3 ms·

I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial incentive

by by 17y ago

I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer. This applies right across medicine. Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and very little for power efficiency, which effectively achieves the same result. Instead of spending the money on solar panels in space what about energy efficient fridges? And no, this doesn't shrink the 'economy' it allows us to achieve the same level of wealth with less resource consumption.

anamax 17y ago
> I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer. I see lots of people spending money on things that they're told will protect them from cancer, so there's clearly a huge financial incentive. > Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and very little for power efficiency, which effectively achieves the same result. Likewise. And, I see people buying things to get them better mileage too. In fact, it's hard to avoid seeing this stuff, at least in mainstream US. In short, I'm pretty sure that the "there's no real financial incentive" stuff is "why don't the proles see what's obvious to people like me". The only question is whether it comes from cocooning or just not paying attention.
Novash 17y ago
I believe that there is a serious incentive on prevention and efficiency. However, there is a much louder voice for curing and expansion. I can offer you two reasons why. 1) Lack of better knowledge in the past: For a long time people thought smoking was fashionable. Today we know it causes lung cancer, but it is now too late to tell all those people that have been smoking their entire life. This can be said about nearly everything in every other field. I would not say that we have better knowledge about many things now. Science is still not sure if eggs are good or bad for you, neither why many people develop lactose intollerance after their childhood. Because of that, prevention is pretty much a luck guess by now. We look at those who have survived and try to figure out why. Then we tell people to do that and see if it works, but there are so many factors that 'I' feel that prevention is in many cases just a gambling game. 2) Lack of knowledge of economy of scale. When the industrial revolution started, steam was on its heydays, and all that, the idea of recycling and efficiency didn't exist AT ALL. People really thought that Earth could take everything that was thrown at it and its resources would last forever. Only now, with a population of many billions that we are seeing that Earth is panting, trying to catch up with our wasteful ways. The idea of 'reduce, reuse, recycle' to save resources is very new and there is a lot of social and economical mommentum it needs to overcome before it becomes mainstream.
joe_the_user 17y ago
I suspect that research isn't the problem... Consider, if cancer prevention cost as much per person as cancer curing, it would be impossible to implement. So the prevention that makes any sense is cheap prevention. Moreover, we know of many cheap preventative activities, especially exercise and healthy diet. Unfortunately, it is hard to get people to engage in healthy activities. Indeed, it is easier to get someone to spend $100 on a bogus cancer prevention pill than it is get them to spend nothing at all and exercise regularly. So I'm sure research efforts will continue on creating a pill to give people who live unhealthily the effects of a healthy lifestyle... but I'm more than skeptical
mhb 17y ago
Isn't part of the prevention program the billions of dollars which are spent on health research, vitamins, etc.? Sure some of them are bogus, but there is continuing effort on uncovering things which actually might work - calorie restriction, vitamin E, fish oil, resveratrol,... Some of these aren't represented by a massive lobby, but isn't that a good thing?
tmoertel 17y ago
> There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer. Prevention is much harder to sell than cures because the effect of prevention is hard for people to see. If you get cancer, are given a treatment, and you live, you assume that without the treatment you would have died (death being the "counter-factual" observation that corresponds to the factual observation of your not dying), and thus that the treatment effect was big and important. But if you take a preventative treatment and don't get cancer, you don't have an obvious counter-factual to which you can compare your present state of well-being. You don't have the opportunity to realize that without the preventative treatment you would have gotten cancer and died: that counter-factual history never had a chance to play out.
nollidge 17y ago
> I have long felt that... Your "feelings" are irrelevant on matters of fact. Show your work.

by by 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer. I see lots of people spending money on things that they're told will protect them from cancer, so there's clearly a huge financial incentive. > Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and very little for power efficiency, which effectively achieves the same result. Likewise. And, I see people buying things to get them better mileage too. In fact, it's hard to avoid seeing this stuff, at least in mainstream US. In short, I'm pretty sure that the "there's no real financial incentive" stuff is "why don't the proles see what's obvious to people like me". The only question is whether it comes from cocooning or just not paying attention.

Novash 17y ago

I believe that there is a serious incentive on prevention and efficiency. However, there is a much louder voice for curing and expansion. I can offer you two reasons why. 1) Lack of better knowledge in the past: For a long time people thought smoking was fashionable. Today we know it causes lung cancer, but it is now too late to tell all those people that have been smoking their entire life. This can be said about nearly everything in every other field. I would not say that we have better knowledge about many things now. Science is still not sure if eggs are good or bad for you, neither why many people develop lactose intollerance after their childhood. Because of that, prevention is pretty much a luck guess by now. We look at those who have survived and try to figure out why. Then we tell people to do that and see if it works, but there are so many factors that 'I' feel that prevention is in many cases just a gambling game. 2) Lack of knowledge of economy of scale. When the industrial revolution started, steam was on its heydays, and all that, the idea of recycling and efficiency didn't exist AT ALL. People really thought that Earth could take everything that was thrown at it and its resources would last forever. Only now, with a population of many billions that we are seeing that Earth is panting, trying to catch up with our wasteful ways. The idea of 'reduce, reuse, recycle' to save resources is very new and there is a lot of social and economical mommentum it needs to overcome before it becomes mainstream.

joe_the_user 17y ago

I suspect that research isn't the problem... Consider, if cancer prevention cost as much per person as cancer curing, it would be impossible to implement. So the prevention that makes any sense is cheap prevention. Moreover, we know of many cheap preventative activities, especially exercise and healthy diet. Unfortunately, it is hard to get people to engage in healthy activities. Indeed, it is easier to get someone to spend $100 on a bogus cancer prevention pill than it is get them to spend nothing at all and exercise regularly. So I'm sure research efforts will continue on creating a pill to give people who live unhealthily the effects of a healthy lifestyle... but I'm more than skeptical

mhb 17y ago

Isn't part of the prevention program the billions of dollars which are spent on health research, vitamins, etc.? Sure some of them are bogus, but there is continuing effort on uncovering things which actually might work - calorie restriction, vitamin E, fish oil, resveratrol,... Some of these aren't represented by a massive lobby, but isn't that a good thing?

tmoertel 17y ago

> There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer. Prevention is much harder to sell than cures because the effect of prevention is hard for people to see. If you get cancer, are given a treatment, and you live, you assume that without the treatment you would have died (death being the "counter-factual" observation that corresponds to the factual observation of your not dying), and thus that the treatment effect was big and important. But if you take a preventative treatment and don't get cancer, you don't have an obvious counter-factual to which you can compare your present state of well-being. You don't have the opportunity to realize that without the preventative treatment you would have gotten cancer and died: that counter-factual history never had a chance to play out.

nollidge 17y ago

> I have long felt that... Your "feelings" are irrelevant on matters of fact. Show your work.