3 ms·

I tuned out when I came across this: > Science and technology, I feel, has always had a certain apathy towards the plight [of] the people at the bottom rungs.

I tuned out when I came across this: > Science and technology, I feel, has always had a certain apathy towards the plight [of] the people at the bottom rungs. Does that apply to medical advances too? e.g. antibiotics, vaccines, etc. too? We are living longer today thanks to advances in science and technology. Not just the people at the top; but also the peopl at the bottom rungs. Most scientific research does not take into account who the beneficiaries of that research would be.

jack_pp 4mo ago
do people at the bottom have access to medical advances or are they in lifelong debt in the unfortunate case when they need those medical advances?
- brookst 4mo ago
  How accessible were covid vaccines?
  - selcuka 4mo ago
    Were the vaccines accessible because of the sympathy towards the people at the bottom, or so that they can go back to work as soon as possible? Medicine is subsidised when there is a global pandemic, but not when individual lives are at stake.
    - brookst 4mo ago
      I don’t really find it fruitful to speculate about motives in complex systems. The claim was that average people don’t benefit from medical advances, which seems clearly untrue. Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available, sure, there are lots of plausible theories that may or may be true, in whole or part, and which we’ll never prove one way or the other. Believe what makes you happy, or angry, or whatever mood you prefer.
      - selcuka 4mo ago
        > Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available But it's not me who is shifting, right? The claim was: > Science and technology, I feel, has always had a certain apathy towards the plight [of] the people at the bottom rungs. not > The claim was that average people don’t benefit from medical advances My point is to reject the claim that the high availability of vaccines is a counter-example. It's a political decision, not a science/technology related one.
        brookst 4mo ago
        You’re still getting at motives rather than facts, which means it’s unfalsibisble. If you’re going to say that fact X is not a counter/example because [subjective, speculative reasons] then I’m confident you’ll never find a fact that contradicts your beliefs. There will always be some “oh, well the bridge collapsed, but it wasn’t bad engineering it was political reasons, so it doesn’t count as a collapse.”
        selcuka 4mo ago
        What I said is not subjective/speculative. It is not even unfalsifiable. To restate, COVID vaccine can't be used as an example of "science/technology's sympathy towards the bottom rungs". They were only accessible because governments purchased those vaccines from science/technology companies and gave away for free. Companies developed it to make profit. If the governments didn't purchase billions of doses at a subsidised price, most people wouldn't be able to afford it [1]. I don't see how this conclusion is subjective, speculative, or unfalsifiable? [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-is-the-future-in-australia-and-how-much-could-they-cost-you/epl6ql9a4 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-i...
  - jack_pp 4mo ago
    It costs between 4k and 10k if you break your leg and call an ambulance in the US. Forget medical advances, it costs you a car to get a cast
    - mlmonkey 4mo ago
      Not if you're homeless in, say, San Francisco.
      - brookst 4mo ago
        Also not if you’re the president. But generally we’re talking about the life experience of the 330m people who are not outliers in our society.
jamilton 4mo ago
>Most scientific research does not take into account who the beneficiaries of that research would be. I would consider that apathy.
gmueckl 4mo ago
Especially basic scientific research is so far removed from actually useful applications that there is no direct cause and effect relationship between single items of research and any eventual effect on society.

jack_pp 4mo ago

do people at the bottom have access to medical advances or are they in lifelong debt in the unfortunate case when they need those medical advances?

brookst 4mo ago
How accessible were covid vaccines?
- selcuka 4mo ago
  Were the vaccines accessible because of the sympathy towards the people at the bottom, or so that they can go back to work as soon as possible? Medicine is subsidised when there is a global pandemic, but not when individual lives are at stake.
  - brookst 4mo ago
    I don’t really find it fruitful to speculate about motives in complex systems. The claim was that average people don’t benefit from medical advances, which seems clearly untrue. Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available, sure, there are lots of plausible theories that may or may be true, in whole or part, and which we’ll never prove one way or the other. Believe what makes you happy, or angry, or whatever mood you prefer.
    - selcuka 4mo ago
      > Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available But it's not me who is shifting, right? The claim was: > Science and technology, I feel, has always had a certain apathy towards the plight [of] the people at the bottom rungs. not > The claim was that average people don’t benefit from medical advances My point is to reject the claim that the high availability of vaccines is a counter-example. It's a political decision, not a science/technology related one.
      - brookst 4mo ago
        You’re still getting at motives rather than facts, which means it’s unfalsibisble. If you’re going to say that fact X is not a counter/example because [subjective, speculative reasons] then I’m confident you’ll never find a fact that contradicts your beliefs. There will always be some “oh, well the bridge collapsed, but it wasn’t bad engineering it was political reasons, so it doesn’t count as a collapse.”
        selcuka 4mo ago
        What I said is not subjective/speculative. It is not even unfalsifiable. To restate, COVID vaccine can't be used as an example of "science/technology's sympathy towards the bottom rungs". They were only accessible because governments purchased those vaccines from science/technology companies and gave away for free. Companies developed it to make profit. If the governments didn't purchase billions of doses at a subsidised price, most people wouldn't be able to afford it [1]. I don't see how this conclusion is subjective, speculative, or unfalsifiable? [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-is-the-future-in-australia-and-how-much-could-they-cost-you/epl6ql9a4 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-i...
- jack_pp 4mo ago
  It costs between 4k and 10k if you break your leg and call an ambulance in the US. Forget medical advances, it costs you a car to get a cast
  - mlmonkey 4mo ago
    Not if you're homeless in, say, San Francisco.
    - brookst 4mo ago
      Also not if you’re the president. But generally we’re talking about the life experience of the 330m people who are not outliers in our society.

jamilton 4mo ago

>Most scientific research does not take into account who the beneficiaries of that research would be. I would consider that apathy.

gmueckl 4mo ago

Especially basic scientific research is so far removed from actually useful applications that there is no direct cause and effect relationship between single items of research and any eventual effect on society.