4 ms·
This is such a confusing attitude along a number of axes. 1. Science isn't there so we shouldn't spend billions yet. Maybe spending billions can advance the s
by iandanforth 5y ago
This is such a confusing attitude along a number of axes.
1. Science isn't there so we shouldn't spend billions yet.
Maybe spending billions can advance the science sufficiently?
2. There is a "there" to get to.
People regularly spend millions in healthcare costs to live a few extra years. What is the "there" that we're imagining? Would someone with >$100B not spend $1B to live 10 more years? You don't need a fountain of youth, just more time in a not-terrible state of health to be worth all this investment and more.
3. There is a there to get to.
This isn't like the discovery of fission. It might take a dozen different interventions to provide another decade of life to an individual, or a disjoint set of a dozen interventions to provide another decade of life to people in general. One discovery probably won't cut it, and that's ok.