Interview with philosopher Bruno Latour

[J65nko]

The Guardian has a very interesting interview with this French philosopher about the impact of the Corona pandemic on our life and thinking.

I find the following quote very interesting.

What we need is not only to modify the system of production but to get out of it altogether. We should remember that this idea of framing everything in terms of the economy is a new thing in human history.

The pandemic has shown us the economy is a very narrow and limited way of organising life and deciding who is important and who is not important.

If I could change one thing, it would be to get out of the system of production and instead build a political ecology.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...climate-crisis

[e1-531g]

It doesn't resonate with me.

We can see which jobs are necessary and which are junk.

We can get away without some jobs for short period of time without big consequences, but in long term we see they are needed.
Example: gym closed due to lockdown. Physical inactivity and obesity are large health problems in developed countries. For most people sitting on couch for 2 weeks instead of going to gym isn't going to drastically impact their health negatively on average (but some people increase alcohol consumption substantially and many were hospitalized due to liver issues). In the long term it would impact their health negatively due to cumulative effect of inactivity.
One could argue that they may change their sport and train something other, but compliance is large issue. Changing habits is difficult. For long term physical activity compliance most people must enjoy, like what they are doing. Changing activity from i.e. lifting weights to running is difficult behavioral change for a lot of people.

[e1-531g]

But of course somebody may go full Sartre and say that nothing is really necessary.
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/17

[Prevet]

Originally Posted by e1-531g

It doesn't resonate with me.


We can get away without some jobs for short period of time without big consequences, but in long term we see they are needed.
Example: gym closed due to lockdown. Physical inactivity and obesity are large health problems in developed countries. For most people sitting on couch for 2 weeks instead of going to gym isn't going to drastically impact their health negatively on average (but some people increase alcohol consumption substantially and many were hospitalized due to liver issues). In the long term it would impact their health negatively due to cumulative effect of inactivity.
One could argue that they may change their sport and train something other, but compliance is large issue. Changing habits is difficult. For long term physical activity compliance most people must enjoy, like what they are doing. Changing activity from i.e. lifting weights to running is difficult behavioral change for a lot of people.

The best quote I saw on Corona was made by a random person on Twitter. She said, Isn't it odd how the economy is collapsing, when people are only buying what they need.

Gyms weren't necessary up until recently. In the 1970s most people were naturally thin, because there were few fast food joints, and the corporations weren't putting unnecessary chemicals in our food that stop our bodies processing it correctly.

I used to go to the gym. Then I got tired of it and started running. These days I just go for regular walks to save my knees. I found if you don't change your diet to a natural one, going to the gym won't change anything.

[e1-531g]

My point was that ability for short-time avoidance of some activity without disastrous consequence does not mean it is not necessary in long-term.

Originally Posted by Prevet

I used to go to the gym. Then I got tired of it and started running. These days I just go for regular walks to save my knees. I found if you don't change your diet to a natural one, going to the gym won't change anything.

Some people can't run. Other can, but don't enjoy it, so they are not likely to comply with it long-term.

It is off-topic, but when it comes to body weight "calories in calories out" is most important thing and many people severely overestimate how many calorie they burn during physical exercises, so diet is a key. On the other hand physical inactivity is a risk factor in itself, so you can maintain healthy body weight, but don't get enough physical activity and still be at increased risk for developing some diseases. Don't get me wrong: it is better to have BMI in check and be sedentary than have obesity and be sedentary, but it is better to have BMI in check and meet 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.

[e1-531g]

Originally Posted by Prevet

Its not as simple as calories. Scientists that have never helped anyone lose weight long term say its just calories. They think of the body as if it was a machine, where you can introduce one thing, and you will get the expected result, like a chemical reaction, math equation, or computer program.

It is mostly calories. There are countless studies on the topic. Right question to ask is how to make people consume (eat & drink) less calories without counting them. Most nutritionists answer is to change habits. This answer does not contradict "calories in calories out" principle.

[IdOp]

There was plenty of fast food in the 1970s, at least there was in Canada and surely more in the US. Maybe people were just not as addicted to it then, and supersizing perhaps hadn't been invented.

[LeFrettchen]

Changing habits is an usual answer, but it's far from enough : one need to learn to eat, not really what to eat, but how to eat.
In France, nobody counts calories, cause very few people know how to, and overweight people is a tiny minority here.
Just because we learn from our youngest age to balance food.
And it's not only based on calories, but on way of eating, with "rules" to follow, like time and duration.

For my part, I know to count calories, but I never do that, cause I don't need it.
And I find that the "calories in calories out" principle is a really bad bad principle, cause inciting to eat in a horribly unbalanced way, which tends to end with gaining weight, and can cause profound metabolic disorders over a long period of time.

It's way more complex that this simplistic principle.

Here is a good video to start :
Youtube - Not Even French - Why French People Don't Get Fat: The REAL reasons!

[e1-531g]

Originally Posted by LeFrettchen

Changing habits is an usual answer, but it's far from enough : one need to learn to eat, not really what to eat, but how to eat.

Isn't that just making a behavioral change and creating habit to eat at specific time etc?

Originally Posted by LeFrettchen

And I find that the "calories in calories out" principle is a really bad bad principle, cause inciting to eat in a horribly unbalanced way, which tends to end with gaining weight, and can cause profound metabolic disorders over a long period of time.

Whatever language we write a program be it Bash, JavaScript, Java or C it is translated to assembler sooner or later. You may not know how to write a program in assembler and still write correct code in other language that processes data at rapid pace.
It is similar with diet. You may eat different food and have different habits around that, but with body weight it all comes to calories, but it doesn't mean that everybody needs to count calories to have healthy body weight.

Personally I don't count calories nowadays, but I might in future, because I actually target upper level of healthy BMI or even dancing on the edge between healthy BMI and overweight (not obese) BMI. I want to progress in my strength training and weighting more makes it easier.

[LeFrettchen]

Originally Posted by e1-531g

Whatever language we write a program be it Bash, JavaScript, Java or C it is translated to assembler sooner or later. You may not know how to write a program in assembler and still write correct code in other language that processes data at rapid pace.
It is similar with diet.

You can write correct code ONLY if you know how to.
If you don't know how to code, you will never write correct code.
One can learn the Model–view–controller design pattern, and think "OK, now I'm gonna write great code".
But that's horribly wrong : if one does not master the fundamentals, such as pointers, recursion, inheritance, encapsulation, etc... no chance to write a correct code, MVC or not, but on the contrary, this lack of fundamentals will lead to an ugly code, quite impossible to debug.

It is similar with diet : "calories in calories out" can be seen as a design pattern, but not as part of the fundamentals.

Originally Posted by e1-531g

Isn't that just making a behavioral change and creating habit to eat at specific time etc?

Yes, but it's a behavioral change and creating habit about how to eat, not what to eat !
Including calories in the equation is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by e1-531g

You may eat different food and have different habits around that, but with body weight it all comes to calories

No. This is really a very reductive point of view, and does not make any sense.
In the same way, saying "You may code in different languages, but with code it all comes to MVC" would not make any sense.

No one in France cares about calories, or carbs, or all those useless stuff, we can all have high calorie meals on a daily basis, and no one is fat here...
Calories is a tiny part of the equation, you should really open your mind !

Also, please take careful note that in order to lose body fat, "calories out" MUST remain stable.
But this is precisely what we know to be FALSE for at least the last 100 years.
Basal metabolic rate (BMR) may increase or decrease 30–40%. This was shown as early as 1917, when studies showed that a reduction of calorie intake by 30% is quickly met by a decrease in BMR by 30%.
But of course, people who encourage to follow the "calories in calories out" routine don't talk about that, cause all these "specialists" are probably not aware of that

[e1-531g]

Originally Posted by LeFrettchen

Calories is a tiny part of the equation, you should really open your mind !

I'm sorry, but scientific research is clear body weight changes is mostly about energy balance aka "calories in calories out". There are some minor changes due to other factors such as proportion of carbs to fats, but common denominator for weight loss is still energy deficit and for weight gain energy surplus.
Training sport 2 or 3 times a week for 40 minutes is not going to burn as many calories as people think, but training is not only about body weight. Healthy BMI is not enough to make a healthy lifestyle.

[LeFrettchen]

Mathematically, I agree with you, but...

Originally Posted by e1-531g

common denominator for weight loss is still energy deficit and for weight gain energy surplus.

I think you don't really understand me.
This is just a mathematical fact, important for studies, yes, but useless in real life.

The real common denominator for weight loss is the bond you are going to weave with your food.
When I say one need to learn to eat, I really mean it : if one wants to lose weight, one needs not only to like the food, but in fact to learn to love the food, real love, real pleasure to eat in family, with friends or colleagues, real time-sharing around the table for a long period, a deep and respectful relationship with the food and the lunchtime, etc...

If you learn how to eat, if you learn to do all of that, for sure you will be the winner
That's what I mean when I say calories are irrelevant.
Calories are relevant in studies, for sure, but not IRL.
Food-love is relevant IRL.
Don't focus on calories, you won't gain anything, cause you'll have to struggle for the rest of your life with numbers.
Focus on pleasure, the rest will follow.

Edit :
In the video I previously posted, she talks about a one hour lunchtime in France, all together sitting, talking and eating around the table.
To be true, a one hour lunchtime routine is a small routine here, typically a business lunchtime.
A 1.5 hour routine is more accurate, a 2 hours routine is not something exceptional.
And this is not a boring or repulsive routine, it's just normal. Well, a 1.5+ hour routine may be boring for kids at the end.
Just like spending 2 or 3 hours in the kitchen Sunday morning to prepare and cook the meal before the 2 hours lunchtime is not exceptional either.

Don't think with your brain or stomach, let your heart and taste buds do the job
French style

[bsdun]

I try to eat only healthy food, but I spend all the time sitting in front of a computer (at work and at home). Right now I'm 164 kg. Maybe It's time to go to the gym.