5 ms·

If they don't care about their own health and longevity I would argue their lives shouldn't be extended against their own will. Should we also give free houses

If they don't care about their own health and longevity I would argue their lives shouldn't be extended against their own will. Should we also give free houses and luxury cars to people who refuse to work?

thriftwy 9y ago
Shoud we sell stuff to people who refuse to work out? The answer is obvious yet you're not seeing it.
distances 9y ago
> Should we also give free houses and luxury cars to people who refuse to work? I know you meant this as a rhetorical question, but yes, I think society should provide free basic housing for those that can't afford it, whatever the reason.
Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
If they are willingly taking the pill then it's not "against their will" at all? The difference is crucial. Is it true that you have to work, put in effort for most things in life? And that people need to learn that? Yes. But isn't it also true that the science is largely an endeavor of decreasing the amount of work people need to put in to achieve the same result in some area? If you look at almost all of the history - that is also true. This is just another installment of that same centuries-old trend. Science wants (and should rightfully want) to make a pill that will make something require less effort (staying healthy for long time). If some people would not put in the big effort, but would put in the small effort, given the opportunity - than all the power to them. It's the ultimate goal of science anyway.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Is that what science seeks, or is that what society necessitates science seek? Take Type 2 Diabetes. Science is putting a significant amount of time and money to "cure" it. The sad irony is, we have a cure. Yes, that takes - evidently - too much effort. But isn't that a matter of perspective? Cancer is also a byproduct of diet and lifestyle. Seems to me that cancer is more difficult than changing diet and lifestyle. The point is, science is forced (so to speak) to seek things that are already found. "Easy" or not, what other unintended consequences does "easy" create? Science should be seeking best solutions, at which point it could move on to other things.
  - Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
    I'm not sure what the problem is with "society necessitates the direction of science". What else do you propose the science be directed by? What else is really there? Are there any other real reasons for science at all? Science is for us, the humans, the society. Studying things with no reason or benefit for the society, somehow detached from humanity, for what, some vague abstract reasons? I'm not sure I would want to put my effort into that, either in the specific sense, or even in the more implicit sense of funding it through my taxes. Doing science for the sake of science? What's the point? Looking at the question from another perspective though - I think a good direction for science would to study how would it be possible to make people take the extra effort, make the difficult choices - that would lead to a natural resolution of many of their problems (like exercise would lead to less cancer). But in this specific case, stopping science from looking for anti-cancer pills, for example, does not seem like a proper way to go. Willingly preventing progress in making lives easier with low-effort methods like pills (if they really do work) does not seem like the best way to promote otherwise healthy behavior.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      No problem. Provided the bigger most important things have been solved. When first world science is "forced" to focus on self-inflicted first world problems, __and__ that focus is accepted, if not encouraged, then something is seriously wrong.
dogma1138 9y ago
Should we provide medical treatment to people with HIV because they refused to use a condom and had promiscuous sex with multiple partners or were drug users?
- magic_beans 9y ago
  Either everyone deserves medical care or no one does.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Which was kinda my point....

thriftwy 9y ago

Shoud we sell stuff to people who refuse to work out? The answer is obvious yet you're not seeing it.

distances 9y ago

> Should we also give free houses and luxury cars to people who refuse to work? I know you meant this as a rhetorical question, but yes, I think society should provide free basic housing for those that can't afford it, whatever the reason.

Erlich_Bachman 9y ago

If they are willingly taking the pill then it's not "against their will" at all? The difference is crucial. Is it true that you have to work, put in effort for most things in life? And that people need to learn that? Yes. But isn't it also true that the science is largely an endeavor of decreasing the amount of work people need to put in to achieve the same result in some area? If you look at almost all of the history - that is also true. This is just another installment of that same centuries-old trend. Science wants (and should rightfully want) to make a pill that will make something require less effort (staying healthy for long time). If some people would not put in the big effort, but would put in the small effort, given the opportunity - than all the power to them. It's the ultimate goal of science anyway.

chiefalchemist 9y ago
Is that what science seeks, or is that what society necessitates science seek? Take Type 2 Diabetes. Science is putting a significant amount of time and money to "cure" it. The sad irony is, we have a cure. Yes, that takes - evidently - too much effort. But isn't that a matter of perspective? Cancer is also a byproduct of diet and lifestyle. Seems to me that cancer is more difficult than changing diet and lifestyle. The point is, science is forced (so to speak) to seek things that are already found. "Easy" or not, what other unintended consequences does "easy" create? Science should be seeking best solutions, at which point it could move on to other things.
- Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
  I'm not sure what the problem is with "society necessitates the direction of science". What else do you propose the science be directed by? What else is really there? Are there any other real reasons for science at all? Science is for us, the humans, the society. Studying things with no reason or benefit for the society, somehow detached from humanity, for what, some vague abstract reasons? I'm not sure I would want to put my effort into that, either in the specific sense, or even in the more implicit sense of funding it through my taxes. Doing science for the sake of science? What's the point? Looking at the question from another perspective though - I think a good direction for science would to study how would it be possible to make people take the extra effort, make the difficult choices - that would lead to a natural resolution of many of their problems (like exercise would lead to less cancer). But in this specific case, stopping science from looking for anti-cancer pills, for example, does not seem like a proper way to go. Willingly preventing progress in making lives easier with low-effort methods like pills (if they really do work) does not seem like the best way to promote otherwise healthy behavior.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    No problem. Provided the bigger most important things have been solved. When first world science is "forced" to focus on self-inflicted first world problems, __and__ that focus is accepted, if not encouraged, then something is seriously wrong.

dogma1138 9y ago

Should we provide medical treatment to people with HIV because they refused to use a condom and had promiscuous sex with multiple partners or were drug users?

magic_beans 9y ago
Either everyone deserves medical care or no one does.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Which was kinda my point....