4 ms·
"disrupt the industry" A better "disruption" would be to find a cure, or at the very least slow the progress so people die from something else. There will be o
by melling 10y ago
"disrupt the industry"
A better "disruption" would be to find a cure, or at the very least slow the progress so people die from something else. There will be over 100 million people with dementia by 2050.
- nerdponx 10y agoPeople have to die from something eventually. Legal euthanasia is the real disruptive technology.
- melling 10y agoI imagine most people would only opt for euthanasia if they have an incurable disease or severely debilitated. If you are in reasonably good health in your 80's and 90's, you probably wouldn't choose death. Some families get alzheimer's in their 40's. Your disruption is euthanasia? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/health/02alzheimers.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/health/02alzheimers.html?p...
- nerdponx 10y agoI was just making a point about what I feel is a pervasive and ridiculous sentiment in pop medicine, that we can cure every disease. Plus, Alzheimer's can end up severely debilitating.
- melling 10y agoWhy can't we cure the most common debilitating diseases? Cancer deaths can be greatly reduced with better early detection, for example.
- bitwize 10y agoSome cancers. Other cancers can be screened for, but screening doesn't help your chances.
- melling 10y ago"better early detection" Yes, I understand the current state. That's why I said better detection. You die from pancreatic cancer, for example, because by the time you know you have it, it's too late.
- XorNot 10y agoAnd it does nothing for dementia sufferers because they cannot give informed consent and the nature of the disease is the mental equivalent of the frog in a slowly heated pot.