4 ms·

Just an arbitrary metric. We should probably consider the cost to society then base the funding on that. For example, Americans spent $200 billion in care in 2

Just an arbitrary metric. We should probably consider the cost to society then base the funding on that. For example, Americans spent $200 billion in care in 2010, and this will increase to $500 billion in 2040. Perhaps as much as $1 trillion by 2050. What do you think is appropriate to invest to “cure the disease“? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-024-00136-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41514-024-00136-6 https://www.ncoa.org/adviser/local-care/memory-care-costs/ https://www.ncoa.org/adviser/local-care/memory-care-costs/

staticman2 2y ago
If you can't demonstrate throwing money at a problem is effective, the appropriate amount to invest could be rather low.
- melling 2y ago
  It would be easy to demonstrate. Obviously, and clearly no one wants to waste money. By the way, 100% of the time I make my observation, someone makes a similar comment as yours. Considering I’ve been making my observation for decades, I’m beginning to wonder why it’s not obvious to everyone.
  - staticman2 2y ago
    I guess I'd observe that very few humans in history have believed money can cure any disease. This is why rich folks like Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Genghis Khan or whomever don't traditionally invest 90% of their net worth in curing senescence, even though they all suffer from it and would get huge personal benefit if it could be cured. It would certainly be a wonderful thing if Alzheimer's could be cured but I can't imagine how you could demonstrate this other than calling for optimism.
    - fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
      It's an interesting point you bring up about senescence in general. I think there is an idea today that you shouldn't expect to live forever. Taking this view, it could add another factor to the problem of how to spend a health budget. For example, an argument could be made under this view that preventing cancer in children would be more important than curing Alzheimer's, even if it is less common. Lastly, the claim that "we only spend x amount on y disease" is flawed. Alzheimer's is an extremely complex disease because it has to do with the degeneration of the neurons in our brain. Our understanding of the brain is still limited, which means we likely need to understand the brain more in general in order to understand Alzheimer's disease, which is a special case of brain function in general. That being the case, I think a lot neurological research is helping Alzheimer's in some way, even if it is not labeled as such. To give the most extreme and obvious example, the discovery of neurons itself can be considered research of Alzheimer's, even though the researchers had no such intention. Taking this view further, we can consider research in ancillary fields like gene sequencing to be aiding in Alzheimer's research. It may be something that comes down to fully or almost fully mapping out the brain and the functions of all its relevant genes in order to solve the problem. I doubt such as massive undertaking would labeled as "Alzheimer's research."

staticman2 2y ago

If you can't demonstrate throwing money at a problem is effective, the appropriate amount to invest could be rather low.

melling 2y ago
It would be easy to demonstrate. Obviously, and clearly no one wants to waste money. By the way, 100% of the time I make my observation, someone makes a similar comment as yours. Considering I’ve been making my observation for decades, I’m beginning to wonder why it’s not obvious to everyone.
- staticman2 2y ago
  I guess I'd observe that very few humans in history have believed money can cure any disease. This is why rich folks like Andrew Carnegie, Bill Gates, Genghis Khan or whomever don't traditionally invest 90% of their net worth in curing senescence, even though they all suffer from it and would get huge personal benefit if it could be cured. It would certainly be a wonderful thing if Alzheimer's could be cured but I can't imagine how you could demonstrate this other than calling for optimism.
  - fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
    It's an interesting point you bring up about senescence in general. I think there is an idea today that you shouldn't expect to live forever. Taking this view, it could add another factor to the problem of how to spend a health budget. For example, an argument could be made under this view that preventing cancer in children would be more important than curing Alzheimer's, even if it is less common. Lastly, the claim that "we only spend x amount on y disease" is flawed. Alzheimer's is an extremely complex disease because it has to do with the degeneration of the neurons in our brain. Our understanding of the brain is still limited, which means we likely need to understand the brain more in general in order to understand Alzheimer's disease, which is a special case of brain function in general. That being the case, I think a lot neurological research is helping Alzheimer's in some way, even if it is not labeled as such. To give the most extreme and obvious example, the discovery of neurons itself can be considered research of Alzheimer's, even though the researchers had no such intention. Taking this view further, we can consider research in ancillary fields like gene sequencing to be aiding in Alzheimer's research. It may be something that comes down to fully or almost fully mapping out the brain and the functions of all its relevant genes in order to solve the problem. I doubt such as massive undertaking would labeled as "Alzheimer's research."