3 ms·
If, a comparatively similar amount of effort and research would have gone into developing cures and treatments for the other diseases, the benefits
by mafribe 10y ago
If, a comparatively similar amount of
effort and research would have gone
into developing cures and treatments
for the other diseases, the benefits
would have also been, probably, order
of magnitudes greater.
I don't believe that this is true. AIDS was a major threat in the early 1980s.
- RealityVoid 10y agoSorry, I was ambiguous when expressing my ideas. I'm not trying to debate an actual historical fact or to say that resources were misplaced in curing AIDS. I trust you the actual importance placed on AIDS was merited. I'm rather trying to debate that a more common affliction should have priority over a less common one and thus, pointing out that efforts is disproportionately spent in a field compared to another it not whattaboutism. I've been trying to illustrate that under the assumption that some affliction _would_ be an order of magnitude more common than another (as the whattaboutists in your AIDS illustration assert). Adding to this the assumption that results would be proportional with exerted effort for both affliction treatments (not always true), it would make greater sense to expend more effort for the more common one, thus the percentage an affliction is present compared to another does matter. Granted, there are a number of assumptions to my illustration, and in particular cases they can be true or false, but it does prove that the percentage of population a certain issue affects does deserve a part in the equation of how much effort we should expend into fixing some situation and can not be readily excluded from the conversation by simply shouting "whattaboutism".