return to table of content

No Salt

keiferski
49 replies
13h55m

I don’t think there are any modern startup “inventions” which bother me more than meal replacements like Soylent. It’s not that there’s something wrong with having a nutrition shake to replace a meal if you’re in a rush.

It’s more that food, cooking, and eating (alone and with other people) seem like some of the most human things you can do. And so trying to optimize them out of existence feels wrong, a crime against culture. Long after the AIs have replaced entire classes of jobs and hobbies, cooking will still be around.

Kiro
21 replies
13h29m

As someone who hates cooking, I don't understand the argument. Why would I care about whether something is a "human thing" or not? "Crime against culture" means nothing and could be said about anything.

keiferski
11 replies
13h24m

A lot of words have been written about the role of food in human history and culture. Here’s one from the OP’s blog:

https://jakeseliger.com/2024/02/26/food-and-friends-part-i-f...

The argument is: cooking and eating has been a fundamental human activity for millennia, one that brings people together, transmits culture, language, etc. - and to optimize it away as a problem is to disregard something very important about being a human being.

Kiro
10 replies
13h3m

I understand the importance historically but I don't agree that it's something very important about being a human being. Someone trying to impose that on me is as unconvincing as a religious person trying to convert me. Give me practical arguments.

When I eat I want to do it alone, which is something you highlighted in your original comment, but hearing you now it's all about to the social aspects. I'm not interested in that. If I want to socialize there are far better venues for me personally. I find eating out with other people a lose-lose. The food distracts me from the conversation but the conversation distracts me from the food, and all of a sudden it's gone before I even had the chance to reflect on the taste.

keiferski
5 replies
11h2m

A few points:

1. History and evolution are ongoing things. They aren’t “done” and in the past. Today, right now, people use food as an important part of their culture, whether that be immigrant parents teaching their kids recipes from their home culture, a brother making food for his dying sibling (as in the link), or two friends having dinner.

And that’s only on the consumption side - not to mention the entire production industrial complex that employs millions of people globally to make and prepare food - and has done so for thousands of years. “Food gatherer and preparer" probably has a claim to being the oldest profession. Food is so ingrained in human history and culture it’s basically impossible to imagine civilization without it. Which was my point about it being a human thing.

2. Your mention of religion is actually helpful too, because I think a similar attitude is prevalent when discussing religious beliefs: “That was a historical thing and it doesn’t have much effect on anything today.”

Which is very much not the case; everything in the contemporary world has been shaped by religious beliefs, from the concept of the Self, individualism, the structure of political systems, democracy, universalism, on and on. Modernity is in no way a fresh beginning or clean slate in which the past doesn’t apply. That doesn’t mean you need to believe in XYZ religion today, but to deny that it has any contemporary relevance is just incorrect.

3. On the evolutionary front, the fact is that you evolved to eat in a group - the possibility of someone sitting alone eating a meal made by others basically didn’t exist until a century ago. So it formed who you are today, whether you like it or not.

4. Personally, I like to cook alone. It requires a focused approach that prevents you from scrolling TikTok or being distracted by innumerable other things. I also like to cook foods that remind me of my origins – for example, I like making pierogi, as I'm Polish and from the region where a certain type of pierogi are from. I make them using the rolling pin that was my late Polish grandma's, which also makes it a special experience. Food culture doesn't need to a social thing at all.

I don’t want to assume what your opinion is but it seems to be something like, "None of that matters, all that matters is that it tastes good, comes in ready-to-eat packaging, and can be eaten alone."

Which seems to me like the most depressing, reductive approach possible to something with so much cultural significance and history. Do you think the same thing about art or architecture? Literature? Films?

This being HN; I’m gonna guess you’re a technical person, and so you might gain more of an appreciation for food by watching some YouTube videos on chefs working. The skill and craftsmanship can be truly impressive.

Kiro
3 replies
6h51m

Do you think the same thing about art or architecture? Literature? Films?

I don't watch movies and only occasionally read books. Nothing depressing about it whatsoever. In fact, I find your reasoning much more reductive. Imagine reducing life to such mundane things when it has so much more to offer.

Sl1mb0
1 replies
5h31m

What more does life have to offer then?

mrguyorama
0 replies
2h49m

Think of all the shareholder value they must create with all that free time and lack of fuss!

keiferski
0 replies
4h53m

If you think all food, literature, and movies are “mundane” I’m not really sure this conversation will go anywhere.

uwagar
0 replies
8h37m

3. On the evolutionary front, the fact is that you evolved to eat in a group - the possibility of someone sitting alone eating a meal made by others basically >didn’t exist until a century ago. So it formed who you are today, whether you like it or not.

diogenes (maybe buddha also) would disagree.

smallest-number
0 replies
5h3m

It should be remembered that most aspects of culture developed because they have a purpose. In the case of cooking and eating good food, there are definitely practical benefits, largely psychological.

One part of it is about directing attention. If you cook for yourself, you pay more attention to what you're putting into your body, and in learning how different flavors come together you learn intuitions about taste and aesthetics. In directing your attention like this, cooking can also serve as a kind of meditation / mindfulness practice.

In knowing how to cook, you become able to cook for others, which is a very common way for people to connect. If a loved one is sick, making soup for them can make them feel loved and cared for, just as it can make you feel good about putting in effort to help them feel better; especially when it comes to things that you just have to wait out, like flu, something like this is an excellent way of maintaining a connection. Conversely, in knowing how much effort it takes to make a good meal you become more appreciative of meals others make for you.

And finally, in cooking with someone else you learn about them and about yourself, about subtle differences that you might not have encountered otherwise. In solving a relatively easy, low-stakes problem together, you gain a sense of closeness without much risk or cost.

Overall, cooking is a practice centered on ideas that are underappreciated by people too engrossed in "hustle culture" etc, so it's important to have it as a tool in today's world. Of course, everything that it provides can be found elsewhere, but these are the reasons it's so deeply ingrained in human culture. I think you would also struggle to find other things that give you all of the above, and more that I didn't go into, for so little investment. It's not that cooking makes you human or something, but cooking does help you to connect with a lot of the deeper parts of yourself that do.

itsoktocry
0 replies
3h28m

but I don't agree that it's something very important about being a human being

You don't understand that the preparation of food is important to being a human being? Both physiologically and socially? Across every culture on the planet?

Someone trying to impose that on me is as unconvincing as a religious person trying to convert me. Give me practical arguments.

Nobody is imposing anything on you. Nobody cares to convince you. Go ahead and eat your meals alone.

frutiger
0 replies
12h53m

The food distracts me from the conversation but the conversation distracts me from the food, and all of a sudden it's gone before I even had the chance to reflect on the taste.

Chew carefully. Eat slowly. Sip water. Your digestive system will thank you for it.

bigstrat2003
0 replies
10h33m

I understand the importance historically but I don't agree that it's something very important about being a human being. Someone trying to impose that on me is as unconvincing as a religious person trying to convert me. Give me practical arguments.

What one values, or does not value, in life is a fundamentally impractical subject. IMO you're asking for the impossible.

shiroiushi
7 replies
13h22m

You don't have to enjoy cooking to enjoy a well-made meal. That's why restaurants exist, after all. Lots of people are perfectly happy to let someone else do the hard work in the kitchen.

If you actually don't enjoy good food, then considering how important culinary arts have been to humans for all of recorded history, I'd say there's something wrong with you.

nakeru
4 replies
13h7m

That last sentence feels like a personal attack. I'm not sure why this is so important to you. You write about recorded history, but there is a vast majority of humans who has never written or at least not about food, so I don't know, maybe food hasn't always been important for everyone, we don't really know.

Nowadays, we also have the stress of a capitalist system to deal with, plus processed food we eat since our childhood, which for a lot of people "break" food for them, since they get used to the sugar rush, and normal food tasted "boring" or "bland".

What I mean is, I know plenty of well adjusted people who don't enjoy "good food", and that's OK.

shiroiushi
3 replies
12h50m

I probably didn't word it that well; I meant that if you don't enjoy eating food that you like the taste of, there's something wrong with you. It's a normal human thing to like to eat, and to eat things you think are tasty. Unfortunately, modern low-quality unhealthy foods are engineered to be tasty, but this doesn't mean there's something seriously wrong with people who like them. I didn't mean "good food" as only high-quality, nutritious food, just something you like to eat and enjoy eating, even if it isn't that healthy.

The people who really have something wrong with them here are those who actually don't enjoy eating any food, and see it strictly as a biologically-necessary chore. Those are the people who seem to be attracted to Soylent. Yes, I really do think there's something wrong with these people.

Kiro
2 replies
12h44m

Those are the people who seem to be attracted to Soylent.

Maybe if you're only eating Soylent but the vast majority are simply people who don't want to cook for one reason or another. I eat Huel a few times a week and I really like it. I also think it's pretty tasty but most of all it's convenient.

shiroiushi
0 replies
12h2m

Yeah, I'm not talking about people who just want something convenient and nutritious when they're in a hurry, I'm talking about extremists who genuinely don't like eating anything ever and treat it like needing to use a toilet.

keiferski
0 replies
11h45m

It’s died down a bit now, but 5-10 years ago there was a very vocal group of people that insisted on only having shakes and that food/cooking was outdated.

Kiro
1 replies
13h16m

I enjoy good food but that's it. I don't assign a higher purpose to it. A lot of things that were important historically are now gone.

shiroiushi
0 replies
12h48m

If you enjoy eating "good food" (whatever you define that as, since it depends on your taste), that's normal for a human. You don't have to attach a "higher purpose" to it, but it's something that's been important to humans since forever. We have taste buds for a reason, and eating tasty food isn't going to fall out of favor ever, unless humans somehow change into something non-human.

throwanem
0 replies
1h41m

You are also a "human thing." As such, it is wise to attend what is of importance to other such, whether or not you would natively concern yourself with those aspects of life, at least if you care to have your life involve other humans in a significant and enduring way.

Workaccount2
8 replies
3h40m

I lived on a DIY total meal replacement shake for about a year:

Pros:

- Feel fucking amazing. Not just digestive, but mind, energy, mood, all over feel great.

- Perfect poops. I'd poop the same ideal poop everyday at the same time. Two wipes and done.

- Cheap-ish. DIY made it much cheaper than commercial products. Allowed fine tuning too. Was something like $7/day.

- Never hungry. I had three shakes a day and was very satiating. I would go months without experiencing the feeling of hunger.

- Lots of water. Each shake had ~500ml of water in it, which made it much easier to stay hydrated.

- Maximized exercise gains. Was tailored for working out, so I didn't leave anything on the table due to nutritional deficits.

Cons:

- The taste and texture. Bad and worse. Wasn't excruciating to get down, but fell into the "It's not good but I'll still have it" camp.

- No variety. Basically the same thing all the time.

- Weak jaw. Your jaw muscles weaken quickly when not being used all the time. It's surprising to eat regular food and find your jaw aching and tired after half a sandwich.

- Planning. Kind of minor but I would need to plan a bit more to make sure I had shakes ready to go. They tasted best if they could sit for an hour or so after mixing, and where chilled.

I gave in eventually because regular food is just so enjoyable and because GNC stopped making the micro nutrient powder that was essential too it.

itsoktocry
5 replies
3h32m

because GNC stopped making the micro nutrient powder that was essential too it.

Your anecdote is interesting, but it seems biased towards, "everything was better and healthier, but I didn't get the joy of food".

I'm skeptical that you were getting optimal nutrition from some powder produced in a factory in Mexico. If everything about this was "better", I assume your original diet was terrible.

throwaway2037
3 replies
3h21m

    > getting optimal nutrition
Did OP claim this? I didn't see it, unless deleted on edit.

itsoktocry
2 replies
3h13m

Did OP claim this? I didn't see it, unless deleted on edit.

It's implied, otherwise what's the point of his post?

What is someone trying to achieve by drinking entire meals in a shake, if not optimal nutrition? What other benefits are there?

sunk1st
0 replies
3h1m

Time savings

regularfry
0 replies
3h2m

Having done the Huel thing, it's incredibly low-effort. If you don't value the time spent converting ingredients into a meal, or in expending decision energy either on what to buy or what to prepare, it's a pretty big win.

Workaccount2
0 replies
3h6m

It's more likely that my body is just overly sensitive to foods (which is very common). I eat clean now but still not feeling like I did back then. Maybe 80%.

Diet and how you feel is highly variable and highly individual dependent. So the shake is excellent for creating a baseline since it is about as plain as you can get food to be.

throwaway2037
1 replies
3h23m

You said "DIY". Did you publish the formula or blog about your experience? I am sure HN would love to discuss it.

Workaccount2
0 replies
3h15m

It was a popular recipe from a forum about a decade ago. I don't remember the name and I maybe can recall the list of ingredients sort of the amounts.

But generally it was carbs (corn flour), protein (whey isolate), fats (oil blend), micronutrient powder, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium. No sugar, gluten, dairy or soy.

etrautmann
7 replies
13h51m

This is a silly take IMO. I love eating and cooking good food. I also sometimes need something healthy on the road or in between classes etc. Vanishingly few people replace all food with Soylent. It’s fine as a fill-in between meals.

keiferski
6 replies
13h47m

As I wrote, it’s not that having a fill-in meal is an issue. It’s the attitude that food and cooking are some kind of unfortunate requirement that should be optimized out of existence - which is the mentality that companies like Soylent put out there, and what their fans want.

I think it’s largely a consequence of not having a respect for food, and that mentality is not welcome in places like Japan, France, Italy, etc. where there is a deep cultural respect for food.

etrautmann
2 replies
4h37m

I think this is catastrophizing some cheeky marketing hyperbole. You can have deep respect for food and occasionally drink a Soylent.

keiferski
1 replies
3h3m

I agree, but 5-10 years ago "Soylent replaces eating" was very much a trendy cultural thing to believe.

etrautmann
0 replies
1h40m

but really? I was living in SF and drinking soylent in grad school then, and aside from a few maximalists online, nobody I knew ever really thought or wanted that. To me it seemed like dopamine fasting or other silly trends that news outlets will breathlessly write about but everyone else takes in stride as a kinda minor thing they might do occasionally.

lidavidm
1 replies
13h43m

Oh boy. Hope you never run into a CalorieMate or a jelly squeeze packet. Or the stoveless apartments.

keiferski
0 replies
13h36m

Those are intended for quick meal replacements, not replacements for eating entirely.

And stove less apartments are usually for people that eat out, not people that are trying to replace meals with shakes.

safety1st
0 replies
12h41m

Fortunately this mindset is limited to a vanishingly small number of rootless young men who are lost in the scam of "hustle culture" - they are overrepresented on HN, but they are also mostly alone and childless, so unlikely to pass the mindset to the next generation

dataflow
3 replies
13h42m

How do you feel about most humans no longer farming, hunting, digging or searching for water, fishing, etc.?

keiferski
1 replies
13h29m

I think people would have a better connection to nature if they did these things more often.

But cooking and eating is sort of an umbrella activity for all of those - everyone in the village/tribe/etc. has to eat, and usually they’d come together in one place to do so. Farming or searching for water don’t have the same centralizing social effect.

dataflow
0 replies
13h25m

Thanks, yeah, that's what I was hoping to tease out -- the fact that there's also a social element to it.

bigstrat2003
0 replies
10h29m

I think that everyone should do most, if not all, of those things at some point in their lives. It doesn't have to be an everyday thing. But I think that a lot of people in modern societies are completely unaware of how lucky they are to not have to do those things any more, and would greatly benefit from the perspective.

katzenversteher
1 replies
13h4m

I understand your point but I believe McDonalds and the likes are worse. Sure some people hang out there together, in fact I even have fond memories of getting a Happy Meal with a shitty toys with my little sister but the food has little nutritional value, there is no "love" and the whole "feel good" situation was planned by some corporate guys in an office...

keiferski
0 replies
11h47m

Similar but different issue. McDonald’s is fake industrialized non-nutritional food wearing the mask of classic Americana burger culture. Soylent is saying that culture doesn’t matter, only nutrients do. A bit like Brave New World vs. the goop in The Matrix.

I’m not sure which is worse…

jessriedel
0 replies
13h38m

Humans spent essentially the same number of millennia hunting animals as they did cooking and eating, and it was profoundly integrated into culture.

gosub100
0 replies
5h6m

Cooking is a huge waste of time. Think about the hours wasted toiling in a kitchen, doing dishes, moving little items up and down and setting them here, now there, now wipe up the mess. All for what, so I can sit still for 10 minutes and taste a good thing, then get up and clean up that mess? If I could swap out my stomach for a Lithium Ion battery I would.

batch12
0 replies
6h14m

I enjoy cooking for a few reasons. I tell people it's because it's so different from what I do at work. There's some truth to that. The main reason is because I like doing things that make people happy. There's something very satisfying about cooking a good meal and enjoying it with others.

Aeolun
0 replies
5h24m

You can enjoy Soylent? By yourself or with others? Just because the meal is done in 5 minutes does not mean it’s not enjoyable.

SoftTalker
23 replies
14h35m

If you've already decided on cremation, look for a local Cremation Society. The term you're looking for is "simple cremation" where the deceased is cremated and the ashes returned to you. No ceremonies, no viewing, minimal decisions, minimal expense. Some funeral homes offer this also, they aren't the only option.

The celebration of life at a later date can then be organized when all involved are feeling up to it.

rpmisms
22 replies
14h25m

Cremation makes me sad.

At my little country parish, we do burials in-house, including preparing the body. The friends of the deceased get to grieve by washing them, building their coffin, digging the grave, singing the funeral, lowering them by hand, and burying them.

After doing this, I can't imagine giving the body of a loved one to a funeral director to be burned.

lolinder
8 replies
14h0m

From what you're saying I suspect that what actually makes you sad is the hands-off approach we take to funerals in general, regardless of the approach to the remains. Would you feel differently if cremation were done in the traditional way—on a funeral pyre lit by the grieving loved ones who watch as the body is consumed? And do you feel less sad about people handing off the body to a mortician to be prepared and buried through the more normal processes we use today?

For myself, I'm all for cremation, and I say that as a devout Christian. When I'm dead I don't want my family to make a big deal out of my mortal remains. That's not me, it's a shell that I left behind on my way home. Cremation emphasizes that I've moved on in a way that for me burial just doesn't.

rpmisms
7 replies
13h50m

what actually makes you sad is the hands-off approach we take to funerals in general

That is a component, not the root.

done in the traditional way—on a funeral pyre lit by the grieving loved ones who watch as the body is consumed?

Yes, that would be better. I still don't like cremation, but that is also a true sense of finality and closure. Would stink to high heaven, though.

For myself, I'm all for cremation, and I say that as a devout Christian. When I'm dead I don't want my family to make a big deal out of my mortal remains. That's not me, it's a shell that I left behind on my way home. Cremation emphasizes that I've moved on in a way that for me burial just doesn't.

I am as well, but most traditional Christians do not believe in Ghost in the Shell. The body is an essential part of our being, and does not lose that aspect of our being after death. Cremation was previously only practiced by cultures that believed in a split reality—for example, the Norse pagans and Valhalla.

As Christians, we all believe in the bodily general resurrection and heaven being in "the same place" as we are now (assuming all Christians believe in one of the two forms of the Nicene creed).

Working from there, burial seems more appropriate.

vel0city
2 replies
4h4m

heaven being in "the same place" as we are now

I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

I don't see how this implies heaven being in "the same place" as we are now.

I also don't see how our bodies can be made perfect but only if we don't burn them up first. Seems like a major limitation of God's infinite power if he can take someone that's nothing but bones and make them perfect but someone who is a pile of ash is just too difficult.

rpmisms
1 replies
3h27m

Here's my answer to this from another comment

It's not about what God can or cannot do, it's about treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ. Someone who is burned to death does not die at a disadvantage at the last judgement.
vel0city
0 replies
3h3m

So having care in the process of burning the body and honoring the cremains isn't treating the body with the honor due but putting someone in a pine box and burying them in the dirt to be eaten by worms and "leach corpse juice into a water table" is treating the body with the honor due?

How is burying more honorable than cremation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF6IShnqPY0

MrDrMcCoy
2 replies
13h31m

Another believer with an alternate take on cremation that doesn't require body/spirit duality: God made man from dust, and even without cremation, to dust we shall return. It is really no trouble or extra work for God to raise the dead from scattered dust than it is for a relatively intact body, since that's what most resurrections would require anyway. Besides, when the resurrection occurs, we're getting better bodies anyway, so why worry about what happens to the old one? Intact burials are a tradition (which is totally fine), but not a commandment.

rpmisms
1 replies
13h19m

I did say "Working from there, burial seems more appropriate."

It's not about what God can or cannot do, it's about treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ. Someone who is burned to death does not die at a disadvantage at the last judgement.

Intact burials are a tradition (which is totally fine), but not a commandment.

Correct. I see your point, but lean towards tradition in cases of questions.

vel0city
0 replies
4h2m

treating the body with the honor due as a member of the Body of Christ

Is cremation not being respectful? Burning something to retire it can IMO be very respectful.

lolinder
0 replies
11h33m

assuming all Christians believe in one of the two forms of the Nicene creed

I guess this is where we part ways somewhat—I'm a devout Christian who does not accept the output of the First Council of Nicea as authoritative. I understand it to be a good faith effort to standardize what had already become a very diverse religion, but I don't hold it in higher regard than any other post-apostolic interpretation of divinity.

That said, I'm not sure that Nicea is relevant when it comes to cremation—the Creed itself doesn't have much to say about death and resurrection except that there will be one, which I accept wholeheartedly, but which at the same time doesn't persuade me that the mortal body sown in corruption is something God expects us to feel attached to or to attempt to keep intact after death.

sherry-sherry
3 replies
14h21m

I guess that is yet another thing people can have very different opinions on.

Everything you just mentioned sounds absolutely horrific to me. I would never want my family and friends to do any of that to me, nor would I do it for them.

rpmisms
2 replies
14h16m

Many of us are farmers. We see death plenty. Ignoring it or outsourcing it doesn't make it go away, and I don't believe it's healthy.

Burying my friend was hard. It was sad. I had a constant reminder of my own fate in front of my eyes. It's a deeply human experience, and I think that everyone should go through it.

The death I see in my normal life is much worse. I recently had to put a baby goat down. Can you imagine looking a baby goat who adores you in the eyes, then shooting it between those eyes? That shit hurts deep.

tl;dr: it's life, don't run away from it.

sherry-sherry
1 replies
13h27m

No one is running away from it. Please don't assume your experiences are wildly different from others without any basis for it.

No one is ignoring, outsourcing, or running away from it — the end result is the same, a person has died and people are grieving.

People grieve in different ways, how it's done is often tied to their communities and past practices. I would spend time with the deceased friends and family sharing our memories about them, often over multiple days together.

To me, fiddling around with the body and concerning others about how it's going to be put into the ground seems disrespectful to me — but I understand that's what some people do and that's fine.

P.S. you should put down goats by shooting slightly above the eyes, or to the poll.

rpmisms
0 replies
13h15m

Please don't take what I'm saying as an indictment of anyone. As a human race, we have outsourced death to those who are willing to deal with it, instead of being forced to come to terms with it. I'm saying that's bad.

Of course people grieve in different ways, but closure helps massively with the process.

To me, fiddling around with the body...

You would not like what they do in funeral homes, much less crematoriums. It's more body horror than peaceful laying to rest.

P.S. you should put down goats by shooting slightly above the eyes, or to the poll.

I use 10mm (placement matters less, cavitation causes instant brain-pudding), and was also using a colloquialism.

anothername12
2 replies
14h6m

What’s the washing for?

rpmisms
1 replies
13h48m

Respect, also other preparation at the same time. People begin to leak after being dead for a few hours, have to plug up and close some orifices, make sure the eyes stay closed. Also, hospitals don't do anything after death, and many people defecate upon passing.

romanhn
0 replies
11h11m

While I understand your general point, this right here is one of the reasons why I'd strongly prefer cremation for myself. Knowingly subjecting friends and family to this feels... selfish, and probably traumatic for them to boot.

SoftTalker
1 replies
14h15m

I don't find it sad but your tradition sounds nice too. In the US, like most everything else, there are way too many rules and regulations and official processes around the simple, human experience of death.

rpmisms
0 replies
14h13m

I'm in the US—Tennessee, specifically. There are far fewer rules than you might think. Most of the rules that do exist apply only to funeral homes.

If you want to be buried on your land, for example, you have to check with the county office to make sure you're not going to leach corpse juice into a water table, and so that future people know not to build on your grave. That's it.

rottencupcakes
0 replies
14h20m

All you get to decide is where in the cycle you want to deposit their carbon.

It doesn’t really matter either way. Whatever helps you grieve is the best way.

janosett
0 replies
14h20m

I think it’s reasonable not everyone feels the same way about this. I’d prefer for my body not to be washed nor placed in a coffin.

dredmorbius
0 replies
1h44m

Different strokes, as they say, and the immense variety of funerary traditions, modern and traditional, strongly argues against attempting to paint ones own personal or community tradition against others. Amongst other concerns, this seems to increase the friction and pain of what's already an especially difficult experience for many.

KittenInABox
0 replies
14h18m

I think it all depends. My family is very dispersed. Many would need to get visas just to attend my funeral if I die here, and spend thousands on airplane fees on short notice. I would love to be burned and my ashes distributed among my family instead. Give each one a little necklace or ring or something with a piece of me, and give me adventure after my spirit has passed.

vinnyvichy
20 replies
13h40m

Thank you, Jake! ---and your family--- for your links and work that highlight the importance of clinical trials for mRNA tumor vaccines! Will keep posting to HN her articles when they come out.

https://archive.ph/bessstillman.substack.com

(Archive listing jseliger's wife Bess Stillman on clinical trials (including how to navigate them as patients) as well as comments)

Suggestions for concrete directions that have been mentioned, that are worth highlighting, in order of importance:

0) assume good faith

1) promote (& improve) Right-to-Try

https://www.fda.gov/media/133864/download#:~:text=Right%20to....

2) donate to (or even joining!) HN-adjacent Arc Institute (mRNA translational research)

3) sue the FDA for clinical trials, in general. This is not a call to attack on the FDA, but perhaps the best way, to improve processes, that is available to citizens.

Here's one case https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/10/xocova-en...

A_D_E_P_T
16 replies
9h3m

This is not a call to attack on the FDA

At this point, I honestly think that we'd be much better off without an FDA at all.

It costs >$2B to develop a drug. Most of this is on account of efficacy testing -- phases 2 and 3 of the drug development process -- which are nearly impossible to run. And when drugs exhibit poor or nil efficacy, the FDA sometimes approves them anyway, making the entire process unprincipled. See, e.g., flibanserin, aduhelm, and others.

The result is total regulatory capture. If you're a small firm -- a biotech startup -- you quite literally can't introduce a new drug to the market. Your only hope is to push it through preclinical trials and then partner with -- or get bought out by -- a large "prime" like Pfizer which specializes in regulatory compliance and has the deep pockets required.

Back in the 1940s and 1950s, there were lots of small firms that competed in drug development. Syntex, for instance. That was a period the industry still calls "The Golden Age of Drug Development," and it would be utterly impossible to recreate today.

All of this is without even going into the bureaucratic hurdles which delay new treatments from reaching patients, the chilling effect that the red tape has on pharmaceutical R&D, the way they gatekeep generics, and I could go on all day. It's not just a bad system, it might be among the worst systems possible, as it concentrates all power and all wealth in the hands of a few -- and the patients are the ones who suffer for it.

Palomides
8 replies
6h23m

it's very bureaucratic, but I'm curious what phases of the process you think we can skip? was the golden age entirely due to lack of procedural burden, or just low hanging fruit?

I agree that it's all a miserable mess, for sure, the solutions are just unclear to me; the relationship between the public and those developing drugs is increasingly hostile due to the need for blockbuster hits and really questionable effect sizes that get pushed due to sunk costs

A_D_E_P_T
6 replies
5h57m

Efficacy testing -- those phases 2 and 3 -- are entirely unnecessary. They didn't exist prior to 1962's Thalidomide backlash, ironically despite the fact that Thalidomide failed safety testing in the US and was not approved for use.

So it's simple: After phase 1 safety testing, allow drugs to be marketed, but mandate postmarketing surveillance for a period of 5 years to try and tease out real-world safety, efficacy, and drug interactions. This would ultimately result in a better and safer system, as quite a lot of drugs have problems that aren't revealed in phases 2/3 anyway. (e.g. rosiglitazone.)

This simple fix would not only speed up drug development, it would also make drug development a lot cheaper. Compared to the current paradigm, it would heavily incentivize R&D, and bright young minds might see the development of therapeutics as something potentially rewarding. Whereas, today, nobody in their right mind wants to get into pharmaceutical development when they could be making much more money, with much less red tape, in tech.

Palomides
5 replies
5h1m

how would someone under such a system decide to take a drug or not? what information would they have?

JackFr
3 replies
4h32m

Insurance companies would decide.

Raise your hand if you think that would be better.

wins32767
0 replies
4h21m

The largest single payer in the US is the Federal government. Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, the VA... The problem won't be fixed for the vast majority of expenditures because the government will need to perform the same function the FDA is now for it's drug costs.

djbusby
0 replies
3h27m

That's what USA has now. It sucks.

A_D_E_P_T
0 replies
4h19m

Maybe. But cheaper drug development should also make for cheaper drugs, which will weaken the stranglehold the insurance companies have on drug supply and distribution.

A_D_E_P_T
0 replies
4h21m

Physicians' associations, such as the American Heart Association, can issue treatment guidelines based on available clinical evidence, real-world data, and expert consensus. They already do this anyway, and in most cases their guidelines are the default prescription.

Also: Postmarketing surveillance data, peer-reviewed journals, mechanistic analysis, etc. There are lots of ways to decide which drugs might be of benefit. Leaving the decision to the FDA has, to this point, done far more harm than good.

yawnxyz
5 replies
3h33m

I'm drug discovery and the FDA absolutely _does_ keep all the crazies in check.

Many people died during that golden age, and don't forget that the same golden age produced many of the problems we're drowning in / trying to fix today (PFAS, etc.)

A_D_E_P_T
1 replies
3h5m

Many people died during that golden age

I've written about this before. Basically, the FDA's position is that it's better for 10,000 patients to die of neglect than have 1 patient die of quackery.

Drug development is in shambles because the FDA requires >99.99% confidence that pharmaceutical companies are not selling quack cures. Do we need that level of confidence? Especially for cancer, is that degree of confidence warranted? Is the process efficient?

There's legitimate fear of quack medicine -- and then there's whatever the FDA is gripped by, which seems to me a lot like insanity.

PFAS

Not exactly something that goes through the usual drug approval process. What other problems come to mind?

ansible
0 replies
2h45m

There's a lot of quackery around these days, especially with regard to tech and finance.

There's quite of bit of quackery just with nutritional supplements, too. And people and companies try to bypass the FDA all the time with fake cures, the COVID-19 epidemic was just the latest version of that.

The FDA is over-zealous with their testing requirements. However, without them we will see an explosion of fake cures for everything. The legitimate pharma companies will lose money, or otherwise start cutting a lot of corners in the pursuit of profit.

We need something like the FDA to keep things in check.

vinnyvichy
0 replies
2h59m

I tried to upvote both of you to keep this civil.. I think there are important points to consider on both sides -- and I find this repartee between you and A_D_E_P_T most informed!

it might take some time to reconcile your points though, some moderate data might help, what do I know, being peripheral to drug-development..

snikeris
0 replies
2h56m

I don’t think they’ve kept all the crazies in check. Most pain and anxiety “medicines” are harmful. People are dying today due to drugs the FDA has deemed safe.

dredmorbius
0 replies
1h47m

It's not just about the nutjobs in the past. There are plenty of modern nutjobs, and one of the shit-on-shit sandwiches that is fuck cancer is getting (at best) the clueless to (at worst) psychopathic opportunists peddling quack cures, all this at a time when the patient and/or caregivers may be willing to grasp at any straw, no matter how slender, offering hope of a cure, or even a few more good days.

I'd run interference on this some years ago, before the emergence of the public Internet / WWW, and ... it was already bad enough. Whilst online fora are often praised as being of tremendous benefit to patients and caregivers of chronic or terminal conditions, increasingly they're overrun by that same set of dramatis personae, and it absolutely, absolutely boils my blood.

There are criticisms to be made of the FDA and Pharma, but for the most part those engaged are largely subject to poor incentives rather than outright fraud and opportunism.

One of the tremendous values of jseliger's account is his exploration of alternatives, and candid commentary (especially recently) of how even what does work for a while can stop working.

Cancer is a complex set of phenomena which share a common symptom: unconstrained "crab" growth (the tendrils which spread outward from tumors). In German, "cancer" is literally "krebs", that is "crabs" (which of course has its own confusing connotations in direct translation to English). What's coming to be appreciated is that each individual cancer case is ultimately its own evolving community which adapts to, and often overwhelms, the treatments and countermeasures deployed against it. That said, there are cancers which are remarkably amenable to treatment, and are wholly curable. Others not so much. Details in this case matter immensely.

vinnyvichy
0 replies
8h39m

I hear you..

vinnyvichy
2 replies
8h30m

Sorry to be presumptuous, dang, but lifes are at stake..

I'll take responsibility until we all have time to think about forum mechanism redesign

I know it's a tough job, I have thought about applying myself..

vinnyvichy
1 replies
4h27m

I wish to delete this above comment , but I cannot. I am sorry!

dredmorbius
0 replies
2h0m

Email such requests to the mods at hn@ycombinator.com.

Include the URLs or item IDs of the items you wish addressed or deleted. The above comment is ID 41170978.

Putting that in the subject or body of your email greatly facilitates mod actions.

(Mods doing cleanup: you're welcome to delete this comment as well when addressing this thread.)

torlok
12 replies
9h41m

Both of us lacked the emotional maturity to form deep, meaningful relationships with other people.

Jake loves his plug-in induction stovetop, and thinks it worthwhile despite its cost.

These are Amazon affiliate links to random crap in the middle of a blog about a brother dying to cancer about to leave a pregnant wife. What is happening here.

komali2
3 replies
7h37m

Several funeral homes that had good reviews online. The folks on the other end of the line seemed nice. They said the right things, which makes sense because they’ve got a sales funnel. And then they asked for a credit card. I get that funeral homes are businesses that need to make money, just as most of us do. It still feels callous and transactional. Send me an agreement, or something. I’ll DocuSign it. You’ll get your money.

Like he writes, that's just the world we live in. I always wonder at why certain realities under capitalism trigger our innate disgust and not others - is it just overton window? I agree that it's gross to have affiliate links on a blog about a dying brother, just like I think it's gross that funerals can cost damn near as much as weddings, and he's right, at every step of the way people are asking you for money at really shitty times, because you're one of 20 funerals the given vendor is dealing with and they're running a business.

I also think it's really gross that the majority of people money to a stranger every month for the right to live in their home, for years, decades even, but most people don't find that gross in the same way. Most people also don't find it gross that you have to pay to have children, pay a fee to activate the coax into your house to make it actually be able to connect to the internet, pay to be able to receive data on a very busy electromagnetic spectrum all around us, pay to have your kids eat at school, pay to get onto a train full of a thousand other people, etc. Why are some things gross and not others? Was there friction as certain things started costing cash that didn't before?

myth_drannon
2 replies
4h3m

Under communism you let the government take care of things, but still in the end, it's the people you have to deal with. So even for a funeral, you will have to talk your way in, use your connections or bribe for better something... It is still transactional, just a different type of transaction. I always felt that life in Israeli Kibutz(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) is how I wanted the society to work, but it just doesn't scale and even that way of life is going away under the pressure of the society from outside.

komali2
1 replies
3h31m

I'm a little confused by your comment, because I also admire the Kibutz method, however it's widely regarded as communistic (some interchangeably call it "socialist") so I'm not clear at the implied contrast to the other communism system where you need to bribe officials for a good funeral. Can you help me understand better what you mean?

myth_drannon
0 replies
2h55m

I don't see Kibutz as socialist or communist even if some ideas are similar. As I wrote the scale is very different. Kibutz is communal, like a large family. You can't have transactional relationships with family members. Also, you are not forced to be a part of it, you can leave any time. So if I compare it to a communist farm like Kolhoz where the former serfs still were enslaved by the government. So there is a certain difference in the personality of someone who lived and worked in Kolhoz (alienation) and Kibutz (open and not competitive/selfish). I'm saying this as someone who had family members in Kolhoz and knew a lot of Kibutz-born people and also worked in Kibutz(which was privatized).

Of course, I'm also generalizing a lot.

fragmede
2 replies
9h29m

what's happening here is that cancer is expensive to treat, even with insurance.

handsclean
1 replies
9h13m

Doubt that’s it, they would make more disclosing the affiliate links as a way to donate or requesting donations directly. I’d guess it’s just normal for them, or maybe inserted automatically, or maybe somebody was amused by it.

sgseliger
0 replies
1h48m

There was no malicious intent - this is Sam. Jake simply likes that cooking device, so he put a link to it when he edited my essay. He makes almost no money from his website.

uwagar
0 replies
8h46m

is the whole thing true or not?

pcranaway
0 replies
9h19m

I also noticed that.

Then I remembered: this is just a free and open blog of a very talented writer. I assume this is not his only income, but I think it's justifiable.

nickburns
0 replies
8h14m

"Bizarrely, it’s apparently now required by the FTC for me to write, somewhere “As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.” So those links to books include Amazon referral tags, which you probably already know if you care about that sort of thing."

https://jakeseliger.com/about/

akira2501
0 replies
8h31m

What is happening here.

Wordpress Plugins.

CPLX
0 replies
8h18m

It’s almost certainly an automated tool that is installed in the whole blog.

tonyb
7 replies
5h10m

Damn - this + the hospice piece really hits home.

My dad is rapidly loosing his battle with ALS. He has always loved to cut grass. He has very limited mobility (in some ways he is lucky, most people with late stage ALS are basically paralyzed. His progression is respiratory focuses so he is loosing the ability to breath faster than the ability to walk) but with some assistance has still been able to use my zero turn mower and get a little joy out of cutting my grass.

Just this Sunday he reached the point where he can't cut anymore...I guess he is out of salt :'(

shrimp_emoji
5 replies
2h45m

Imagine loving to cut grass. Is that much being lost here?

It's the plant equivalent of cleaning kitty litter!

Don't look at me like that; I'm just saying!

xeromal
0 replies
2h42m

He didn't lose the ability to cut grass. He lost the ability to decide to cut grass. He lost his autonomy and that can be worse than death

throwanem
0 replies
1h53m

I am looking at you like that, because you're speaking without first having thought at all.

Imagine the thing you love most in all the world to do. Imagine losing that - as, some day, you certainly will. Then, if you still feel like it, try again.

stevenbrianhall
0 replies
2h43m

Seems like this should be obvious, but it's not about the grass. It's about the loss of agency.

saghm
0 replies
2h13m

Sure, I don't love cleaning kitty litter, but if I lost the ability to clean it, and I didn't have the ability to have someone else live-in and clean it for me, I wouldn't be able to have a cat, and that would be _immensely_ saddening to me. The same goes for a cutting a lawn; not being able to cut your own lawn means potentially not getting to enjoy _having_ a lawn, given that part of the enjoyment is presumably in actually getting to spend time in it, take care of it, etc.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the loss of routine can itself be jarring, and of course all of the sibling comments explaining that the real loss is agency. That said, I think it's worth realizing that even though you and I aren't in the group of people who particularly enjoy chores (and those people do exist!), the reason they exist at all is because they do actually accomplish something useful, and not being able to perform them means either losing those benefits or having to rely on the goodwill of others to take care of them for you. Given that the "others" tend to be those closest to you that you care most about, is it really that hard to imagine that someone might feel like they're burdening their loved ones rather than reveling in the "freedom" that comes from not being physically capable of mowing their own lawn?

munificent
0 replies
1h54m

Arguably, the absolute most human, personal thing we can ever do is choose which things do and do not provide meaning to us. There is no deeper, more inalienable agency than that.

stevenbrianhall
0 replies
2h47m

I guess he is out of salt :'(

Ouch, this one hurts. I lost my Dad to pancreatic cancer last year and had a very similar experience - he loved jumping on the tractor and cutting the grass on his little farm, but we went so quickly from him asking me do it temporarily while he recovered from surgery to him never getting on the tractor again.

So sorry for what you're going through, and wishing you some peace wherever you can find it. My email is in my bio, please reach out if you need someone to talk to (I have no useful expertise or advice of any kind here, but will gladly lend a listening ear).

Sl1mb0
4 replies
13h35m

I have a little brother. And while I would say we are close, I always wonder how he feels about me. I was not nice to him growing up, and it created a lot of resentment. One day I apologized to him about it, and I remember him seeing tear up out of the corner of my eye.

The day that I think changed our relationship we went on a hike together. While we were driving there he had a bunch of anxiety about it, and wanted to back out. I managed to convince him to come with me and just let all his feelings out; he just yelled at me the entire drive there about a lot of different things. Including my treatment of him.

That hike to this day was the best I've ever been on. Everybody has a different relationship with their brother, but I genuinely do not and cannot imagine this existence without mine. He understands me in ways that nobody else does. He gets my jokes that nobody else does. Having a brother you are close with just _almost_ proves you don't die alone.

polishdude20
3 replies
13h24m

I've got a younger sister with whom I've had a great relationship for most of my life with. She gets my jokes like nobody else just as your brother gets yours. She's been the first person I've tried to make laugh. Even now when we hang out, she's my favorite "audience" member to be silly around. Luckily, we live right across the street from eachother and see eachother multiple times a week.

I hope your last sentence resonates with her as it does with us!

nozzlegear
0 replies
4h43m

My wife and I bought a house across the street from my sister in 2016. I was really reluctant to do it, to be honest; I thought I was getting myself into an Everybody Loves Raymond situation where she'd be popping into our home uninvited all the time. But she moved away a few years ago, and we miss seeing her every day. We miss my little niece and nephew running around outside screaming, or running across the street to tell us about a toad they found or something their dad is doing. We even miss her annoying little dogs constantly getting off their chains so they could run across the street and into our backyard where our dogs would go ballistic.

katzenversteher
0 replies
13h9m

Luckily I'm in the same situation with my younger sister. Unfortunately she lives several hundred kilometers from me but we are in contact regularly and sometimes we even go on vacation together.

Aeolun
0 replies
5h26m

Luckily, we live right across the street from eachother and see eachother multiple times a week.

Thanks, I needed to read something positive after that blog post.

jpgvm
2 replies
14h48m

Man. As someone who also expresses love through food that hit way fucking harder than I was expecting.

RIP Jake. May heaven have the most extravagant spice cabinet waiting for you.

aaron695
1 replies
13h47m

RIP Jake.

I don't believe from reading the article, this is correct at this point in time.

aziaziazi
0 replies
11h40m

This is something you can say before the moment, at least where I live. Read it as "when times come I wish you will RIP"

vinnyvichy
0 replies
2h36m

Thank you, Jake! ---and your family--- for your links and work that highlight the importance of clinical trials for mRNA tumor vaccines! I will post your wife's work to HN when it comes out. https://archive.ph/bessstillman.substack.com

(Archive listing jseliger's wife Bess Stillman on clinical trials (including how to navigate them as patients) as well as comments)

Suggestions for concrete directions that have been mentioned, that are worth highlighting, in order of importance:

0) assume good faith

1) promote (& improve) Right-to-Try

https://www.fda.gov/media/133864/download#:~:text=Right%20to....

2) donate to (or even joining!) HN-adjacent Arc Institute (for mRNA translational research)

3) sue the FDA for clinical trials, in general. This is NOT a call to attack the FDA, but perhaps the best way, to improve processes, that is available to citizens.

Here's one case https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/10/xocova-en...

yinser
0 replies
14h47m

If life is a river and your heart is a boat

And just like a water baby, baby born to float

And if life is a wild wind that blows way on high

Then your heart is Amelia dying to fly

Heaven knows no frontiers

And I've seen heaven in your eyes - Mary Black

yard2010
0 replies
11h8m

Sorry for being angry but this is fucking sucks. It's not fair in any way. I'm speechless besides that. This is a nightmare.

Sending all the love I can to you Jake Bess and family. I wish somehow I could do anything to change this or make you feel better.

unethical_ban
0 replies
14h53m

That small thing that reveals a bigger truth. I had to check myself so I wouldn't tear up at the bar.

solveit
0 replies
14h34m

Rest in peace.

rpmisms
0 replies
14h24m

This is written in focus mode. Once you're out of that, remember to grieve. So, so important. I can't imagine my brother dying, love and prayers to you and his family.

renewiltord
0 replies
12h29m

Ah fuck, mate. It’s his brother. Very poignant.

Jake Seliger’s posts have been great in detailing the process he’s taken to fight the disease. I am grateful for his work.

red_admiral
0 replies
10h12m

I have learned much, experienced much, made many mistakes, enjoyed my triumphs, suffered my defeats, and, most vitally, experienced love.

At the end of the day, what more can we wish for in a human life than this?

lrivers
0 replies
2h30m

Crying at work from reading something on HN was not on my bingo card. Godspeed Jake

kstrauser
0 replies
3h12m

Last week we lost our Boston terrier. A chronic illness turned acute. What I thought was a routine trip to the vet turned into The Talk.

I held our little girl as the vet helped her go to sleep and told her: “It’s ok. You can rest now. We love you so much, but you don’t have to fight for us anymore. Lay down and sleep. It won’t hurt anymore.”

I’m glad Jake is surrounded by people who love him. I’m sure they’re telling him the same things. And I’m also sure it’s harder for them to let go of their beloved husband and brother than it will be for him to close his eyes and finally rest.

Sending much love his way, and also theirs.

dvt
0 replies
12h14m

I, like many others here on HN, have been following Jake Seliger’s difficult road for the past few years. Thankfully from afar, as I can't imagine what he (or his family) must be going through. But getting email updates, seeing his blog pop up on here every now and then, it's become comforting and familiar, and a symbol of hope: that he's still kicking.

I really hope his wife (or brother, or both) will continue writing after he moves on.

domano
0 replies
9h52m

A bit over a year ago I lost a dear friend, while his girlfriend was pregnant.

The feeling of seeing something the person will never use again is soul wrenching. I wept when I read the line "No salt. No salt means that he’s not cooking. He’ll never cook again."

The child is a ray of light for me whenever I see it, I hope the family can find a little comfort in this piece of him that will be brought into the world.

I have followed this story for a while now and wish the family a brighter path in the future. Thank you for focussing my thoughts on what is important, instead of the daily tech grind.

chrisbrandow
0 replies
12h42m

Beautiful

bravura
0 replies
13h7m

I read this to the end, and was presently surprised that the takehome wasn't: "Don't use salt, it gave my friend cancer."

Yossarrian22
0 replies
14h16m

I'll put a little legitimate saffron in a dish this month, in Jake's memory.

NeutralForest
0 replies
9h22m

I'll keep reading all those updates until the last. Thank you.

JohnMakin
0 replies
2h13m

Man, the part about the credit card at the funeral home hit me really hard.

When I was 20, I witnessed my dad collapse in front of me as the result of years-long battle with heart disease, failed to help him with CPR, and saw him "officially" die in front of my eyes at a hospital 30 minutes later.

Barely hours later I am in a funeral home trying to make arrangements for a cremation because he had no will, assets, or last wishes, and yea, that transactional vibe hit really hard - they were feigning empathy, but I was 20, broke, just suffered a pretty traumatic event and was in quite a vulnerable state. It felt disgusting that they were trying to "upsell" me on services and every step of the process felt designed to wring every single dime that I had out of me. Luckily I didn't have much to give at that time or I probably would have.

Diederich
0 replies
14h51m

This is...hard but important.