3 ms·
> And would I prefer to have the wealth and status of Rockefeller in 1916? of course. You would prefer to live in a world without penecillan if it meant being
by mjfl 9y ago
> And would I prefer to have the wealth and status of Rockefeller in 1916? of course.
You would prefer to live in a world without penecillan if it meant being richer than everyone else?
- danharaj 9y agoSomehow my choice precludes the development of penicillin? What exactly are you trying to ask?
- mjfl 9y agoThat was one of the central arguments of the article. Even the poorest of us have a lot of nice things that even Rockefeller didn't have access to, such as access to penecillan which was discovered in 1928. If you are taking the other side of his argument, you are saying "I don't care about like penecillan, being richer than others is worth being without them".
- danharaj 9y agoYes I'd take those odds because of the mind boggling social power and freedom that comes with being a billionaire. Although yes, penicillin and vaccines are the best argument for living now than then.