4 ms·
Lowe mentions costs 0 times though, he isn't making an economic argument. If you want to make an economic argument then 90% is probably the consensus on what is
by roenxi 3mo ago
Lowe mentions costs 0 times though, he isn't making an economic argument. If you want to make an economic argument then 90% is probably the consensus on what is optimal given that is what people are doing.
> If this try or die mentality does work, why don't we try every possible amino acid chain in every configuration possible?
You tell me. If someone wants to start working through the amino acids one by one I'm not going to say they should be stopped; sincerest good luck to them. I'm just not going to be the one funding it.
> You could solve all forms of cancer tomorrow, which would be a great thing, but you aren't "saving humanity".
This is a straw man. "Saving humanity", whatever that means, is outside the scope of medicine and I never argued for it. Nobody did. It isn't relevant.
- halperter 3mo agoI mean, economics is pretty important for a business, no? The issue with the idealistic "do everything we can" is that we have limits. Money is one of the most, if not _the_ most important parts. When clinical trials take tens of millions to do, it is economically infeasible to try things at random; there needs to be an informed approach. I can see why you call my argument about cancer a strawman, and I'd like to clarify that as a general concept, just because humanity could survive for a few more centuries (paraphrased), we can't just be trying randomly. The person who randomly creates protiens that have a _miniscule_ chance to cure an important disease would be much better off putting their efforts into not just guessing and checking. TLDR: I just have an issue with their "we should try every combination with no regards to constraining factors" approach