3 ms·

I don't understand the vitriol. They may, or may not, reach their goal, but it's certainly worth trying. Even if they don't cure all diseases - if they advance

I don't understand the vitriol. They may, or may not, reach their goal, but it's certainly worth trying. Even if they don't cure all diseases - if they advance our understanding of some of them, or help cure some, then humanity will be advanced by that much more.

gozur88 10y ago
>They may, or may not, reach their goal, but it's certainly worth trying. Well, maybe. It's a worthy goal in the sense that eliminating disease would be great. But they may just end up blowing a lot of money that could have been spent more profitably on reasonably attainable goals. The first emperor of China spent a nontrivial amount of his country's economic output trying to find the secret of immortality. Would that have been a good thing to learn? Certainly. Was it worth trying? No.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Wonderful example. Literally taken, they're nearly after immortality. But of course, you shouldn't take them literally.
- johnfjacobi 10y ago
  Also, I'm not entirely sure seeking to "eradicate all diseases" is a laudable goal in itself. 1. We don't understand the consequences of this. 2. Our notion of disease has changed (as a previous poster noted, think about our thoughts on homosexuality) 3. Technics used to address disease have historically had some severe unintended consequences (e.g., antimicrobial resistance)
- binalpatel 10y ago
  I guess my frame of context is, it's their money, and they can spend it however they may, but at least with this there is a chance of benefiting society as a whole. While your example seems fitting at first glance, I don't really think it's relevant. This is private money spent on something that may be a public good, and in this case we do have a basis for saying that, yes, we can eradicate diseases, we've done it before and we're getting close again with others.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to spend the money. I'm a big property rights guy - if you have money and you want to make a hundred foot tall shrine to Elvis, knock yourself out. All I'm saying is you can end up wasting a lot of money by stretching for a goal that's too far ahead of current technology, and in that sense it might be a more efficient use of money to attempt something more near-term.

gozur88 10y ago

>They may, or may not, reach their goal, but it's certainly worth trying. Well, maybe. It's a worthy goal in the sense that eliminating disease would be great. But they may just end up blowing a lot of money that could have been spent more profitably on reasonably attainable goals. The first emperor of China spent a nontrivial amount of his country's economic output trying to find the secret of immortality. Would that have been a good thing to learn? Certainly. Was it worth trying? No.

paulddraper 10y ago
Wonderful example. Literally taken, they're nearly after immortality. But of course, you shouldn't take them literally.
johnfjacobi 10y ago
Also, I'm not entirely sure seeking to "eradicate all diseases" is a laudable goal in itself. 1. We don't understand the consequences of this. 2. Our notion of disease has changed (as a previous poster noted, think about our thoughts on homosexuality) 3. Technics used to address disease have historically had some severe unintended consequences (e.g., antimicrobial resistance)
binalpatel 10y ago
I guess my frame of context is, it's their money, and they can spend it however they may, but at least with this there is a chance of benefiting society as a whole. While your example seems fitting at first glance, I don't really think it's relevant. This is private money spent on something that may be a public good, and in this case we do have a basis for saying that, yes, we can eradicate diseases, we've done it before and we're getting close again with others.
- gozur88 10y ago
  I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to spend the money. I'm a big property rights guy - if you have money and you want to make a hundred foot tall shrine to Elvis, knock yourself out. All I'm saying is you can end up wasting a lot of money by stretching for a goal that's too far ahead of current technology, and in that sense it might be a more efficient use of money to attempt something more near-term.