That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
> That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
Let's start with this part:
> That comment doesn't really say anything other than
Three things. / First, this comes across as dismissive to many readers. I hope you are aware of this, and I hope you would choose different phrasing next time. / Second, it is a mischaracterization of my comment -- my comment isn't a mere statement of what I believe. There is considerable support for my claims about the _reality_ of how the world works (technological changes, economics, values, etc). / Third, writing one sentence in reply doesn't seem like a good way to make discussion more substantive as it progresses (per HN guidelines).
Now on to this part:
> but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
I get your reference to Russell's tea pot; it is unfortunate you went there; I'm not foisting some made-up thing as real. Nor am I positing some vague extraordinary belief.
Let's me flip this part of your comment on its head:
> the onus is on you to provide evidence.
My comment was lengthy and substantive. As such, it contains plenty of material to dig into. Have you dug into the area I discuss? If so, tell me what you've learned. In particular, why would there be a hard rule across all history and future states suggesting calories and cost are "at odds" with each other? When I state it this way, I think you can see your claim is the harder one to believe.
Also, why is the onus on me to write more? Why is not the onus on you to research more? Or at least write more?
I have one more thing to say about this pazt:
> but since that's an extraordinary claim
You've got it backward. Broadly, it is a much stronger claim to say "X and Y" are mutually exclusive than to say "over the long run, with technological changes, they don't have to be." That's what my comment said.
Again, to drive the point home, I'll state it a slightly different way: given many possible universes with various configurations, consider two quantities X and Y, it would be _much_ less likely for "X and Y" to be mutually exclusive. Do you understand what I'm getting at? This is a fundamental thought experiment based on probabilities.
If you can comment in detail and turn down the dismissiveness, I think a better discussion is possible.
Can you vouch that you have no ulterior motive or conflict of interest on this topic? I have no conflict of interest. My primary goal is rational, high quality, substantive discussion. My ulterior motive, so to speak, is that I believe people don't have to agree, but at the very least we can try to share and maybe even learn from each other.
No, I'm being sincere: you write long responses, which is fine, but they're full of abstractions, and when I tried to make one of them concrete (about patented crops), you fled back into the abstraction rather than confronting and resolving the issue into a concrete position. You're not making substantive points about the topic, just lengthy ones.
I believe you are sincere. One can be both sincere and insulting. Also, I've found your comments to be rather uncharitable and unkind. If I've come across that way to you, I apologize. I was hoping for a better conversation.
