3 ms·

No, you misread what I said. "Simply a matter of deciding to solve the problem" is not "simple" by any means. There's no political incentive to solve cancer sin

No, you misread what I said. "Simply a matter of deciding to solve the problem" is not "simple" by any means. There's no political incentive to solve cancer since isn't a problem that brings political advantage when solved, like there's no political "race to the moon" with a rival country that happened with Apollo. Race to the moon decided because USA and USSR went into a game of who gets there first; cancer has no such ongoing game and it's a much less spectacular aspect with results that are invisible when compared to videos taken on the surface of the moon. Speaking of results, solving cancer would also mean that people get to live even longer than they do now, which, in an already locally overpopulated and locally aging society, would generate many more issues that death by cancer "conveniently" "solves" at the moment.

echelon 4y ago
You're lasering in on the word "simple". Human civilization is full of optimization gradients. We choose to spend our time and money on certain pathways. OP was musing that amid all the things we spend money and effort on, cancer seems to get too little. If only we could choose to "simply" devote more of our collective energies to it. It's a mere musing, nothing more. We're kind of powerless to these forces of how people choose to spend their lives. Solving cancer itself is by no means "simple". But neither were a lot of the things we've accomplished. We'll get there in time, but it's easy for the brain to imagine a faster path if we had more institutional funding and minds on the task. That's what's simple. You're correct that we won't get people on board with this. We don't consider the recruitment of support or the opportunity cost losses or the myriad of other changes necessary. But this is all just an intellectual exercise in wishful thinking anyway.
Dalewyn 4y ago
Seeing as you're getting tripped up on the word "simple", the sentiment can be rephrased without using that word: Where there is a will, there is a way. If people can be convinced to do something, they will. History proves this as an absolute fact.

echelon 4y ago

You're lasering in on the word "simple". Human civilization is full of optimization gradients. We choose to spend our time and money on certain pathways. OP was musing that amid all the things we spend money and effort on, cancer seems to get too little. If only we could choose to "simply" devote more of our collective energies to it. It's a mere musing, nothing more. We're kind of powerless to these forces of how people choose to spend their lives. Solving cancer itself is by no means "simple". But neither were a lot of the things we've accomplished. We'll get there in time, but it's easy for the brain to imagine a faster path if we had more institutional funding and minds on the task. That's what's simple. You're correct that we won't get people on board with this. We don't consider the recruitment of support or the opportunity cost losses or the myriad of other changes necessary. But this is all just an intellectual exercise in wishful thinking anyway.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Seeing as you're getting tripped up on the word "simple", the sentiment can be rephrased without using that word: Where there is a will, there is a way. If people can be convinced to do something, they will. History proves this as an absolute fact.