4 ms·
I don’t think it’s fair to mark some parts of the argument “not the real world” when the argument is a whole block. The societal changes being discussed in the
by otikik 3y ago
I don’t think it’s fair to mark some parts of the argument “not the real world” when the argument is a whole block. The societal changes being discussed in the article are the main proposed path to a solution, not the particular cancer cure. Yes it involves some changes in the amount of profit some people will make. Yes potentially even destabilizing capitalism somewhat. These kinds of changes might not be comfortable or free of risks, but we have done similar changes in the past. Sometimes without even killing people in the process. The are definitely part of “the real world”.
- bawolff 3y agoChanges can be made, but that has to be discussed as part of the solutions not as something extra. Problems are not purely technical, they always have a social component. If you have a solution but its too expensive, that's not a full solution, that is half a solution. Maybe the other half is government grants or whatever, but you can't just talk about it as if the problem is solved. The social factors are just as much a part of the problem to be solved as the scientific part. Someone needs to figure them out. It is hard work that needs to be done and is how problems actually get solved.
- mardifoufs 3y agoThat argument could be applied to prohibition too for example. If we just changed society enough... we could be alcohol free! Same for drug usage. But the thing is, if you have to literally change society to do something maybe it's not such a practical or useful idea.
- otikik 3y agoWomen voting. Black people voting. Saturday. A lot of changes happen and stick around afterwards.