3 ms·
"In what kind of bleak world would no one be willing to pay for a probable return to full health?" This one. People are dying now because of diseases we have
by cbr 11y ago
"In what kind of bleak world would no one be willing to pay for a probable return to full health?"
This one.
People are dying now because of diseases we have basically eradicated in rich countries. The choice you're talking about making, saving a life for a few weeks worth of your own salary, is one that is already available to you and many others. What are you doing about it?
Now, I think you're right that it's horribly wrong to be letting people die when it's so easily avoidable, and I donate half my salary to help make things better, but most people don't think this way--most people just spend their money on themselves. Which means that if you're relying on the generosity of others to revive you you're probably going to be out of luck.
- loup-vaillant 11y agoIn our world, we also save many people, even when they can't pay for it. And when we don't, we at least admit that it's a problem. (At least in public. In private, I can totally imagine many people having no problem whatsoever with people dying by the millions.) You're living proof of this. (Me… less so. I don't donate much.) Amalcom on the other hand formulated things in such a way that it would be normal, expected to receive no outside help from the future. I disagree with that assumption. Expecting from the outset that the future will not help us is ludicrous. It's not guaranteed, but come on, we still have people like you, philanthropists, governments, and mutual funds —there's some things to say about the effectiveness of collective action vs individual choice: it's easier to donate or pay up when you know you're not alone. So I ask again: in what kind of bleak world would NO ONE be willing to pay?