Obesity rates have been increasing globally for decades.

There is no example of a country that has reduced obesity through public policy, food policy (even in the EU with strong GMO regulations), or messaging.

From a government level a different approach is necessary. So far GLP-1 inhibitors are the only things that have worked at scale. Let's see if that holds up.

https://data.worldobesity.org/region/european-union-uk-1/#da...

That' doesn't address the main point of the ge96's comment though, which is that we seem to be replacing a problem with a dependence in medication, which could cause further problems. It seems akin to solving the loneliness epidemic [1] or the prevalence of depression, which some call an "epidemic" [2], with anti-depressants.

[1] https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-soci...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221265701...

> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.

This argument applies similarly to the fentanyl crisis, since people could simply have the self control to not take fentanyl recreationally. Do you have a similar belief that the government shouldn't be trying to stop the mass import of fentanyl and other harmful drugs?

Actually, yes. I think the government should be addressing the cost-of-living crisis, loneliness crisis, the high cost of health, the overprescription of opioids, and the cultural issues that all contribute to people opting for fentanyl in the first place.

If the government manages to stop fentanyl imports, people will simply either manufacture fentanyl locally or opt for other drugs. I agree that it's not a matter of self-control— a fentanyl addict can't simply will its way out of it— but there is a reason they chose to consume fentanyl in the first place, and despite knowing its effects, willingly chose to "escape reality".

Sure if the drugs aren't there to begin with can't take em. But also depends where you are/who you associate with which again if you're in the bad areas probably exposed more to drugs/less hope of getting out having a better life. I guess I'm fortunate I've only ever been exposed to/try the weaker stuff.

I really think people don’t understand where fent zombies come from. They don’t emerge spontaneously from cracks in the sidewalk. The streets are just the last stop on a long road. Network effect among the unseen webs of addiction is a vastly bigger issue — if there were 74k overdose fatalities in a year, imagine how many people didn’t OD, or OD’d but didn’t die. And out of that, imagine how many people are more casual users who aren’t that heavy into it just yet. These are big numbers and big chunks of our social networks. They just haven’t gotten to the last stop yet.

> It seems bad to fix a problem that can be addressed by self control.

I don't think it's only about self control. but it would probably be easier if the industry wasn't pushing junk food and sugary food on Americans. Look, other countries don't have this problem. Does it mean that self control vanishes within US borders?

someone else in this comment chain linked to stats how obesity is going up everywhere (other countries) but anyway, another thing to consider how cigarette packs nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them

I also think regarding fentanyl it's a legit drug in hospitals so there will be a source

>nowadays have disgusting images of cancer-ridden organs or whatever on them and people still buy them

I think smoking cigarettes went way down in the US and other parts of the world. Sure, people still use them but the overall downward trend is good and that is because something was done about it.

It’s bad to fix a problem if the solution has side effects. I mean that’s the pragmatic, health-based answer to whether it is good or bad.

If these don’t have adverse effects then it is not bad. What “bad” we are left with is character-moralizing.

We could go further. “It is bad to fix your obesity by removing yourself from bad food.” Because this does not involve self-control either. If you isolate yourself from grocery stores and only have access to certain foods you can lose weight without self-control.

"isolate yourself from grocery stores" that sounds like self control. Anyway not trying to argue this.

if it's working for people great, I'm on the boat that does not like it when obesity is supported eg. in victoria secret but I'll just sound like an ahole to say that

edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.

I'm not religious so it's not from that perspective I'm also not white

Last thing I'll add, why not too, I mean humans don't have wings yet we engineered airplanes to surpass birds, is that wrong?

I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.

> edit: I'm also on the side of being somewhat against physical/genetic modification as it lies to your partner/future child what you actually look like but when it gets to that stage (eg. crispr) then I guess it doesn't matter.

Being predisposed to obesity and yet overcoming it by working 300% harder than average (compared to someone who exercises at all) on your diet and fitness is another way to lie.

But this is self-control so then it is irrationally different I guess.

> I am a nihilist to some extent so yeah really nothing matters except what is truly real pain/suffering and death.

Random existential observations but okay.

Why are you assuming it can always be fixed by self control? Some people have complete bad standards for eating compared to a regular person, both in quantity and quality. The drugs help deal only with the quantity.

Yeah different approaches to a problem, drugs, physical changes (surgery to stomach size), maybe something like CBT. When I get bored I binge eat so I get it.