6 ms·

You could make the same argument against medical care. "If we start healing the sick, people will stop taking care of their health". That's not even considerin

You could make the same argument against medical care. "If we start healing the sick, people will stop taking care of their health". That's not even considering potential side effects of therapies, medicines, etc. Any action has a balance of good and bad, both directly and indirectly.

ibz 4y ago
And that's essentially what has happened. We are sicker than ever because we have easy cures. The problem is that modern medicine works on the symptoms, not on root causes. So the more we "cure" symptoms, the more sick we become, overall.
- brazzy 4y ago
  That's a lovely bunch of non sequiturs you got there. Most primarily we're more sick than ever because of two things that have absolutely nothing to do with "curing symptoms": * We're so good at curing diseases and conditions that used to be fatal that people get a lot older than they used to, and old people get sick far more often. * Automation and increased productivity make a sedentary lifestyle possible and even incentivize it.
- dgroshev 4y ago
  This is very, very much not true. Do vaccines or antibiotics "work on symptoms"? Do knee replacements "work on symptoms" of our bodies being unable to regenerate cartilage? The only superficial "work on symptoms" treatments I can think of are palliative cancer care or cosmetic treatments like fillers.
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    I overall agree with you, but a much bigger counterexample would be the widespread availability of painkillers
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  By what specific measure are we sicker than ever? Show your work.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  The problem is that modern medicine works, so people are alive rather than dead.
scottcodie 4y ago
Usually you don't consider health insurance to be a moral hazard in this way. However, in healthcare, a moral hazard can occur when people use more healthcare services because the cost for them is low.
will5421 4y ago
The difference is that geoengineering affects the commons. I don’t mind people doing things to their own bodies, I do mind them messing with my atmosphere.
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  Exactly. 1. Industrial civilizations have been using the sky as an open sewer for emissions. Before that it was soot and lead (TEL). 2. No quick fixes with solar shades, adding chemicals, or fractioning air gases (good luck with scaling that). Get the carbon out of the air by growing stuff and sequestering it at the bottom of the ocean.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  Surely you could see a case where an unwell person coughs on you or around you being comparable, right?
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Infectious disease epidemics certainly affects the commons. Typically spreads through the atmosphere even.
pshirshov 4y ago
Didn't the broad availability of the antibiotics made people stop caring about syphilis? It's easily curable now in most cases.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  Kind of? I think people don't really fear it the way they might fear, say, AIDS, but they still practice protected sex regardless (because it's a good idea for many reasons). If people cared more about syphilis they probably wouldn't change their current behavior much. I think there might be better examples for this, like polio vaccines making people stop caring about polio (and then skipping the vaccines).

ibz 4y ago

And that's essentially what has happened. We are sicker than ever because we have easy cures. The problem is that modern medicine works on the symptoms, not on root causes. So the more we "cure" symptoms, the more sick we become, overall.

brazzy 4y ago
That's a lovely bunch of non sequiturs you got there. Most primarily we're more sick than ever because of two things that have absolutely nothing to do with "curing symptoms": * We're so good at curing diseases and conditions that used to be fatal that people get a lot older than they used to, and old people get sick far more often. * Automation and increased productivity make a sedentary lifestyle possible and even incentivize it.
dgroshev 4y ago
This is very, very much not true. Do vaccines or antibiotics "work on symptoms"? Do knee replacements "work on symptoms" of our bodies being unable to regenerate cartilage? The only superficial "work on symptoms" treatments I can think of are palliative cancer care or cosmetic treatments like fillers.
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  I overall agree with you, but a much bigger counterexample would be the widespread availability of painkillers
BurningFrog 4y ago
By what specific measure are we sicker than ever? Show your work.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
unethical_ban 4y ago
The problem is that modern medicine works, so people are alive rather than dead.

scottcodie 4y ago

Usually you don't consider health insurance to be a moral hazard in this way. However, in healthcare, a moral hazard can occur when people use more healthcare services because the cost for them is low.

will5421 4y ago

The difference is that geoengineering affects the commons. I don’t mind people doing things to their own bodies, I do mind them messing with my atmosphere.

sacnoradhq 4y ago
Exactly. 1. Industrial civilizations have been using the sky as an open sewer for emissions. Before that it was soot and lead (TEL). 2. No quick fixes with solar shades, adding chemicals, or fractioning air gases (good luck with scaling that). Get the carbon out of the air by growing stuff and sequestering it at the bottom of the ocean.
ch4s3 4y ago
Surely you could see a case where an unwell person coughs on you or around you being comparable, right?
BurningFrog 4y ago
Infectious disease epidemics certainly affects the commons. Typically spreads through the atmosphere even.

pshirshov 4y ago

Didn't the broad availability of the antibiotics made people stop caring about syphilis? It's easily curable now in most cases.

TremendousJudge 4y ago
Kind of? I think people don't really fear it the way they might fear, say, AIDS, but they still practice protected sex regardless (because it's a good idea for many reasons). If people cared more about syphilis they probably wouldn't change their current behavior much. I think there might be better examples for this, like polio vaccines making people stop caring about polio (and then skipping the vaccines).