|
|
|
|
|
|
by robwwilliams
1167 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree with most of the assumptions that get you close to P = 1. But I enjoyed your comment anyway. It makes me examine my own assignment of probabilities. I gave 1 and 2 high Ps and the others rather low or undefinable Ps. |
|
|
Look into the history of how the tobacco industry tried to suppress research on the harms of smoking, how the sugar industry tried to shift blame for health problesm like obesity from sugars to fats, and how the fossil fuel industry has resisted attempts to take responsibility for global warming. In all three cases not only did industry resist evidence of harm, it also funded publicity campaigns to try to shift public opinion their way.
Given that I know of no reason to believe that this will change, I think that point 3 has high probability.
As for point 4, we have a history of spreading chemicals widely before discovering bad things about them. The first such chemical to gain notoriety was DDT, but many more have followed. In the last few decades, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2023989118 shows that flying insect biomass dropped by 3/4. https://www.urologytimes.com/view/testosterone-levels-show-s... likewise shows that, even after controlling for known factors like increased obesity, there is an unexplained decline in testosterone of roughly 1/3. It is reasonable to guess that both are the result of environmental factors. But we are not sure what factors those are, and are not significantly modifying our behavior. (How could we, when we don't know for sure what we are doing to cause the problem?)
Given these examples, I truly believe we are rolling environmental dice with our health. And if we keep rolling the dice, eventually we'll come up snake eyes.