5 ms·

> If it pays more to work for a crypto exchange or the next data-stalking start-up than to cure cancer then most of the knowledge people will work on them. Cur

> If it pays more to work for a crypto exchange or the next data-stalking start-up than to cure cancer then most of the knowledge people will work on them. Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. But humans are greedy. They won't wait for the big payday when a metaphorical marshmallow is dangling in front of them. Even holding out for the rewards of a crypto exchange is more than most people can handle. Most people will indulge in the not-so-tasty treat in front of them as soon as someone offers them a mediocre job. > Governments exists to regulate society and set rewards and punishments That may be true of an authoritarian regime, but under democracy, as I imagine most of us here are, government does not regulate society. It regulates individuals who try go against society. Society defines expectations, government cleans up those who refuse to comply. If the general public interest turns one way government can step in to ensure that the remaining people are brought into line, but a (democratic) government will not lead the charge.

cowl 4y ago
> That may be true of an authoritarian regime, but under democracy, as I imagine most of us here are, government does not regulate society. It regulates individuals who try go against society. Society defines expectations, government cleans up those who refuse to comply. That is not what most of us want in a democracy otherwise we would never go forward. Our society expects the government to Lead and not simply comply with the current mood. That is the problem we have now when every action is calculated on short term election result and not long term benefit for the whole society. If a democratic government were supposed to only enforce the majority expectations we would never change those expectation and our view of what is right/wrong.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > Our society expects the government to Lead If that were the case we would let leaders rise up to take the lead instead of calling on representatives to carry our messages to the central meeting place. It may be your dream to be able to sit back to not have to speak with your representative frequently – and fair enough, democracy is unquestionably hard work! – but that sentiment is not at all reflected in the democratic societies that I'm familiar with. Most definitely not the USA, which HN is skewed towards. American society as a whole is quite clear about the importance of hiring public servants to represent the people, to not have rulers take over. There is no liberty held more dear. Indeed, there are always outliers who don't align with the rest of the society. Hence why we have government to clean them up. Unquestionably there are Americans who don't believe in, or at least don't wish to participate in, democracy, but the individual does not a society make. There are societies that do expect leaders to take the lead. It is not an unheard of concept and you might even stay it is historically common. But those are not democratic societies.
  - DrScientist 4y ago
    Take your general point. However looking from the outside, it does look like democracy is failing in the US. The problem appears to be that it's money, not the people, who have the largest influence on who is elected. The large amount of money swirling in the system, and the pretty much unregulated use of very powerful persuasive tools - has corroded the US democracy. Today the technology allows you to surround each and every person in their own advertising bubble online - all data driven to get the outcome the payers want. And then the effect of the candidates needing money to get elected - and them having to sign up to stuff just to get the money. Take sensible gun reforms - something that poll after poll suggests there is broad support - is effectively blocked by the arms lobby.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      > Take sensible gun reforms - something that poll after poll suggests there is broad support - is effectively blocked by the arms lobby. Is it blocked or has society not needed to bring the outliers in line? (Democratic) government isn't there to lead. Government is there only to clean up after society recognizes that some are not falling into line. Society must lead. Saying "Yes, I support gun reforms" in a random poll isn't the same as action, of course. Also looking in from the outside, I don't see any real societal movement on this front. Funnily enough, in my country where we do find clear societal movement that pushed to move away from guns in our history, and a government that stepped in to clean up the outliers who still tried to wield guns afterwards, it was rooted in society wanting to protect their money from the poor and aboriginals. If it is such that American society is driven by money above people, it is curious that there isn't the same kind of interest in protecting that money from people. Perhaps money in the USA isn't as important as it appears to those of us only looking in?
      - DrScientist 4y ago
        I believe you over complicating it - I think there is a simply a disconnect between what most people want and what the politicians are prepared to do on this issue, because fundamentally a lot of American politicians are more dependent on money than people to be elected.
borbulon 4y ago
> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. I'm interested to know why you think this.
- bantunes 4y ago
  Same here. "Treating" cancer seems way more profitable than "curing" it - at least, at face value. I'm sure a society free from cancer would be better off, but not sure that translates well to "profit", which I guess is the whole point of the thread.
7steps2much 4y ago
> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. Treating an illness is even more profitable than curing it though
- IanCal 4y ago
  That makes zero sense to me. If you could cure it, you could charge more than treatment - because it's more valuable to the person getting cured. If you had cancer with a 5 year expected survival rate, would you pick (arbitrary round numbers) $10,000 per year in treatment to manage it but you've still got cancer. $55,000 paid over 5 years, $5000 more than you would pay to just manage it, but you also don't have cancer any more.
  - 7steps2much 4y ago
    Assuming that you can charge whatever number you want. Realistically however you will have to negotiate with insurances and sometimes governments about the price of things. The second group is particularly tricky, since government make the rules. Imagine you invent a way to cure cancer and it costs you 10000$ a treatment. How much do you charge the customer? Two times that? Ten? Twenty? At what point is someone going to stop in and force you to sell at a lower price? How long till public opinion turns against you? What if competition forces the price down? There are lot of variables that might lead to you ending up at 10000$ + a few percent profit margin. Now imagine you have a medication that's 100$ a dosage. You sell it for 120$. That's 84 doses to cover the cost of a cancer treatment. Assuming the same markup on treatment that's 100 doses. At this point it's the simple question what the company is more likely to get away with: Many small doses with a profit margin that add up? Or one large treatment with a big profit margin? Right now reality shows that the small doses seem to work better. An example would be insulin. In the US it costs 30$ a dose upwards. Production costs are at less than 10$. [0] That's a 200% markup. With numbers like these, why would you ever cure something? [0]: https://marketrealist.com/healthcare/cost-to-manufacture-insulin/ https://marketrealist.com/healthcare/cost-to-manufacture-ins...
    - IanCal 4y ago
DrScientist 4y ago
> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. But humans are greedy. They won't wait for the big payday when a metaphorical marshmallow is dangling in front of them. The problem is the NPV calculations - tying you money up from 15 years before you see a return in a high risk sector ( where most things fail ) - doesn't make mathematical sense. What makes mathematical sense is to rely on optimists to try anyway and then buy them at the right time when you can get the most return on your investment. This is what a company like Pfizer does - it goes around buying innovative companies - taking the products and sacking the people [1]. They are extremely successful - but if everybody behaved like that we'd be fcked. ( I over emphasise for effect - but broadly true )
- fuzzfactor 4y ago
  Curing cancer will be infinitely more profitable than a lot of things, for the investors, but that doesn't mean they will be willing to pay engineers more than pure financial manipulators, even if they are able.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    The only reason investors would enter the picture is if the engineers preferred to take a smaller cut upfront. Keeping with the marshmallow experiment theme, that is them choosing to eat the marshmallow instead of waiting for the desired treat offered to those who wait. Indeed, that is the likely scenario as humans are greedy. People generally don't have the will to hold out for the bigger rewards, they want instant gratification to quash the feelings of their greed in the moment. They don't have to choose instant gratification, but if they want to then I suppose investment helps ensure that they still work on something useful when instant results cannot be seen.

cowl 4y ago

> That may be true of an authoritarian regime, but under democracy, as I imagine most of us here are, government does not regulate society. It regulates individuals who try go against society. Society defines expectations, government cleans up those who refuse to comply. That is not what most of us want in a democracy otherwise we would never go forward. Our society expects the government to Lead and not simply comply with the current mood. That is the problem we have now when every action is calculated on short term election result and not long term benefit for the whole society. If a democratic government were supposed to only enforce the majority expectations we would never change those expectation and our view of what is right/wrong.

randomdata 4y ago
> Our society expects the government to Lead If that were the case we would let leaders rise up to take the lead instead of calling on representatives to carry our messages to the central meeting place. It may be your dream to be able to sit back to not have to speak with your representative frequently – and fair enough, democracy is unquestionably hard work! – but that sentiment is not at all reflected in the democratic societies that I'm familiar with. Most definitely not the USA, which HN is skewed towards. American society as a whole is quite clear about the importance of hiring public servants to represent the people, to not have rulers take over. There is no liberty held more dear. Indeed, there are always outliers who don't align with the rest of the society. Hence why we have government to clean them up. Unquestionably there are Americans who don't believe in, or at least don't wish to participate in, democracy, but the individual does not a society make. There are societies that do expect leaders to take the lead. It is not an unheard of concept and you might even stay it is historically common. But those are not democratic societies.
- DrScientist 4y ago
  Take your general point. However looking from the outside, it does look like democracy is failing in the US. The problem appears to be that it's money, not the people, who have the largest influence on who is elected. The large amount of money swirling in the system, and the pretty much unregulated use of very powerful persuasive tools - has corroded the US democracy. Today the technology allows you to surround each and every person in their own advertising bubble online - all data driven to get the outcome the payers want. And then the effect of the candidates needing money to get elected - and them having to sign up to stuff just to get the money. Take sensible gun reforms - something that poll after poll suggests there is broad support - is effectively blocked by the arms lobby.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > Take sensible gun reforms - something that poll after poll suggests there is broad support - is effectively blocked by the arms lobby. Is it blocked or has society not needed to bring the outliers in line? (Democratic) government isn't there to lead. Government is there only to clean up after society recognizes that some are not falling into line. Society must lead. Saying "Yes, I support gun reforms" in a random poll isn't the same as action, of course. Also looking in from the outside, I don't see any real societal movement on this front. Funnily enough, in my country where we do find clear societal movement that pushed to move away from guns in our history, and a government that stepped in to clean up the outliers who still tried to wield guns afterwards, it was rooted in society wanting to protect their money from the poor and aboriginals. If it is such that American society is driven by money above people, it is curious that there isn't the same kind of interest in protecting that money from people. Perhaps money in the USA isn't as important as it appears to those of us only looking in?
    - DrScientist 4y ago
      I believe you over complicating it - I think there is a simply a disconnect between what most people want and what the politicians are prepared to do on this issue, because fundamentally a lot of American politicians are more dependent on money than people to be elected.

borbulon 4y ago

> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. I'm interested to know why you think this.

bantunes 4y ago
Same here. "Treating" cancer seems way more profitable than "curing" it - at least, at face value. I'm sure a society free from cancer would be better off, but not sure that translates well to "profit", which I guess is the whole point of the thread.

7steps2much 4y ago

> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. Treating an illness is even more profitable than curing it though

IanCal 4y ago
That makes zero sense to me. If you could cure it, you could charge more than treatment - because it's more valuable to the person getting cured. If you had cancer with a 5 year expected survival rate, would you pick (arbitrary round numbers) $10,000 per year in treatment to manage it but you've still got cancer. $55,000 paid over 5 years, $5000 more than you would pay to just manage it, but you also don't have cancer any more.
- 7steps2much 4y ago
  Assuming that you can charge whatever number you want. Realistically however you will have to negotiate with insurances and sometimes governments about the price of things. The second group is particularly tricky, since government make the rules. Imagine you invent a way to cure cancer and it costs you 10000$ a treatment. How much do you charge the customer? Two times that? Ten? Twenty? At what point is someone going to stop in and force you to sell at a lower price? How long till public opinion turns against you? What if competition forces the price down? There are lot of variables that might lead to you ending up at 10000$ + a few percent profit margin. Now imagine you have a medication that's 100$ a dosage. You sell it for 120$. That's 84 doses to cover the cost of a cancer treatment. Assuming the same markup on treatment that's 100 doses. At this point it's the simple question what the company is more likely to get away with: Many small doses with a profit margin that add up? Or one large treatment with a big profit margin? Right now reality shows that the small doses seem to work better. An example would be insulin. In the US it costs 30$ a dose upwards. Production costs are at less than 10$. [0] That's a 200% markup. With numbers like these, why would you ever cure something? [0]: https://marketrealist.com/healthcare/cost-to-manufacture-insulin/ https://marketrealist.com/healthcare/cost-to-manufacture-ins...
  - IanCal 4y ago

DrScientist 4y ago

> Curing cancer would be infinitely more profitable than yet another crypto exchange. But humans are greedy. They won't wait for the big payday when a metaphorical marshmallow is dangling in front of them. The problem is the NPV calculations - tying you money up from 15 years before you see a return in a high risk sector ( where most things fail ) - doesn't make mathematical sense. What makes mathematical sense is to rely on optimists to try anyway and then buy them at the right time when you can get the most return on your investment. This is what a company like Pfizer does - it goes around buying innovative companies - taking the products and sacking the people [1]. They are extremely successful - but if everybody behaved like that we'd be fcked. ( I over emphasise for effect - but broadly true )

fuzzfactor 4y ago
Curing cancer will be infinitely more profitable than a lot of things, for the investors, but that doesn't mean they will be willing to pay engineers more than pure financial manipulators, even if they are able.
- randomdata 4y ago
  The only reason investors would enter the picture is if the engineers preferred to take a smaller cut upfront. Keeping with the marshmallow experiment theme, that is them choosing to eat the marshmallow instead of waiting for the desired treat offered to those who wait. Indeed, that is the likely scenario as humans are greedy. People generally don't have the will to hold out for the bigger rewards, they want instant gratification to quash the feelings of their greed in the moment. They don't have to choose instant gratification, but if they want to then I suppose investment helps ensure that they still work on something useful when instant results cannot be seen.