9 ms·
Taking the rationing argument to the extreme, suppose we could take a painless treatment once a year that would stop all aging and disease but costs $1 million.
by danteembermage 17y ago
Taking the rationing argument to the extreme, suppose we could take a painless treatment once a year that would stop all aging and disease but costs $1 million. Would we still innovate in cheaper, less effective methods? We couldn't possibly pay for the treatments for everyone, but should they be subsidized for some? Would there be pressure to make the treatments illegal for those who can afford them? What if for a quarter of the price you get half the effects, but you can still only take it once a year. What would be the optimal time to not age/be disease free a month, a week, a day?
- logicalmind 17y agoWhile we're theorizing, what if you knew you could make a pill that would be "a painless treatment once a year that would stop all aging and disease but costs $1 million." But it takes a company 50 years to develop and costs $1 trillion in research. Could a company take such a risk? Could the government?