6 ms·
I’m more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means that everyone else will get to buy them later. Is the implied attitude that if the
by landryraccoon 7y ago
I’m more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means that everyone else will get to buy them later.
Is the implied attitude that if the rich get something first it shouldn’t exist at all? If gene therapy follows a progression like mobile phones, that would good for humanity. First it’s super expensive and only a few get them, but it becomes much cheaper within a few decades and eventually almost everyone can have one.
- btmorex 7y agoWouldn't it make more sense to compare the likely progression with standard drug development rather than mobile phones? Last I checked, drug development is in a terrible state. I mean we're killing 70k+ people a year from opiate overdoses that were primarily driven by our capitalist drug development system (and a lack of even an ounce of morality at some of these companies). And that's just one problem among many. Not everything is the tech industry.
- rayiner 7y agoThat “evil capitalist drug development system” that turned AIDS from a death sentence into a chronic illness, using anti-retrovirals some of which are already becoming generics?
- reallydude 7y ago"Already" 30 years later. https://hab.hrsa.gov/livinghistory/timeline/1995.htm https://hab.hrsa.gov/livinghistory/timeline/1995.htm
- rayiner 7y agoA blink of an eye in the history of a disease.
- reallydude 7y agoHumanity is the blink of an eye in the universe. Claiming the suffering is always worth it (ie doesn't matter), is defeatist. Not sure how that's an argument for how dissemination of medical tech is "working".
- tptacek 7y agoWhat do opiate overdoses have to do with the state of drug discovery? Aren't opiate analgesics like an infinitesimal blip compared to the broader pharma market?
- gingabriska 7y agoAren't early adopters gonna be beta testers for this technology? These technologies are not without their downsides and some of the dangers aren't even clear. But yea there will be salespeople who will sell this too without buyers coming to know about the inherent risks like it happens with opioids.
- ryacko 7y agoThe dangers are clear, we haven’t discovered all the correlations between various genes and how they express themselves. Biggest risk is a neurodegenerative condition that takes thirty years to show.
- coldtea 7y ago>I’m more than happy to let the rich buy the best genes first, if that means that everyone else will get to buy them later. Why would they sell it to you later? Even more so, why would they even need most people (say 80% or so)? Automation wins and AI means they don't have to, in order to maintain their status quo and build things. It's more likely for the west to become the same way large parts of the third world already are: some highly advanced zones cut off by walls, police, private armies etc. (which get the genes) and huge areas of slums...
- nyolfen 7y ago>Why would they sell it to you later? to make more money? why would rich customers have any ability to restrict their medical service providers from expanding their customer base?
- zarkov99 7y agoBecause the rich are no more evil than the rest of us and, all things being equal, would rather their fellow man be as happy, healthy and fulfilled as they are?
- evgen 7y agoThis is why I keep coming back to HN, for the laughs...
- barbecue_sauce 7y agoSource?
- jacquesm 7y agoGenes are spreading just fine without any assistance from wallets.