Someone DM'd me asking for more information. See https://www.mostly-fat.com/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOQCKEoflPc 

I do this for health reasons. I feel significantly better and have much more energy when I do this.

Related: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tLb86DhrTYgkXw5Hf/apply-to-the-conceptual-boundaries-workshop-for-ai-safety 

oh cool!  (Also I'm glad you proactively acknowledge the eg saturated fat)

Also, are there risks to over-reduction in salt intake?

Hmmmm. I'm suspicious is because it doesn't make any sense for anyone to decide what's best for me. (Sure, educate me instead, whatever.) (I'm particularly suspicious of this because of the discourse I've seen around proposed 'meat taxes', typically pedaled by people who think the climate and nutritional (and ethical) effects are far worse than I think they are. So I'm worried about the same thing here.)

Couple things (I've only skimmed the post):

1. How certain are you that increased sodium consumption causes hypertension? (I'm skeptical of this personally)
   1. (Do prediction markets exist on this? Could you make one?)
2. How certain are you that decreasing increased sodium consumption causes not less hypertension, but also less mortality/more DALYs overall?  Some interventions are backwards like this. (E.g. Limiting sun exposure fairly certainly decreases skin cancer, but it also might fairly significantly increase mortality, on net)
3. Why specifically taxation, instead of other ways to influence individual behavior? (Taxation seems rather coercive IMO, an overstepping of bounds of individuals by their government)

(I have more questions like this but I'll leave just these three for now.)

Are you thinking that the community should consider collectively insuring against the risk of a megadonor going underwater in the future?

Yeah something like that. Just trying to think of a way to make a market out of due-diligence. 

Is there an insurance product that covers clawbacks?