4 ms·

> If not saving lives is the same as taking ones, then many of the things developed by Silicon Valley are morally abhorrent. You're misrepresenting the issue b

> If not saving lives is the same as taking ones, then many of the things developed by Silicon Valley are morally abhorrent. You're misrepresenting the issue by exaggerating in the opposite direction. It isn't "we built twitter instead of saving people". It's that some people have a life threatening problem, a company already has the solution to that problem but they charge a (perhaps unreasonably - depending on who you ask) large sum for it, they actively suppress competitors who provide it for much much cheaper (thus saving lives), and finally they do it for a profit motive (which is perhaps petty - depending on who you ask). Yes, it's not murder, but on the scale, it's still closer to that part of the spectrum rather than the good side. The reason I say this is that I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that this company chooses profits over saving lives, for whatever reason. If pharma companies truly valued saving lives over profits, they would reinvest some of those profits into actually saving lives instead of hoarding them. I don't envy those whose job it is to do that calculation.

jaronheard 10y ago
For a public company, this calculation is pretty easy. If saving lives doesn't maximize shareholder value, you don't do it.
- reitanqild 10y ago
  Lets hope those public companies will learn a lesson about enourmous public backlash, the wrath of consumer watchdogs etc sooner rather than later then? Besides I thought (IANAL) this "maximize shareholder value" meaning short-term-economic-gain meme was massively misinterpreted and needs to die soon?
rayiner 10y ago
In a very real sense, people did "build Twitter instead of saving lives." The money invested in Twitter's IPO alone could've saved more than half a million kids from malaria. And your first point basically reduces to: it's more immoral to develop a cure and make lots of money from it, than to spend billions on activities that don't even cure anything. That's absurd. Your point about anti-competitive conduct is well-taken. But beyond that, it's government's obligation to make sure everyone who needs life-saving treatment has it. But going into the business of saving lives shouldn't entitle you to any less of a profit motive than going into businesses that don't even save lives at all.
- makmanalp 10y ago
  Agh, never argue with a lawyer, I guess :) > it's more immoral to develop a cure and make lots of money from it, than to spend billions on activities that don't even cure anything OK, when you put it this way, yeah, it's hard to argue against. What I was going for was more about the after-the-fact of having developed a cure: there's something about the fact that they /have/ the cure and at that point choose not to make it more available that seems reprehensible. This to me seems analogous to the sad fact that people are dying of hunger all the time in the world but a lot of us are isolated from that fact by sheer distance and go about our lives ignoring that with no moral weight on our shoulders (analogy to twitter, not having developed a cure - and not to say that this is a good thing), but if we directly encounter a person dying of hunger one day and we have food (analogy to insert-pharma-here), I'd like to think most of us would feel obligated to help. The immediacy and ability to help seems a factor.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > And your first point basically reduces to: it's more immoral to develop a cure and make lots of money from it, than to spend billions on activities that don't even cure anything. That's absurd. Did the American company invent stents and was just protecting their R&D returns from evil Russian copycats? Also the "active suppression" issue is here - apparently the company bribed the government to prevent the competition. The point is more like "it's more immoral to be a life-saving cure provider who decides to make more money from it by shutting down competition that can provide that cure cheaper, than to not be in the life-saving business entirely". > The money invested in Twitter's IPO alone could've saved more than half a million kids from malaria. True only if taken out of context of the economy at large. There was no point in time where someone could make a business decision and whole money invested in Twitter's IPO would go directly to cure malaria. That money was not controlled by Twitter, but by many people who invested in it, each having a personal choice of what to do with their wealth.

jaronheard 10y ago

For a public company, this calculation is pretty easy. If saving lives doesn't maximize shareholder value, you don't do it.

reitanqild 10y ago
Lets hope those public companies will learn a lesson about enourmous public backlash, the wrath of consumer watchdogs etc sooner rather than later then? Besides I thought (IANAL) this "maximize shareholder value" meaning short-term-economic-gain meme was massively misinterpreted and needs to die soon?

rayiner 10y ago

In a very real sense, people did "build Twitter instead of saving lives." The money invested in Twitter's IPO alone could've saved more than half a million kids from malaria. And your first point basically reduces to: it's more immoral to develop a cure and make lots of money from it, than to spend billions on activities that don't even cure anything. That's absurd. Your point about anti-competitive conduct is well-taken. But beyond that, it's government's obligation to make sure everyone who needs life-saving treatment has it. But going into the business of saving lives shouldn't entitle you to any less of a profit motive than going into businesses that don't even save lives at all.

makmanalp 10y ago
Agh, never argue with a lawyer, I guess :) > it's more immoral to develop a cure and make lots of money from it, than to spend billions on activities that don't even cure anything OK, when you put it this way, yeah, it's hard to argue against. What I was going for was more about the after-the-fact of having developed a cure: there's something about the fact that they /have/ the cure and at that point choose not to make it more available that seems reprehensible. This to me seems analogous to the sad fact that people are dying of hunger all the time in the world but a lot of us are isolated from that fact by sheer distance and go about our lives ignoring that with no moral weight on our shoulders (analogy to twitter, not having developed a cure - and not to say that this is a good thing), but if we directly encounter a person dying of hunger one day and we have food (analogy to insert-pharma-here), I'd like to think most of us would feel obligated to help. The immediacy and ability to help seems a factor.
TeMPOraL 10y ago
> And your first point basically reduces to: it's more immoral to develop a cure and make lots of money from it, than to spend billions on activities that don't even cure anything. That's absurd. Did the American company invent stents and was just protecting their R&D returns from evil Russian copycats? Also the "active suppression" issue is here - apparently the company bribed the government to prevent the competition. The point is more like "it's more immoral to be a life-saving cure provider who decides to make more money from it by shutting down competition that can provide that cure cheaper, than to not be in the life-saving business entirely". > The money invested in Twitter's IPO alone could've saved more than half a million kids from malaria. True only if taken out of context of the economy at large. There was no point in time where someone could make a business decision and whole money invested in Twitter's IPO would go directly to cure malaria. That money was not controlled by Twitter, but by many people who invested in it, each having a personal choice of what to do with their wealth.