RE: How Capitalism Holds Back Medical & Food Industry
capitalism is like tumour
capitalism holds back [...] industries
I disagree with the characterization. Capitalism, allowed freedom without government influence to skew competition, would be responsible for progressing the given market.
I personally believe that there are far fewer malicious health companies and far more overenthusiastic consumers unaware of how to effectively evaluate claims. I believe that people who create products like essential oils that pose no scientific evidence of benefit believe they are helping people's lives because those people believe in the products. Until we accept scientific evidence as our best indicators for how to get the outcomes we want as a global society, we will stumble over pseudoscience and likely continue to harm one another, regardless of intent.
Your opinion. We both can agree that capitalism is for progress at IT, electronics, architecture etc.
As for essential oils, there is probably less scientific evidence, but there is some. There is also a lot of evidence, which is not scientific, but proves their effectiveness nevertheless.
Competition among companies also enforces some progress.
But there is still that dark side, where only ill person brings income. It goes without mentioning arm factories again.
...
We can argue quantity. The problem I see is a system, which allows the companies like that (like Nestle) survive. It doesn't mean I would prefer socialism. Rather, we need to fix the capitalism.
So the question is how do we banish the malicious companies without hitting the good ones?
Correct, entirely my opinion.
Replicated scientific evidence is agreed to be the highest form. While anecdotal evidence is often a good reason to explore something further, society has the tendency to "believe" something works because it did for someone else. This is a dangerous precedent for approaching something relating with health.
But I encourage you to reconsider this idea that health companies want sick people so they can make money. The "health"industry was created by people who likely wanted to help sick people. People will always get sick, our society doesn't work on sharing accurate base knowledge (pointing to duplicated scientific results) and can not only fail to help, but they can harm too, when they are overzealous about a new anecdotally supported treatment.
As far as what can be done to provide damage to a given company? We stop giving it money. With proper education, consumers could assess the benefit of a given company/product and if it violates trust, the community moves away from it. It is interventions in free markets that allow for large corporations like nestle to choke out competition.
You have a point. These businessman may not understand they need to recommend a proper nutrition. Nobody tells doctors this fact either (which is changing though).
But as I previously stated, only quantity can be argued. Actions speak for companies. And there are many actions, which compel me to belive, some of them are evil. If it means 10% or 30% of the big ones doesn't matter. For small companies, the percent will be lower.
...
By actions I mean just for example denying of correlation of diet and acne, ignoring the trend of natural medicine, which is mainly by food and probably an attempt for making supplements on-prescription, although they are completely safe.
This ignoring may be due to not-knowing or never trying too, but I doubt nobody knows any facts. Progress is too slow.
...
We need more open-minded people to speed up progress by making science a common knowledge :)
As long as scientific evidence is being utilized to progress, we will be working a maximum efficiency. We are, unfortunately, afflicted with pleas to faith as a society that cause people to reject science for something else they really, truly believe in, which suddenly negates hard facts in front of their face.
Blaming the system by which people are most efficiently able to ensure people who contribute may pursue their own happiness does not progress our global society. Free markets, with their upholding of a non-alienation principle, can be argued as the "moral" economic system.
I very much appreciate your thoughful replies; this depth of exchange with global community members is what I was seeking with my participation on the platform. I have followed and would enjoy discussing more topics with you.