Sorry but this just seems crazy, unless its some meta thing where you accept your societies default of considering fluorination a reasonable thing to do.
Firstly, I think youre really underestimating the difficulty of opting out. The basic problem is that if you consumed too little fluoride somewhere, you can easily make up for it by supplementing, but if you consumed too much, thats kind of it. And water is in lots of things. So you have on the one hand, swallowing or dissolving a tablet sometimes (or realistically, just brushing your teeth, because theres no benefit to fluoride if youre already getting it from toothpaste), and on the other hand, insane levels of off-griding.
Secondly, while we do manage all sorts contents in water, I dont think thats a good reason to add fluoride. The rationale used here, "We think this is an effective medication that everyone should be on" is in fact very different from how those decisions are made so far. Do note that vaccines that are far more beneficial than fluoride are not mandatory, and *far* easier to avoid - Youre setting up a system where how much pressure we apply in favour of something is basically unrelated to how good it is, and depends only on technical details.
Thirdly, something that noone thinks about either way is not a good default. A good default is one you dont have to think about, but would have to if it were different. If noone thinks about it, you have to make up your own criteria for deciding what the right default is - but this decision draws no legitimacy from the silent majority.
Sorry, I don't think this is compelling. Given that we have to modify the fluoride content regardless (since default levels of fluoride are variable and often high enough to be problematic) the entire debate is about what the default should be. On the merits, fluoridation is obviously net positive, in the extremes where it may be harmful it's only to a subset of the population, and even so it's all regulated at the local level anyway.
The libertarian argument is as a result pretty weak. A principled libertarian would just say "let the water be what it is", but that's not what you're saying. You're saying "the state should intervene, but how I want it" -- you want the state to carry the burden of your preferences instead of having to pay for it, instead of the status quo where people who want fluoride get their preferences for free. If you personally are convinced you're getting too much water in the supply you can always choose not to brush your teeth!
More generally, I think you're absolutely right that because no one thinks about it, there _is_ no silent majority, and you have to make your decision criteria on some other things. The public health official needs to make a decision somewhere. That doesn't mean that you can't come up with good defaults. In fact, you point to one with vaccines. I think the same applies here -- the status quo is very well justified, even though cranks like RFK disagree.
This isnt about what I want for myself. I live in europe without fluoridated water, and do brush my teeth.
Im also not making a libertarian argument about leaving the water as it is - if anything, you over-index on that. Your argument that we do some modifications, therefore we should do any modification which seems good, is just that libertarian argument applied the other direction. Usual modifications make water better in a "local" sense, fluoride is just tagging on to the distribution system. Consider: ~noone would buy bottled fluroinated water - youd just buy the tablets separately if you were interested in that. This is not true of of other modifications. Creating these entanglements with an extremely basic product like water is just a bad idea.
Since I suspect the response to this is just more ignoring and repeating "but consequentialism", consider as an analogy: theres a difference between "saying things which cause others to have true beliefs" and "being honest", and similarly theres a difference between "improving public health on net" and [unnamed concept here]. Do you believe in both cases, that theres no value in the second one?
[~no one would buy fluoridated bottled water] -- is your opinion that this is the case because lots of people really care? Or because most people don't know?
I think you're operating from some generalized principle that I don't really get. You say "creating entanglements is a really bad idea" but I don't get, a priori, why that would be the case. The best reason I can come up with is, essentially, the libertarian argument that says something roughly like "people should be allowed to choose what happens to them and these entanglements make that harder to do". Is that a correct understanding?
I don't really get the last thing you mentioned. The analogy didn't help clarify things for me, unfortunately
Here's a few other examples of "entanglements", and I'm curious how you feel about them
- iodized salt to prevent goiter
- fortified grains to combat micronutrient deficiencies
- clean energy transitions using the existing electric grid
- emergency alert systems piggybacked on cell networks
In each of these cases I can imagine or know someone who has a principled stance against having to interact with any of these systems. And yet, the societal default should definitely not be set based on that person.
>is your opinion that this is the case because lots of people really care? Or because most people don't know?
No, I mean even people who do want more fluoride wouldnt buy fluorinated bottled water, because theres no reason to put the fluoride into water specifically other than getting to use the grid. Theyd buy tablets or powder, which are way easier to deal with than bottled water.
>You say "creating entanglements is a really bad idea" but I don't get, a priori, why that would be the case
Water is a lot more than just that liquid that comes out of the tap. Its fundamental to life and an input to all sorts of production processes. There already is a default of what water is, long before you start thinking about optimal drinking water, and making this extremely difficult to get is a bad idea. Even if it doesnt seem like the fluoride causes problems with any of this other stuff, letting one "department" make a change like this is just asking for trouble.
>iodized salt to prevent goiter
A much better solution to a similar problem. Here you can target the iodine to specific consumer products, instead of affecting all of salt. Actually, Im seeing a good bit of fluorinated salt these days as well, but thats never going to come up in these discussions because pro-fluor people apparently have nothing better to do than bash conspiracy theorists.
>fortified grains to combat micronutrient deficiencies
Dont know enough to have an opinion.
>clean energy transitions using the existing electric grid
I dont see the entanglement there - power is literally identical no matter its source.
>emergency alert systems piggybacked on cell networks
You mean those things where your phone rings no matter your settings? Thats entangling the phone, rather than the network, and also occurs close to the endconsumer.
>I don't really get the last thing you mentioned. The analogy didn't help clarify things for me, unfortunately
Which part dont you get? The difference between casuing true beliefs and honesty, the analogous version for health, or the application to this case?
Sorry but this just seems crazy, unless its some meta thing where you accept your societies default of considering fluorination a reasonable thing to do.
Firstly, I think youre really underestimating the difficulty of opting out. The basic problem is that if you consumed too little fluoride somewhere, you can easily make up for it by supplementing, but if you consumed too much, thats kind of it. And water is in lots of things. So you have on the one hand, swallowing or dissolving a tablet sometimes (or realistically, just brushing your teeth, because theres no benefit to fluoride if youre already getting it from toothpaste), and on the other hand, insane levels of off-griding.
Secondly, while we do manage all sorts contents in water, I dont think thats a good reason to add fluoride. The rationale used here, "We think this is an effective medication that everyone should be on" is in fact very different from how those decisions are made so far. Do note that vaccines that are far more beneficial than fluoride are not mandatory, and *far* easier to avoid - Youre setting up a system where how much pressure we apply in favour of something is basically unrelated to how good it is, and depends only on technical details.
Thirdly, something that noone thinks about either way is not a good default. A good default is one you dont have to think about, but would have to if it were different. If noone thinks about it, you have to make up your own criteria for deciding what the right default is - but this decision draws no legitimacy from the silent majority.
Sorry, I don't think this is compelling. Given that we have to modify the fluoride content regardless (since default levels of fluoride are variable and often high enough to be problematic) the entire debate is about what the default should be. On the merits, fluoridation is obviously net positive, in the extremes where it may be harmful it's only to a subset of the population, and even so it's all regulated at the local level anyway.
The libertarian argument is as a result pretty weak. A principled libertarian would just say "let the water be what it is", but that's not what you're saying. You're saying "the state should intervene, but how I want it" -- you want the state to carry the burden of your preferences instead of having to pay for it, instead of the status quo where people who want fluoride get their preferences for free. If you personally are convinced you're getting too much water in the supply you can always choose not to brush your teeth!
More generally, I think you're absolutely right that because no one thinks about it, there _is_ no silent majority, and you have to make your decision criteria on some other things. The public health official needs to make a decision somewhere. That doesn't mean that you can't come up with good defaults. In fact, you point to one with vaccines. I think the same applies here -- the status quo is very well justified, even though cranks like RFK disagree.
This isnt about what I want for myself. I live in europe without fluoridated water, and do brush my teeth.
Im also not making a libertarian argument about leaving the water as it is - if anything, you over-index on that. Your argument that we do some modifications, therefore we should do any modification which seems good, is just that libertarian argument applied the other direction. Usual modifications make water better in a "local" sense, fluoride is just tagging on to the distribution system. Consider: ~noone would buy bottled fluroinated water - youd just buy the tablets separately if you were interested in that. This is not true of of other modifications. Creating these entanglements with an extremely basic product like water is just a bad idea.
Since I suspect the response to this is just more ignoring and repeating "but consequentialism", consider as an analogy: theres a difference between "saying things which cause others to have true beliefs" and "being honest", and similarly theres a difference between "improving public health on net" and [unnamed concept here]. Do you believe in both cases, that theres no value in the second one?
A few fact finding questions.
[~no one would buy fluoridated bottled water] -- is your opinion that this is the case because lots of people really care? Or because most people don't know?
I think you're operating from some generalized principle that I don't really get. You say "creating entanglements is a really bad idea" but I don't get, a priori, why that would be the case. The best reason I can come up with is, essentially, the libertarian argument that says something roughly like "people should be allowed to choose what happens to them and these entanglements make that harder to do". Is that a correct understanding?
I don't really get the last thing you mentioned. The analogy didn't help clarify things for me, unfortunately
Here's a few other examples of "entanglements", and I'm curious how you feel about them
- iodized salt to prevent goiter
- fortified grains to combat micronutrient deficiencies
- clean energy transitions using the existing electric grid
- emergency alert systems piggybacked on cell networks
In each of these cases I can imagine or know someone who has a principled stance against having to interact with any of these systems. And yet, the societal default should definitely not be set based on that person.
>is your opinion that this is the case because lots of people really care? Or because most people don't know?
No, I mean even people who do want more fluoride wouldnt buy fluorinated bottled water, because theres no reason to put the fluoride into water specifically other than getting to use the grid. Theyd buy tablets or powder, which are way easier to deal with than bottled water.
>You say "creating entanglements is a really bad idea" but I don't get, a priori, why that would be the case
Water is a lot more than just that liquid that comes out of the tap. Its fundamental to life and an input to all sorts of production processes. There already is a default of what water is, long before you start thinking about optimal drinking water, and making this extremely difficult to get is a bad idea. Even if it doesnt seem like the fluoride causes problems with any of this other stuff, letting one "department" make a change like this is just asking for trouble.
>iodized salt to prevent goiter
A much better solution to a similar problem. Here you can target the iodine to specific consumer products, instead of affecting all of salt. Actually, Im seeing a good bit of fluorinated salt these days as well, but thats never going to come up in these discussions because pro-fluor people apparently have nothing better to do than bash conspiracy theorists.
>fortified grains to combat micronutrient deficiencies
Dont know enough to have an opinion.
>clean energy transitions using the existing electric grid
I dont see the entanglement there - power is literally identical no matter its source.
>emergency alert systems piggybacked on cell networks
You mean those things where your phone rings no matter your settings? Thats entangling the phone, rather than the network, and also occurs close to the endconsumer.
>I don't really get the last thing you mentioned. The analogy didn't help clarify things for me, unfortunately
Which part dont you get? The difference between casuing true beliefs and honesty, the analogous version for health, or the application to this case?