3 ms·

I don't think it's wise to create an environment where medical advancements are gated behind there being enough people in the world that are passionate about pe

I don't think it's wise to create an environment where medical advancements are gated behind there being enough people in the world that are passionate about pencil-pushing and dealing with the FDA and other regulatory bodies. Plenty of people go to work and get the bricks beat off them for 8 hours a day only because they get a sizable paycheck that they can then spend on things they're actually passionate about.

clairity 5y ago
that’s a less than good-faith interpretation of the point i made, which is that, to the first order, people are intrinsically motivated to explore, experiment, and create. that doesn’t preclude the existence or usefulness of extrinsic motivation (e.g., wages), or even the negative effects of bureaucratic gatekeeping.
- seabird 5y ago
  They're going to continue to explore, experiment, and create up until their curiosity is satisfied and they've run out of gas for dealing with regulatory bodies and running a business. It's true -- people will still research these things, and they'll find their answer, but then they'll require millions of dollars worth of menial man-hours and politicking that people do because it pays well, and not because it's their life's calling.
  - clairity 5y ago
    again, that misses the point. we don't 'run out of gas', at least not until we die. you're equating building a business with discovering and creating, but the building of businesses is a customary, artificial constraint, not a natural one, to creating novel discoveries. i do agree with your implicit premise that profit motive can drive us to do things we don't otherwise want to do, but that again is because of constraints placed on us by the political economy, not natural constraints. we coerce the economy into producing profits via these constraints, not the other way around. i get that you want to rail against the bureaucratic regulatory function, and i can agree that we get a lot of things wrong therein, but this line of reasoning doesn't get you there.

clairity 5y ago

that’s a less than good-faith interpretation of the point i made, which is that, to the first order, people are intrinsically motivated to explore, experiment, and create. that doesn’t preclude the existence or usefulness of extrinsic motivation (e.g., wages), or even the negative effects of bureaucratic gatekeeping.

seabird 5y ago
They're going to continue to explore, experiment, and create up until their curiosity is satisfied and they've run out of gas for dealing with regulatory bodies and running a business. It's true -- people will still research these things, and they'll find their answer, but then they'll require millions of dollars worth of menial man-hours and politicking that people do because it pays well, and not because it's their life's calling.
- clairity 5y ago
  again, that misses the point. we don't 'run out of gas', at least not until we die. you're equating building a business with discovering and creating, but the building of businesses is a customary, artificial constraint, not a natural one, to creating novel discoveries. i do agree with your implicit premise that profit motive can drive us to do things we don't otherwise want to do, but that again is because of constraints placed on us by the political economy, not natural constraints. we coerce the economy into producing profits via these constraints, not the other way around. i get that you want to rail against the bureaucratic regulatory function, and i can agree that we get a lot of things wrong therein, but this line of reasoning doesn't get you there.