This is like saying that driving doesn't work because people still walk and the real problem is transportation. It simply doesn't matter. It's not an argument.
I'm pointing out the problems of considering this a valid on term "solution." It's simply not. You need a plan to eventually be rid of this compromise.
That GLP-1 has benefits is good. That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
You can acknowledge both without hurting _anyone_. You entirely lack an argument.
>That we could possibly rearrange our food system so we don't need it anymore is better.
Ya so you want to change a system that involves millions of selfish actors and corporations looking to profit and that have entrenched themselves, and are protected by freedom of association versus a choice between a doctor and a patient.
This is a textbook case of letting better stand in the way of good.
I'd love to re-imagine our food of food production and consumption, but it sounds like you're arguing that because food production and consumption is a better solution, we shouldn't be promoting GLP-1 agonists.
Sorry, but one is exists in reality and the other exists in our imaginations. When we let our imaginations take precedence over reality, we live in a fantasy and the consequence is that we get neither. Effectively this argues for neither, and that's a bad deal for everyone.
