If reading hackernews gives you brain cancer, you could save your life by not reading it.
If reading hackernews doesn't give you brain cancer, you've given up on a minor pleasure, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
So, why not cut back and avoid hackernews as if it gives your brain cancer?
...
I don't think Pascal's Wager is a good reason to do anything. It can be used to justify anything: there are an infinite amount of potential bad things that can happen.
It's the same theory behind venture capitalism. Your downside risk is only the amount of money you invest, your upside reward is that you may invest in what will become the next Facebook.
Yes I know that in reality most VC investors don't beat an index fund.
I disagree that giving up sugar and sugary stuff is the same as giving up on a few pleasures. That just sweeps the issues under the carpet, so to speak. Depending on the person, giving up sugar can be a whole lot more, and for some people it may be equivalent to giving up the biggest pleasures and the biggest supporters of existence itself. Tangentially, sugar is one of those things that's not as easy to give up for most people because of how our bodies are wired (and have evolved). The dopamine effect, the reinforcement and the need to up the intake to get more pleasure can be a serious hindrance even to the most rational, thinking and open minded people.
The problem with Pascal's Wager in most applications, including this one, is the “if X does Y...” can trivially be flipped to “if not-X does Y...” or, in some cases, “if not-X does Z...” where Z has equally negative consequences to Y).
Mostly, the Pascal's Wager structure is a template for flimsy rationalizations of pre-existing preferences or beliefs.
The consequence of Y (a healthier life and a decreased risk of diabetes) is well worth the sacrifices of doing X.
The gains of doing X is not worth the consequences of not Y (all of the health consequences of being overweight)
Is there any scientific literature that says consuming a lot of sugar is healthy for you?
If you could bet $50 and have a 90% chance of getting $500 would you take it? Would not betting $50 and having a 10% chance of not losing the $50 be equivalent?
Yes I realize the odds are exaggerated in the example above.
He doesn’t just think all current experts are wrong, he seems to be one of those rebel doctors who will specifically claim the opposite of any currently accepted fact regarding health and nutrition.
If eating too much sugar is bad for you and has negative consequences and you choose to cut back, you have significant gains in living a healthy lifestyle.
If sugar is not bad for you and you cut back, you've given up on a few pleasures, but in the grand scheme of things, you've lost nothing.
So, why not cut back and eat as if sugar is bad for you? I think there is enough credible evidence to take a chance and cut back.
No, I don't feel the same way about non-gmo, organic, grass fed, gluten free food, grown and cultivated by virgin nuns. I think the "natural food" cruft is just a bunch of marketing.