> "My conclusion was that cancer is best prevented by removing negatives from life, not necessarily adding positives."
But diet is a complex system. So while there might not be any magical "direct" benefit from eating a certain fruit or vegetable, they could still produce a significant positive effect.
Perhaps the biggest contribution to preventing cancer that fruits and veggies make is to curb negative behavior. They might replace sugary foods or regulate cravings or satiate (all interrelated). And then, this could feed back into promoting positive behavior: more energy which encourages more rigorous exercise. Which boosts the subject's mood and increases their sense of well-being. Which feeds back into their dietary choices. Etc.
Sure, you'd act real careful to protect the sanctity of your word.
But bear in mind this man leads two multimillion dollar companies. I can imagine the PR/marketing opportunity was difficult to pass up. Even if further data proves his assessment of Boeing's configuration ill-advised, a majority of impressions will remain in his favor. He may have even nipped any comparisons between Boeing's "dangerous" technology and Tesla in the bud.
A reader might walk away from the story with the idea that Tesla engineers are more skilled than Boeing engineers. Call it what you want, but that's a helluva branding opportunity.
The screens might be social. But they're able to only fill a limited facet of human social need.
The value that I derive from an email with an old friend is different than a phone call which is different still from a lunch.
Our social needs are deeply intertwined with our DNA. And the emotional value we can derive from interacting digitally does not meet the full extent that we derive from physical interaction.
Hence, I would argue that someone that lives on the web all day with thousands of people in mostly physical isolation will find less social fulfillment than someone that lives amongst a handful of humans with little connection to the outside world.
Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010. The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass. But I would hardly call this "backward momentum." It's not like there was a ton of incentive for Joe Pot to rally behind the move--cheap prescriptions, cheap dispensaries, and cheap penalties is keeping him plenty happy and stocked.
There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam. And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down." Many cities were weary of tourists entering the country simply to get high. So those cities combatted the "anti-social" tourist by requiring marijuana IDs at their coffeeshops. Citizens are free to use, but unless other countries adopt legalization laws in the Euro Zone some Dutch cities feel they must enforce these policies.
Will be interesting to see how Colorado/Washington deal with this, as they will likely encounter the same issue. If I lived in a border city like Vancouver, I'd be prepping for an influx in 2014.
> Second, the weight loss? Not as big a deal as time goes on.
Sure, deciding to bike commute isn't a guarantee of sustainable weight loss. But no single activity is. Combine its caloric deficit with a sensible health plan and you'll reap its benefits.
But diet is a complex system. So while there might not be any magical "direct" benefit from eating a certain fruit or vegetable, they could still produce a significant positive effect.
Perhaps the biggest contribution to preventing cancer that fruits and veggies make is to curb negative behavior. They might replace sugary foods or regulate cravings or satiate (all interrelated). And then, this could feed back into promoting positive behavior: more energy which encourages more rigorous exercise. Which boosts the subject's mood and increases their sense of well-being. Which feeds back into their dietary choices. Etc.