear"
"Anybody that needs a test gets a test. We – they’re there. They have the tests. And the tests are beautiful"
"I’ve always known this is a real – this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic. I’ve always viewed it as very serious"
(Score: 4, Informative) by pipedwho on Monday March 30 2020, @09:45PM
The public may have had 'bad' information due to inept and non-expert reporting. However, actually epidemiologists who study this stuff knew almost immediately:
1. They knew it was a coronavirus (details irrelevant except that it was more virulent and more severe than a usual cold or flue)
2. They knew what a coronavirus was and have long since spent huge amounts of effort modelling and testing contagion vectors (contact, airborne, etc)
Also, an epidemiologist deals at multiple levels of probability and statistical modelling (containing techniques when possible, and reduction once that is no longer possible). Different advice is given for different levels of containment. ie. There is no point in half measures if total containment is required (and possible), and there is no point into total 100% quarantine if that is not possible.
The spread of a virus is based on how easily and how fast it can be spread. The number of people that on average are infected by a single contagious vector can be called the 'gain'. When the 'gain' is below unity, the spread is continuously reducing and the virus 'dies off'. When the 'gain' is high, it spreads faster and wider exponentially until the number of susceptible hosts is close to exhausted.
Various techniques of isolation, distancing, detection/tracing, PPE, herd immunity, vaccination, and quarantining have a positive effect in reducing this 'gain'. We don't need to take the 'gain' to zero to eradicate the virus. And likewise, hovering around unity just slows the growth to a point where other more effective methods (eg. vaccination) or controls (eg. hospital capacity) can be prepared or brought into play.
With an epidemic, there are also the consequences of various actions taken, either individually (maximise the benefit for the self), or as a coordinated effort (maximise the benefit for the population as a whole). Too drastic and the measures may be ignored or lead to psychological problems, too little and the 'gain' is not sufficiently reduced. There is of course the 'financial' impact which in itself may not seem like a problem - except for potentially worse problems that it can lead to (wars, authoritarian takeover, famine, health care collapse, etc).
The epidemiologists at the WHO/CDC/etc already know this, the problem is that their political masters may not like what they have to say. Blaming China for 'bad' information is a red herring designed to distract from the real decisions that have been or are being made. Too many stupid people, on the one hand running around like headless chooks screaming that world will end if we don't go full martial lockdown, and on other "it's just a flu, business as usual". The reality is in between, and it is the job of the governments to listen to the experts in these areas, weigh up the repercussions, and implement a coordinated plan for their regions/countries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @10:00PM
Please give evidence of WHO "Lies" that were not in reality just bad information they had to rely on because of LIES from China.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday April 01 2020, @02:57PM
So what you're saying is we should take this advice with a pinch of salt!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 30 2020, @12:19PM (25 children)
> we reach for the salt shaker much more than is good for us
In Capitalist America, salt chooses you! I don't use a salt shaker. I never add salt. It's really hard to avoid salt in America, because the food here is loaded with salt. Restaurant food, frozen meals, pretty much any kind of prepared food will have way too much salt. Just one slice of a large cheese pizza has over 800mg. Throw pepperoni on it, and salt content per slice goes well over 1000mg. A can of soup can have upwards of 1500mg. Get the "diet" version that's not specifically low sodium, and it can be even worse, because they think they need to add even more salt to compensate.
Even the "low" sodium food can be too much. Go on a low salt diet for a couple of weeks, and the next time you have typical standard American prepared food, it will taste very salty.
(Score: 5, Informative) by stretch611 on Monday March 30 2020, @01:34PM (5 children)
I was going to say the same thing... I never add salt to anything (and haven't for over 25 years.) However, I know I get more than the recommended amount just by eating food.
The more processed something is, the worse it is. Fast food is absolutely horrible... Frozen dinners are also really bad.
I learned about 20 years ago that soup is really bad too. My dog had a health issue (addison's disease) and needed prednisone (steroid) and a lot of additional salt in his diet. The vet recommended giving him chicken or beef broth (essentially just the liquid part of soup.) One serving of broth had 900 or 1000mg of salt.
The point is, unless you look at every label and count, you do not know how much salt is really in the foods you eat. And if you don't go out of your way, you will get far more than you need even if you avoid the salt shaker.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 30 2020, @03:28PM (3 children)
I'm one of those nuts who does, and tend to get 3000mg daily or less because of it. Does beef broth you make by slow-cooking bones have a lot, though? Because that's how I do it and it doesn't taste salty at all...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Monday March 30 2020, @07:53PM
I really do not know if making your own contains less salt. I assume so, as it is anything processed that seems to contain the most salt.
In my unusual case with broth, I was in the rare case of looking for more salt do to my dog's health condition. (And sadly, but not unusual for a dog, he passed about 6 years ago.)
iirc, Beef broth did contain about 10% less salt then chicken broth. There were also low salt versions that contained either 1/3 or 1/2 the amount of salt in regular broth
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @09:53PM
30% reduced fat chicken stock ingredients: chicken stock, salt. so yup making your own as always has less salt/fat/sugar unless you add it yourself. Manufactured food adds all three to everything.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @10:53PM
Low salt diets are based on poor scientific. It's a superstition that began as the result of 6 patients in France that had both high blood pressure and consumed excessive levels of salt decades ago. People should keep their intake under 5 grams a day unless there's a specific reason to believe that a given person has a sensitivity or other reaction to it.
This article is a little old, but things haven't changed much in the last few years. Somewhere between 2.4k mg and 5k mg of sodium appears to be the best for most people. https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20140402/cdc-salt-guidelines-too-low-for-good-health-study-suggests#1 [webmd.com]
You have to eat a ton of salt, even by American standards before cutting it down is a reasonable thing to do without specific testing telling you not to. You'll die far more quickly from insufficient sodium than excessive sodium. And in many cases, you're better off adding potassium than trying to cut sodium as they need to be in a relatively specific proportion for proper health.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 30 2020, @08:47PM
Unfortunately, I have to watch my salt intake. As a result, I do not eat out and I don't eat microwaved pre-made meals at all. At the same time, there is very little that I can't eat if I make it myself.
The problem is the use of too many cheap fillers and then loading in the salt to compensate for the lack of flavor that entails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @03:46PM (16 children)
There's only one solution: find a nice wife who loves cooking. I'm not really joking. It's interesting that so many of our social, psychological, and even physiological issues have been brought on in large part by the decision to do away with more traditional gender roles in society.
This is not to say that women should be cooking, cleaning, and birthing. The ideal, of course, is that people can choose their own way in life. In times past women were more or less forced into these roles (and men away from them). We'd like to imagine we now live in a world where such choice exists, but I'd argue we've gone all the way to the other side of the horse shoe. Now women are implicitly pressured into entering the labor market in lieu of raising a family, and those who do choose to take on a more traditional family role are often implicitly (if not explicitly) looked down upon.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday March 30 2020, @05:46PM (15 children)
What if you're a man who likes to keep house and prepare delicious meals for his family?
What you're feeling isn't the collapse of "traditional gender roles". You're feeling the collapse of the single-earner family.
And why has it collapsed? It's not because nobody wants to stay home. Sure, there's social pressure these days to be more ambitious.
There's way more financial pressure though to go out and make wage. Hardly anybody can afford to live on a single income, even single people - see the continuing rise of homelessness and roommate arrangements.
It's been going on for over 40 years now, and it has very little to do with gender roles. What it has to do with is CAPITALISM. More specifically, Miltonian shareholder capitalism [wikipedia.org].
The problem is the focus on driving money towards the financiers, rather than the ground-level employees. The problem is the staggeringly large regulatory framework that has been captured [wikipedia.org] to prevent everything except the largest of corporations from being able to compete economically. The problem is that corporations have shifted their focus away from the Main Street of their hometown and toward the Wall Street of their shareholding overlords.
The problem is that we used to care about shaping for the better the society we live in, and we have discarded that notion completely.
You may be forgiven for seeing the alliance of social liberals and economic libertarians that has brought this about. It's no accident that women entering the workforce happened around the same time as corporations spurning their responsibility to their local communities. Both groups wanted to upend the social order that put righteous white men of all classes at the peak of society.
But make no mistake that the two groups had very different ideas of what that social order should be replaced with. Feminists wanted women of all classes to share (or in extreme cases, supplant) that peak of society. Capitalists wanted only the best people to occupy that peak, and their idea of what made you better than anybody else was that you could make more money.
It was never feminism's goal to drag men down to women's level. It was always feminism's goal to uplift women. It was the capitalists who believed that the working man had it better than he deserved.
---
I'm not advocating that more law and regulation will fix this [theatlantic.com]. I'm heartened by last year's statement rejecting the theory of shareholder capitalism [cnbc.com], but cynical about how much difference that will really make [nymag.com].
All I'm advocating for is that we direct our ire towards the people really responsible [prospect.org] for the decline of the prestige of the white American male. We all need to recognize that these corporate "islands of socialism within our market economy", these behemoths who have every incentive to dismantle the free market economy to grant themselves unassailable monopolies, these Lex Luthor lookalikes are our real enemy here.
Because when it came down to the social liberals and the economic libertarians, only one group had real power and influence to create the new society we live in today. It wasn't the tenure-coddled college liberals screaming to dozens of disaffected young people about the injustice of traditional morality. It was the morally-bankrupt "activist investors" directing millions of employees and trillions of dollars of capital toward erasing the drain that social responsibility placed on their capability to accrue more and more power and influence.
I keep hearing people talk about guillotines. That's the kind of talk we need. We need to remind these assholes that mob rule is a power they can't control, a power that will kill them if it things get bad enough. We need to make that mob rule closer, more likely, more of an imminent threat.
Just make sure your anger isn't so easily redirected toward the social media managers and public relations campaigns that form the face of the faceless corporation. It's not the millennial social media manager's fault that the CEO shifted another million jobs to Elbonia. It's just their job to distract us with some meaningless gesture.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @06:57PM (11 children)
The problem with the screaming mobs is that they are often tricked into going after the wrong people. The angry masses were harnessed to start the American Revolution, and that's awesome. But an awful lot of the actions by the angry masses since then have been savage attacks on the negroes, the suffragettes, the gays, and most recently the Latinos and the Arabs.
If I knew the guillotine would be used for the billionaire class that says "socialism is evil" and then uses its influence to get socialism for the rich, I would be fine with it. But for every raging leftist I know, I've met more than one racist, homophobic MAGA fanatic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:18PM
"latinos and arabs" is a bit of a misnomer. Communist Mongolian Indians and Muslims is what we don't need more of.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:20PM (9 children)
It's an interesting thought experiment to split the country into two with equal geographic capacity. In other words, there'd be a completely equal share of natural geographic resources and weather - somehow. In one side you plop all the minorities, afflicted, and those who want to create an open borders socialist nation. The other can take all the capitalists, entrepreneurs, and big money types in their side which would have ultra restricted migration into an otherwise a classically liberal capitalist society.
Which nation do you think would be pulling ahead over the next 10, 50, 200 years?
I feel as though the question is so obvious as to be rhetorical, but perhaps it's not. Thinking about things such as this somewhat changed my views over the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @11:41PM (8 children)
In your thought experiment, are there an equal number of people in both groups?
If not, then why do you give each group equal resources?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2020, @04:52AM (7 children)
The population levels would, organically, probably be quite similar. Here [people-press.org] are some various stats. 55% of Americans have a negative view of socialism, 42% a positive one. 65% have a positive view of capitalism, 33% have a negative view of it.
That said, I would generally keep population as one of the variables. The reason is because it is in large part a reflection of ideology. Open borders, especially when paired with socialism, invites a literally unlimited number of people to leech on the system - yet your inherent resources do not grow. And if you create a sufficient work disincentive, not only do they not grow - but it's likely that you will be exploiting them to far less than an optimal level meaning you effectively have fewer resources. There's also some irony in that those who tend to want to adopt socialism tend to be those with no experience in the fields most are put to work in in socialism - agriculture, construction, and so on. This [verdantlabs.com] page did an interesting experiment and looking at the political leanings of various professions based on FEC election data. The stereotypes really are surprisingly accurate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday March 31 2020, @03:54PM (6 children)
This is scarcity-focused thinking. We are far from tapping the full potential of our available resources, and we won't be anywhere close to that potential until we are building Dyson spheres.
What you need to be thinking about instead is efficiency. The American economy has gained tremendously in economic efficiency over the last 40 years, but shareholder capitalism has funneled all of those gains to shareholders. Workers and consumers have been left to stagnate while the rich get so much richer that they don't even know what to do with all the money.
The question is how to maintain current levels of growth in efficiency but sharing them equally among everyone. For what it's worth, I share your belief that Soviet-style communism would fail to do this, and we would not be as efficient. But "socialism" means many different things depending on your model.
If your model is Venezuela, then efficiency will suffer. But that's because Venezuela promised that the government would always act in the people's best interest. As a result, corruption ran rampant without sufficient democratic checks. Socializing oil production wasn't the problem. The problem was that they didn't set up a system like Alaska's, where the resources are owned by the state (like Venezuela) and the profits distributed directly to the people (unlike Venezuela, which used them for public infrastructure) but the producers are privately owned and there is free market competition to disincentivize wasteful overhead (unlike Venezuela, where the state operates a monopoly).
If your model is Sweden, then efficiency will not suffer much. But that's because Sweden has a strong sense of civic engagement and community ownership. Let's be honest: this is because they all look the same, so the fascists can't divide people into arbitrary groups and set them against each other. So that model won't work here. And even if it would, Japan has the same civic engagement, community ownership, and lack of ethnic division, but their more free market system is much more economically efficient than Sweden's.
If you model is 50s and 60s America, however, efficiency will not suffer at all. It may even grow faster than current rates. But how was 50s and 60s America socialist?
- It provided to nearly all young men and their families, as a result of conscription, subsidized health care, college education, and home ownership
- It owned or regulated every natural monopoly, taking an active role in building out highways, electricity production, water distribution, and telephone, radio, and broadcast video communication, and funded these public projects well above maintenance levels
- It paid welfare with no work requirements to single mothers so they could be full-time parents
- It took an active role and a heavy hand in the regulation of cornerstone industries, especially banking and finance
- It provided many benefits we still enjoy today and which still contribute to our current growth in economic efficiency, including social security, unemployment insurance, and Medicare and Medicaid
Hardly Soviet Russia, but still a socialist paradise compared to today. Health care, college education, and housing costs keep most young people today locked into wage slavery in what should be the most economically inventive and productive time of their lives. Financiers buy out electricity companies and break the electrical grid to manipulate the market for their personal enrichment [wikipedia.org]. Work requirements and other welfare limitations for single parents sabotage successive generations of children raised by increasingly overcrowded daycares and schools, keeping families locked in poverty with income limits that disincentivize incremental wage growth. Deregulated banks and financiers act more and more like unaccountable governments, making key decisions about society based purely on their own self interest.
Nobody is suggesting America adopt a Soviet or Venezuelan model. Not even Bernie Sanders, who explicitly said he "[doesn't] believe government should own the means of production" [time.com]. The best model is the one that works: New Deal capitalism. But this time, without arbitrary or accidental discrimination.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2020, @08:41PM (5 children)
I have to say this is, by far, one of the most realistic endorsements of "socialism" I have ever read online. So on that account, I have to commend you. If people could only speak as cogently and impartially as you do, the world would be a vastly better place.
And in fact I suspect our mindsets are remarkably similar, but we differ in one particular way. I completely and absolutely agree with just about everything you've said about moneyed interests. However, I think the fundamental issue is not something unique to these groups but a part of humanity in general. This would include governments. To illustrate, consider a simple hypothetical. You clearly genuinely feel strongly about this issue. Imagine I offered to pay you $100k per year to instead go the opposite direction and just constantly bash social economic cooperation and instead advocate just as vociferously for full on laissez-faire dog-eat-dog systems, without ever a peep about social systems again. Would you? If you're being honest, the answer is probably yes. I certainly wouldn't judge you, because the answer for myself would also be yes as would it be for the vast majority of people. And most people's price would be much less.
There's a famous and relevant Churchill joke that, like many of his witticisms, had much to it than just a sharp tongue.
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."
We're all whores at one price or another. Most of us simply never end up in situations where that price is ever offered or able to be extracted.
So back to governments, the Alaska Permanent Fund [wikipedia.org], as you allude to, is a perfect example of the issue. I suspect you have not been following what's happened to that fund over the past half decade. For a variety of reasons Alaska's government has been running into monetary issues. And so they responded exactly as any rational (if not cynical) person would expect them to - loot the fund, effectively stealing from every single person in the state. The government did this once, and now it's become normalized. Dividends have been less the past half decade than they were 20 years ago, in spite of exponential growth in the fund. The fund, in terms of its original purpose, is effectively dead.
Is it not an interesting coincidence that as we've granted ever more powers to governments to constraint corporations, that said corporations have only become more powerful? As you mentioned, regulatory capture. But I think this is something *intrinsic* to society. And consequently, you cannot eliminate it by granting ever more powers to governments. As those powers will ultimately only end up being used to further enrich the 'favored' corporations, at the expense of the rest of society. Quite the opposite - start unraveling the tangled web of government power, and corporations would find themselves with a greatly reduced toolset by which to exploit society.
----
I feel this is getting fairly verbose already, but I do want to hit on the housing/education stuff at least since you brought up those specific fields. Why have prices gone stupidly high? In both cases the government tried to improve access to these resources by mandating access to loans. But it's had a predictable side effect. When people are granted effectively unlimited access to loans to pay for something there are far more than enough fiscally irresponsible individuals to result in prices being driven exponentially up with no end in sight. The one and only reason college costs have 'kind of' started to level off is because we reached peak college back in 2010 [statista.com]. Link provided since most people seem to have no idea about this. However, with the housing market there remains a practically unlimited demand and so we're once again starting to inflate a housing bubble and prices rise on loans - many of which will never be paid back.
This is the reason that I think, in our little thought experiment from above, that the capitalist side would win. Capitalism is not fair and it's not pretty. But, it simply works. To give an example of this, consider the current shortage on basic essentials in the US like face masks. One factor that has no doubt contributed to this is the, as usual, well intentioned efforts to combat hoarding and price gouging. Online marketplaces such as eBay have completely banned listings of many essential products including masks. People were selling these products at hefty markups online and this made people freak out. But it's so interesting. I live in Asia and face masks are ubiquitous here ( people already regularly use them for pollution/sickness ). I could easily go to the store and pick up thousands if I wanted. And indeed if I could sell them on eBay for a hefty markup, there's a very real chance I would. But I can't. So I won't. Because people can't stomach others making a profit off of sickness, people will go without these essentials while they sit in boxes gathering dust over here in Asia.
The well intended efforts to try to create a more equitable system instead result in one of scarcity. Capitalism simply taps into our true nature. I do not think we are 'evil', but we care about ourselves and our loved ones far more than anybody else. This self centered nature of humanity is something I think social economic systems tend to try to deny. And I think that is precisely why these systems never end up working out in the longrun. By contrast you could (and indeed many have) write millions of pages on the flaws of capitalism, yet it continues to push society, and humanity, forward. And indeed I think many of the most egregious flaws (such as education and housing) are intrinsically linked to efforts to meddle with the market, even if such meddling was completely well intentioned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday March 31 2020, @10:11PM (4 children)
I'll return the favor and thank you for the well-reasoned response. It's always a pleasure to have conversations like this! And I apologize in advance that I am definitely too verbose.
For what it's worth, I like to think that the only way I would take the money to advocate for anarcho-libertarianism is if the money was good enough that I could meaningfully undermine my public message in secret. Or if I had no other choice. I can think of a lot of things I'd like to do with that money, but I don't actually believe they'd make me any happier than I would be otherwise. Not if I knew I was betraying my deeply held principles.
I'd totally take 5 million pounds to bang Churchill though. With some terms, of course.
The common thread here, to me, is that the government is not as accountable as it should be. Accountability is the only thing that entitles government to control our lives ("entitles", not "enables").
In a better functioning system, democracy would act as the counterbalance and prevent or reverse government from acting in the interest of a few over the many.
Our system is not functioning as designed. There are a few key reasons for this:
- Independent journalism is almost entirely gone, replaced by a handful of glorified tabloids controlled by all-powerful oligarchs.
- The moral character of a candidate is no longer anyone's deciding factor in whom to vote for, and only the elite care about capability to actually perform the job.
- People are more predisposed than ever before to agree with everything their own political party wants and demonize the everything the opposing party wants, regardless of the merits.
- Community organizations like churches, clubs, and fraternities are in steep decline, replaced by a loose network of fan clubs chasing corporate products on corporate-controlled social media.
Just as there is a common thread to government looting the Alaska Permanent Fund and enriching corporations, there is a common thread to the decline of the function of our democracy. That common thread is marketing.
The marketing industry has perfected the art of corporate propaganda. They are far more effective than any communist state ever was in psychologically manipulating the general population. And they sell this power to the highest bidder.
Our democracy was founded on the assumption that voters could rationally represent their own self-interest. That assumption is no longer true.
The result? Walter Cronkite replaced with Anderson Cooper. A race to the bottom of moral decrepitude among politicians of both parties. Political propaganda, repurposed from the private sector, so effective that the KGB would soil themselves just thinking about it. Widespread uncontrollable social media addiction.
Government hasn't been granted a whole lot of new authority in a good long time. They didn't need to. Government had all the power it needed to do in the 1950s what they are doing today.
The difference is that voters would have punished whomever was in power for doing it. Community organizations, allowed to discuss amongst themselves without interference, would have formed political blocs behind people they knew and trusted. And if the parties just tried to substitute more lizard people, the free press would have ensured that everyone knew exactly what was going on.
We're not going to solve everything by just voting for a Bernie Sanders. We're going to make progress by engaging with the political process through issue-focused organizations like the Poor People's Campaign. We're going to learn the truth by demanding rational argument and rejecting any attempt to cast our self-interested enemies as mustache-twirling villains.
Above all, we're going to fix democracy by putting down the FaceTube and meditating on what really motivates us. What our foundational moral principles are or should be. Moral principles can inoculate us against propaganda, and they can guide us away from politicians who are good at making false promises. Even if those principles just push the cost-to-bang-Churchill up a few million more pounds.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 01 2020, @08:00PM (3 children)
Again here I think this gets back into our fundamental difference. So I can keep this one brief!
I'd really like to imagine that the differences in society over the ages are just due to marketing or whatever else, but I don't really think this is the case. Why is our little conversation here so rare as to be literally remarkable? Are we somehow privy to some sort of unique information or privilege unavailable to others? I don't really think so. If everybody behaved like this democracy would work perfectly fine. And there is nothing whatsoever external stopping people from behaving in this way. They either are unable to, or choose not to.
It always feels arrogant to say such things, but it does seem to be quantifiably accurate to say that people, as a whole, are simply becoming less intelligent over time. See, for instance, the end of the Flynn Effect [wikipedia.org] in most developed nations. It started in the mid 90s. Incidentally one hypothesis is that that decline has actually been going on for much longer, but environmental gains were helping to mask it. A loss of 1 or 2 points a decade doesn't sound like much until you consider that 86 is considered borderline retarded, with the average IQ being (by definition) 100.
Whatever the reason, this again is just our key question. Are the negative changes in society because of mostly organic changes within society itself, or are they because of orchestrated puppeteering of society? It's probably unanswerable so all we're left with is our biases and inclinations. I tend to strongly suspect it's the former, but I certainly do hope you're right and it's the latter!
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday April 02 2020, @03:39PM (2 children)
It's irrelevant whether "the negative changes in society because of mostly organic changes within society itself, or are they because of orchestrated puppeteering of society". In the philosophical sense, the latter is just an extension of the former. Regardless, that doesn't mean we can't do anything about it.
Constitutional government exists to structure a rational system which neutralizes our human susceptibility to failure and manipulation. I believe it is possible to do so. I believe our constitutional government is imperfect, but I am not aware of any significantly better system. I believe our greatest challenge in improving the functioning of the species is determining safe means of fixing and improving the constitutional structure to better neutralize our human susceptibility to failure and manipulation.
It's not about giving government more power. It's about restricting the powers of government and individuals in exactly the right ways.
The one thing that needs to be fixed, badly, is how to restrict the powers of corporations. These legal entities as they exist now were never considered in the discussions that created the current constitutional structure. Their existence breaks some of the underlying assumptions of that structure, mainly by being explicitly amoral and unaffected by traditional existential threats.
I can't ignore the implication that society would work better if we could just make everybody smarter. That's social darwinism, and it's dangerous. It's dangerous because it is easily co-opted by irrational notions of racial supremacy. It's dangerous because it leads to eugenics and genocide.
More abstractly, it's dangerous because no human is entitled to or capable of justly tinkering with the species as a whole. Everyone has their own "biases and inclinations" that may not reflect the best of society. We can't guarantee the rule of a philosopher-king [wikipedia.org], able to determine why people are getting dumber, able to effectively reverse that trend, and willing to do so solely for the greater good. Even if such a person could exist, the rest of us have no just basis to select them.
We can't just ignore the problem, though. Society has a trajectory of its own, an "invisible hand [wikipedia.org]" that we have no rational basis to assume will move us toward a better world.
Perhaps the only way we can fix this is by recreating the conditions of the original creation of constitutional government. The democracies of the world were all founded during times of existential crisis. Failure to form a cohesive whole would mean collapse of society. The elites of that society, who were best prepared to design a complex political system but also most biased towards entrenching their own interests, were forced to first serve the interests of the whole. But because they were so ferociously divided amongst themselves, they had to serve each others' interests to come together at all.
It is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of our current capitalist situation that there are no essential differences in the interests of the individual elites. They are all pretty well united on what is best for themselves as elites. They are united mostly in their exploitation of the same people.
Imperialism and globalism, like corporations, are also newer than the democratic constitutions of the world. It's another failing of our constitutional structure, that non-citizens are not considered. As a result, non-citizens are a free resource which citizens can exploit to gain unjust influence over the entire system, citizens included.
Perhaps it's not enough to recreate the conditions of the original creation of constitutional government. Such conditions may not be sufficient to restrict the power of government, individuals, and corporations, while providing explicit rights to citizens and non-citizens.
Without such explicit restrictions and protections, however, corporations are free to continue eroding our individual rights and become de facto governments of their own. Little communisms with increasing influence over the entire economy, with decreasing accountability.
We should like our government to have as little power as possible, but we should like no other entity to have more.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 02 2020, @08:06PM (1 child)
I think you've substantially misread what I'm suggesting here. I'm in no way alluding to things like government mandated eugenics or anything of the sort. That, in fact, runs directly contrary to my fundamental view. I do not believe that government can be trusted with substantial power as that power will, sooner or later, come to be abused. Giving them the power to unilaterally judge who can or cannot procreate? That's obviously absolutely unthinkable.
Rather what I am saying is that democracy *requires* exactly what we're doing here. And what is that? I think there are many things: coherent expression of ourselves and our views, willingness to engage with people we disagree with without hostility, and so on. But perhaps there is one requirement more important than any other: the knowledge (or perhaps wisdom?) to understand that somebody can take some group of facts and rationally come to a conclusion that we, ourselves, may disagree with. Yet that disagreement does not mean their view is wrong nor that ours is right; the understanding of uncertainty and that views are not concrete, but something that should be malleable and adjusted over time. There's a rather nice quote from Mark Twain, "That desire which is in us all to better other people’s condition by having them think as we think." It could not be more true, but for a democracy to function we have to understand the implications of all of us sharing this desire.
Yet clearly most people are not capable of behaving in this way. Is this due to choice or inability? If the cause is extrinsic, you *may* be able to change it. If this inability is caused by intrinsic factors, then you simply cannot. And in the latter case a democracy driven by these individuals would simply never be able to function in the longrun. And indeed a democracy of imbeciles is bound to be the most corrupt for you needn't even bother with trying to corrupt those already in power when, instead, you can simply convince the population to put your representatives into power.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday April 02 2020, @10:31PM
In the spirit of understanding that others, presented with the same ideas, may come to different conclusions, it's important to consider what others might do with our ideas. A more arrogant individual may believe, contrary to both of our beliefs, that the government (or some private corporation) can be trusted with the power to directly and intentionally alter the trajectory of the human species for the better. People on the far left and the far right have both done so.
We must not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that this arrogant individual might be ourselves. Imagine a future where the two of us have constructed a grand political theory compelling enough for us both to agree wholeheartedly with each other. That we have solved the fundamental problems of human existence. Do you believe that you or I would be content to simply know, and not apply the theory?
People seem to be generally more distrustful of others than of themselves. If the government properly and completely represented your interests and ideology, I doubt that you would spend much time equivocating over how to restrict its ability to enact the policies you would like to see enacted.
Not that any of that is particularly likely. But the most dangerous people in history got their ideas from exchanges like this. On the off chance that either one of us may go on to become such an influential person, I think it's important to consider the natural conclusions of our arguments.
If it's true that democracy simply cannot survive among imbeciles, then perhaps the only thing that keeps us (or passersby) from eugenics against stupidity is some combination of disempowerment and apathy. That alone gives me cause for concern about the argument in its entirety.
In any case, it's still irrelevant whether the cause is extrinsic or intrinsic. Sure, if some villain is making us dumb, we can go shoot them. But that doesn't mean there are no other solutions.
It also doesn't mean we actually could shoot the villain. The cause I am proposing is a natural consequence of self-motivated capitalists acting to increase their wealth and influence. Would eliminating all the current capitalists solve the problem? Hardly. More self-motivated capitalists would simply emerge in the next generation.
We must seek solutions that would solve extrinsic and intrinsic stupidity. That starts by better defining stupidity.
I think what makes us poor agents within the democratic system is our inherent logical failings as humans. It makes us manipulable. And people have figured out how to manipulate us in ways the system is not designed to protect against.
It's hardly new. Centuries ago, people were manipulated by religious identity. Rationalism solved that problem. Before that, people were manipulated by complex feudal systems of hierarchical loyalty. Mercantilism solved that problem. Before that, people were manipulated by direct threats of violence. Politics solved that problem.
Which is not to say that all of those problems are 100% solved. It's just to say that we can invent social tools to correct for the means of our own manipulation.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:06PM (2 children)
In my opinion you substantially overestimate the power to 'puppeteer' society of any given individual or group. Even the government itself is often more of a reflection of society than it's director. The issue is quite simple. Wages are driven by a combination of supply and demand. Demand increases as new businesses emerge and decreases as existing businesses close, or as productivity increases. The latter issue being part of the reason that pretending wages might continue to map alongside productivity, indefinitely, was a pipedream. Supply is of course driven simply by the labor pool.
Now go back to the e.g. 60s when many more women started to enter into the work force. You're not really changing demand, but you just sent supply skyrocketing. What exactly would you expect to happen? The only reason wages only stagnated instead of plummeted is because it's generally hard to pay people less - as opposed to simply no longer paying them more. Anybody with a reasonable grasp on economics and labor could (and did) predict this. People ignored or opposed it for ideological reasons. The same thing continues to happen today.
Declining fertility rates alongside a (pre corona) booming economy was a godsend for uplifting society. But politicians on both sides of aisle, driven largely by the moneyed interests you seem to have a distaste for, convinced people to support things like increasing immigration and outsourcing. Again, these things directly undermine workers, but people set it aside from ideological reasons. Even worse some people are misled by disingenuous appeals - 'immigrants strengthen the economy.' That's completely true. But the economy growing and workers being uplifted have very little to do with one another - something the last 70 years have made quite clear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2020, @04:12PM
Econ 101, AKA - Assume humanity is actually made up of robots....
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday March 31 2020, @04:22PM
You could maybe explain one decade of wage stagnation by increased worker supply. But not five. Women have been integrated into the work force and supply has not been increasing for many, many years now. And yet, wages continue to stagnate.
As for immigration, not all immigration is created equally. High skilled workers, especially under H1B visas, fit the pattern you describe. And those programs should be abolished; more than the negligible effect the worker supply may have on overall wages, they are structured to indenture workers to individual employers with no chance of shopping for a better job or engaging in solitary or collective bargaining. That structure is unethical and immoral, and does much more to lower overall wages than any supply effects ever could.
Most immigrants, however, take the lowest of the lowest paying jobs around. Harvesting crops. Packing food. Making clothes (or they would, if it weren't easier to import). These jobs do not and will never pay enough to uplift anyone but the most desperately impoverished. The food industry especially is already operating on such slim margins that they simply can't afford to pay more. These farmers and packers are not the fat cats. They are the struggling small businesses. And if their costs went up, they would be passed on directly to the consumer, creating a tax on all of us and probably resulting in yet more outsourcing.
And what about that outsourcing? I don't like it any more than you do, but it serves a higher purpose. That purpose is world peace. Globalism may be great at lining the pockets of the very wealthy, but it also ensures that we all depend on each other far too much to go to war against each other. Notice that we don't bomb people that we trade with - our first "sanction" is to stop trading with them, and hope that the economic pain brings them back around to the negotiating table.
Given the alternative of violent death on a massive scale, I'll take the unviability of certain industries and lack of global industrial redundancy. I'll take solace that it may uplift my brothers and sisters in other countries, and that it's technically a more efficient use of resources [wikipedia.org]. And I'll be thinking of ways to keep the rich and powerful from abusing the system to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else, like in all other things. At least this way, I don't have to worry about how to keep them from starting wars to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else like they did all throughout the 1800s.
This comment has been a lot more "devil's advocate" for me, so take what I've said with a grain of salt. Like I said, I don't like immigration or outsourcing either, and it upsets me how they serve the rich and powerful. But I'm not about to cut off my nose to spite my face on this one.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by crb3 on Monday March 30 2020, @05:27PM (1 child)
I keep Morton's No-Salt on hand for this (it's mainly potassium chloride), and sprinkle liberally to balance it out, using my own nervous system as a gauge. After frequent childhood use of the salt-shaker to erase food tastes I didn't like, I developed a sensitivity to sodium salt and its effects on the sodium-potassium ion pump that's part of neuron operation. From Adelle Davis, I got that, for normal health effects, at least, it's the electrolyte balance that matters, so I perhaps put up with elevated but balanced levels in return for clear thinking, reduced bloating and minimal muscle impairment.
For cooking, I use Morton's Lite-Salt, which has sodium and potassium in the correct balance. Now I guess I have to wait to see if these researchers get around to testing elevated but balanced levels for impact on the immune system. Meanwhile, I get to enjoy pot pies, which I really like as a small meal, without the usual negative side-effects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @10:56PM
This is one of the rare cases where cutting sodium down makes sense. Most people just don't consume so much sodium that it causes problems. It's medical malpractice to have people cut down on their sodium intake if they aren't also testing the patient's electrolyte levels to see that they're out of range. How much sodium you have in your blood stream is far more important than how much you consume. If you're urinating or sweating it out, then you're going to need to consume more than if the body is retaining it. Similarly, you'll need to consume more if you're consuming more potassium to keep it in balance.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday March 30 2020, @01:22PM (5 children)
So, ff you have high blood pressure (or a tendency to it if you forget the meds), AND autoimmune conditions where your overactive immune system regularly tries to kill you in interesting ways, what do you do?
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Monday March 30 2020, @01:36PM (1 child)
my guess would be in those conditions, you die.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Monday March 30 2020, @09:36PM
Yeah, but when, I mean we all gotta go sometime
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday March 30 2020, @03:26PM
Use something besides salt to calm your immune system, and avoid processed foods. (Aspirin and Ibuprofen calm parts of the immune system, but not other parts...you need to talk to you doctor about your specific needs.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:34PM
Your immune system is probably doing what it's supposed to do under the circumstances it's being given. Stop believing big pharma whore doctors.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @11:01PM
In that case, you'd probably increase your potassium levels. Some blood pressure medications will decrease sodium, some others will increase potassium. Doctors are supposed to order lab work to determine whether either of those are safe and appropriate to the case.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 30 2020, @01:23PM (2 children)
The other immune system enemy, sugar.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @02:36PM (1 child)
Why is everything that tastes good, bad for us?
If you have to avoid anything pleasurable, why bother to live at all?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday March 30 2020, @03:29PM
Because some is good for us, and they used to be hard to get. So we evolved to want to get them. Then we started adjusting the environment, and now we get a lot more than is good for us.
It's like everything else. Whether it's good or bad for you depends on the dosage. Even things like arsenic aren't bad for you in truly micro dosages.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @01:55PM (3 children)
there also is the case where sweating alot requires more salt.
also i am not sure if it is possible to pee without having salt in it (it always tasts salty?).
if there is always salt in the pee (of a normally healthy person) then drinking alot of water might require a higher intake of salt to balance out?
i don't think a human can live without salt. some food not only tastes better but requires salt to "cook" properly. however i agree that adding "processed" ingredients to make a meal will yield a meal with too much salt (on a daily basis). doing your meals from scratch however will "cook correctly", taste better and have the right amount of salt.
anyways in "food lable" english it's not called salt but sodium eh? others call it natrium ...
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 30 2020, @03:50PM (1 child)
Of course not. But in our modern world it is easy to get too much salt, but hard to get too little. Therefore you won't generally hear warnings about the dangers of not enough salt.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @11:05PM
Bullshit, getting too little is trivial. Just avoid the big source of sodium, your soy sauce and sodas, drink the gallon of water that people often times encourage on a daily basis during a heat wave and you're likely going to see the sodium levels drop to the point of brain damage without trying.
It's even easier if you're keeping to the recommended levels, which are themselves at the low end of what's tolerable to the human body.
I've had to purposefully drink saltwater during heatwaves in order to avoid water intoxication. This is one of those claims that has no basis in scientific fact.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 30 2020, @08:54PM
There may be extreme conditions where people might get too little salt, but if you look around in a restaurant or a grocery store, you probably won't see anyone where that applies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @02:54PM (3 children)
I'm sure salt intake is probably like a lot of things, the right amount varies per person. I've had to dump salt packets in my gatorade when I've played tennis tournaments in the summer. If I didn't I would get cramps. At one tournament I played several years in a row it was usual for at least one or two players to be taken to the hospital to get IVs for dehydration.
So I'm certain that there is a necessary adjustment to be made for salt intake between say the typical office drone homebody vs the weekend warrior vs the gym rats.
I find most of these types of studies interesting, but not necessarily directly applicable for a specific individual. You really need to be your own diagnostician most of the time. If you go to your doctor and ask about salt it's almost guaranteed for most people you will get a recommendation to reduce it. My dad removed so much salt from his diet on his doctor's recommendation that he started getting cramps somewhat regularly. He has high blood pressure and takes medication, but I convinced him to add back something salty every now and then and the cramps are gone. He still probably eats less salt than most, but he is also mostly sedentary so doesn't lose much to sweat on any regular basis.
In any case I am sure I have exceeded the 5 gram "maximum" many many times over the years I was playing tennis regularly, and I'm sure I would have been worse off it I hadn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @07:36PM
sure, but most people aren't running back and forth all day. they are sitting on their fat asses gossiping on slavebook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 30 2020, @10:25PM (1 child)
Also, most people already eat way too much salt, and the body is working overtime getting rid of it. So if you do something that puts that into overdrive and start sweating out more than the usual load of salt, you'll end up salt deficient until your body comes back to normal.
When going on a 10 day fast, I always reduce my sodium intake before hand, otherwise my body cramps up on day two. If I don't I need to add a pinch of salt to my water each day for a week, but then after a few days I don't need to anymore.
So you are right in the sense that different people are different, but mostly because they already have a particular daily intake of salt that their body has accustomed to. This can be changed over a week or two by altering the salt intake.
Your example of needing more salt is not because you were deficient to begin with, but because your body was used to a certain already high intake / salt balance and you upset that balance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 31 2020, @01:36AM
No, they don't. They only eat "way too much" salt if you go by the ridiculous recommendations being handed out to keep it under 3g a day. There's little scientific evidence to support the blanket recommendation. If there isn't a specific health condition being caused by excessive sodium levels, that's levels, not intake, then there's little reason to worry about it and plenty of reason not to worry about cutting back. Salt is an essential electrolyte that is involved in a lot of things, including neuronal firing.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Monday March 30 2020, @04:21PM (1 child)
if you have functioning kidneys and drink plenty of water, your body will homeostatically maintain salt at the correct level....*so long as* you are healthy.
If you have co-morbidities e.g. diabetes , COPD, obesity, your body needs to work hard to maintain homeostasis , and there for the levels of ingestion need to be nearer to "required".
Add in exercise, and you'll achieve massive salt imbalance rectification - 6 lbs of water after 1 hour running? My running group and I measured it for a test amongst ourselves.
Animal studies are only any good for molecules where the interaction is equivalent and largely comparable.
Mouse physiology is highly unlikely to be useful for long acquired disease, due to the sheer size of humans (we can destroy more cells and still be functioning ) vs mice (keel over at many things!) - oh and the 50 million years of divergent evolution....
Journals should be required to put the study organism in the title, so that we can choose to ignore the clinical inferences...
/quarantined rant
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday March 30 2020, @08:58PM
Not really. Homeostasis will move to correct the levels, but you will end up at a less healthy steady state.