5 ms·
> always means worse for some. Can't agree. Say, when a new treatment emerges for a disease that was affecting some part of the population, it's better for the
by nine_k 2y ago
> always means worse for some.
Can't agree. Say, when a new treatment emerges for a disease that was affecting some part of the population, it's better for the cured, and not any worse for all others.
Even simpler, at the very foundation of daily life: when two people willingly exchange something, they are both better off, by their subjective measures, else they would have done that. This applies not only to exchanging goods for money, but even to exchanging friendly smiles.
If all life were a zero-sum game, the world would never progress to its current state.
- dontlikeyoueith 2y ago> it's better for the cured, and not any worse for all others. Won't anyone think of the business owners who lost their steady stream of income from treatable but incurable illnesses?
- nine_k 2y agoGet lost, government regulations made them supply the palliative medicine at the cost of production. They can now reallocate the production capacity.
- xboxnolifes 2y agoAll changes being worse for some does not imply zero-sum. It only implies that every individual change will always make the status quo worse for at least 1 person, not that the collective good did not outweigh the bad. Plus, this is frequently off-set by some future change being a net-improvement for the previously impacted person.