4 ms·
And 3 million of malaria, and 38 million due to aging. Enormous sums are spent on removing the former, very little on removing the latter. None of the prioritie
by reasonattlm 11y ago
And 3 million of malaria, and 38 million due to aging. Enormous sums are spent on removing the former, very little on removing the latter. None of the priorities are correct, and it isn't even a matter of resources going to one or the other to get it done first - it's a matter of convincing people to direct more than the present tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction of overall resources to these goals.
Early stage medical research funding and programs aimed at prevention of poverty are both small potatoes in comparison to the throughput of the alcohol industry or the professional sports edifice, for example. In a world in which the beer and the circuses are a massive expenditure, there is plenty of room to convince more funding for things that actually matter without taking from one beneficial program to prioritize another.
- Zarkonnen 11y agoI'm all in favour of funding for anti-aging research if the money gets taken out of our beer and circuses budget. What I object to is the way the article insists that aging is some kind of low-hanging fruit we could pick if only we realized it, and describes all other problems in the world as distractions.