5 ms·
My hunch is, the more greedy the patent holders are, the more likely, and the faster replacement cures will come to market. And if that day comes, I certainly
by datashovel 11y ago
My hunch is, the more greedy the patent holders are, the more likely, and the faster replacement cures will come to market.
And if that day comes, I certainly hope one of those replacement cures puts the greedy ones out of business.
On a darker note, I think your second comment speaks volumes about the kind of human being you are. I hope one day, years from now, you will take the time to come back to this comment and have the ability to reflect on just how sad your world view was at one point in your life.
On a lighter note, I agree that the best minds in the world should work on solving the hard / important problems of the world. With that said, machine learning / artificial intelligence (what alot of those "timewasters" are probably working on) will be what takes the human race to the next level. If you think "finding the cure for cancer" is next level, I am here to tell you we haven't seen anything yet. Machine learning / artificial intelligence is what's going to take us there.
- ars 11y agoIt's not really about greed, this drug really and truly is extremely expensive to make.
- datashovel 11y agoI agree, but with one caveat. It's only about greed if the patent / stake-holders make it about greed. The parent comment I was replying to seems to imply it would be a good / welcome idea for patent / stake-holders to be greedy and make billions in profits.
- pinaceae 11y agoso billions for FB/Instagram/CocaCola/Tesla - all justified. same for something that is a product that takes billions to develop and get approved, plus saves actual lives? how DARE I!? resources in a capitalist society get allocated by rewards on efforts. i want the best resources working this, hence the incentives need to be spectacular. competing against HFT and other hot areas here.
- datashovel 11y agoFor someone to see a human being tortured by cancer, and for that person to turn around and say "one day I'm gonna make billions by inventing and patenting a cure" is evil to his core. If I am so blessed to be in a position that I have invented a cure for cancer, I am giving it away. At the most I want to break even. If I make a single penny from the invention I'm donating it to charity. If you're motivated by profit, you should not be in the business of saving lives.
- pinaceae 11y agoyou're completely clueless about what it takes to bring modern medicine to market. you argue from a moral high horse that has no bearing in reality. developing a cure for cancer costs real fucking money, gobs and gobs of it. you think clinical trials and FDA approvals come for free? ramping up a supply chain around it? ever developed any product? ever?
- datashovel 11y agoI'm not saying it's free to manufacture and distribute a product. So of course money has to be charged for a product on some level. I'm not saying "go bankrupt in order to manufacture and distribute the cure for cancer to the world". But the place where I draw the line is when mega corp decides to hold the cure for cancer hostage until their profit demands are met.
- pinaceae 11y agowhich is a scenario that is not happening, anywhere. wtf are you babbling about?
- datashovel 11y agoAs far as I'm concerned, this whole back and forth is not about actual events happening in the world. This is a moral / ethical argument. My point is that: for anyone, either implicitly or explicitly, to say it's ok to look another human being, with terminal cancer, in the eyes and say "I have a cure for you, but you can't have it unless you help me fulfill the wishes of my stockholders (aka profits)" is evil.