> If he believes that we should still spend as many resources in healthcare and researching individual diseases, then why is he portraying these as futile and m

> If he believes that we should still spend as many resources in healthcare and researching individual diseases, then why is he portraying these as futile and misguided tasks, that have "become their own purpose"? Where are you getting "as many" from? You realize that it is in fact possible to spend less money on a thing without spending $0? You're acting like we have no choices between "spending 1/7 of our GDP on healthcare" and "ban all healthcare forever". > The king "got his priorities wrong" because he went after lesser evils. That doesn't seem like a resounding endorsement of continuing the research on "individual diseases". Lesser evils are still evils. We should spend more than $0 on eradicating them, but less than we spend on eradicating greater evils. That's what having proper priorities means. > After all, Bostrom seems to believe that most causes of death will vanish if we can halt ageing. So he's advocating that we stop bothering with every other cause of death and focus our research on "the underlying cause" of all of them, so we can save everyone in one go. These inferences about what he believes are nonsense and unsupported by the text. > How many people in the developing world have iPhones? Far more than did 10 years ago.