Why is this? - Making Angry Birds is a whole lot easier than curing cancer, which is not even a single disease. - People need to eat, want to enjoy themselves

Why is this? - Making Angry Birds is a whole lot easier than curing cancer, which is not even a single disease. - People need to eat, want to enjoy themselves, all that stuff. To do this, you need money. What's the easier way to do so? Making Angry Birds. - People want raised status. You'd get a lot more from curing cancer(s), but it would take so much longer, and you're not guaranteed it'll really work. Making Angry Birds is the much better option. - You need piles of money to do research to cure cancers. You also need time. Short-termism (caused by the other side of accountability, transparency, and demands for ROI) means you may not get either of these. So where does the money come from, and is what you're getting enough? If it is, do you have time (and enough of the right type of skilled researchers) to do so? Modern medicine and research is not an individual endeavor; it requires teams, sometimes large ones. Along these lines, if you believe a government's number one job is to protect people from harm (and you're inclined towards positive liberty), why is there virtually no government support for anti-aging research (in the first world, disesases of age of edged out many other killers), or life extension/immortality research? "Natural causes"/"dying is part of the natural cycle"/other excuse based on cultural beliefs/ideology are so ingrained our cultures/ideologies as just being something we have to put up with, that we haven't even gotten off the ground with this stuff. Maybe the short version here is "we don't collectively care enough about things that kill us in a way tha matters or are even actively opposed to fixing them" to do anything about it. Change the culture, change the world.