Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The cure for cancer in an LFC society.

Rate this topic


EthanTexas

Recommended Posts

So exercise or lift weights or something. What's stopping you?

If you want to genetically enhance yourself, go right ahead. I don't see what this has to do with LFC.

I'm talking about genetic drift. If humans are not under selection pressure to have able-bodies, eventually we will experience degeneration. There wouldn't necessarily be any differential reproduction between those genetically predisposed to athleticism and those who are not, as long as pharmaceuticals can cure or keep diseases at bay long enough to reproduce. This is an issue in a LFC society in which technology and efficiency become increasingly more important in the lives of people, and increasingly varied innovation results in increasingly varied fields in which people are increasingly more reliant on technology for their needs and less so on their own bodies.

There's no shortage of energy from the Sun, or minerals from Earth and other objects in space.

No shortage of energy from the Sun, true; but I wouldn't say that there are enough minerals available on Earth so that everyone can have perfect nutrition if they so pleased. It would be very interesting if we started drawing minerals from space... In case anyone other than me is interested, here're the mineral compositions of Mars and Earth's moon.

Not that there's any reason to assume your assumption there, under current circumstances either. There is no reason to think that the Earth's population will reach a point of "overpopulation".

Depending on how you define overpopulation, we may already be overpopulated, or at least in some areas.. There's definite correlation between population density of urban areas and psychoses, at least in the United States, though I'm well-aware that correlation does not equal causation. I could definitely see where living in a densely-populated area would have a negative effect on one's psychological health, and it would make sense from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, though I'm aware that a lot of people here don't subscribe to evolutionary psychology.

Also, I'd like to ask what the Objectivist take is on the effect of the ELF radiation that's emitted from things like cellphones. Will a free market be likely to reduce the output of radiation, or increase it? I suppose public awareness/opinion would have something to do with it. Or would the radiation end up being not as much of a problem because of medical advances? That could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about genetic drift. If humans are not under selection pressure to have able-bodies, eventually we will experience degeneration. There wouldn't necessarily be any differential reproduction between those genetically predisposed to athleticism and those who are not, as long as pharmaceuticals can cure or keep diseases at bay long enough to reproduce. This is an issue in a LFC society in which technology and efficiency become increasingly more important in the lives of people, and increasingly varied innovation results in increasingly varied fields in which people are increasingly more reliant on technology for their needs and less so on their own bodies.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, I won't pretend to, but my gut tells me this is kooky nonsense. It seems like you are using circular logic: "if humans become more reliant on technology, won't humans be more reliant on technology?" How do you get from an incease in technology to humans becoming degenerated? You'll have to explain that one a little better to me at least, unless someone smarter can answer.

In any event, I still don't see what this has to do with laissez-faire Capitalism. Capitalism is a social system which bans the initiation of force and where government exists solely to protect individual rights, including private ownership of all property. If you can make a case of LFC = genetic degeneration outside of strictly in your imagination, okay, but I fail to see it thus far. So, really, if you want to genetically enhance yourself, go right ahead. It's your body, your life, you do whatever you want to it. Even assuming humans were somehow genetically degenerated in the distant future, how should that effect a social system which bans the initiation of physical force? What does that have to do with politics assuming a rights protecting Capitalist government is in place? Are you saying man should be forced to go back to a time when technology was non-existent and man must be forced to survive through back-breaking physical labor, excluding any products or inventions mans' mind can and has created? This whole line of questioning, including the 'overpopulation' talk (more humans = bad for the environment) seems extremely anti-reason and anti-life. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would, in a laissez-faire capitalist society, one be motivated to make the discovery of, for example, a cure for cancer, when it would be much easier just to continue producing less-than-perfect anti-cancer drugs that, while preserving the life and quality of life of those who take them to any degree, will reel in much larger profits?

My thoughts would be that one who makes such a discovery could, before administering it, as a term of its administration, have that the recipient sign into a long-term payment contract by which they would pay, in installments, perhaps, money to the curer for as long as they remain cancer-free.

How do you suppose things like this would be dealt with? I refer specifically to a cure for cancer, but I'd also like to address any situation in which it would seem that an imperfect job, which would provide job security, would be more profitable. Would the contract/installments idea be viable in order to combat the "job security" mindset with regards to things like this?

Thanks.

By the way, you can call me Ethan. And I am not a troll.

;o

I would answer that the premise in the question -- that it would be easier and more profitable to withhold a cure -- is not correct. A cure for a disease would be extremely profitable -- because the market would price it to ensure that was the case. As for long term payments, like any large purchase, long term financing would likely develop as an option.

A 'job security' mindset in which a company strives for imperfection would not last long in a free market economy. Somebody would quickly put them out of business. That's the beauty and efficacy of capitalism.

Monopolies can occur naturally in a free market, but they are seldom and temporary. There will always be a price and profit threshold that would induce new entries into a market and innovation will eventually make a monopoly insignificant. (Think traditional phone service vs cell phones and vonage.) Pharmaceuticals certainly has a large barrier to entry, but it continues to be an extremely competitive market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here, I won't pretend to, but my gut tells me this is kooky nonsense. It seems like you are using circular logic: "if humans become more reliant on technology, won't humans be more reliant on technology?" How do you get from an incease in technology to humans becoming degenerated? You'll have to explain that one a little better to me at least, unless someone smarter can answer.

Think, those fish that lost their eyes because they never used them. Even evolutionarily, if you don't use something, you start to lose it, slowly. Yeah, I guess you're right in saying that I'm approaching it circularly, but I'm not arguing with circular logic. Humans, as-is, are pretty reliant on technology, and the use of more technology will only make this more so.

In any event, I still don't see what this has to do with laissez-faire Capitalism. Capitalism is a social system which bans the initiation of force and where government exists solely to protect individual rights, including private ownership of all property. If you can make a case of LFC = genetic degeneration outside of strictly in your imagination, okay, but I fail to see it thus far. So, really, if you want to genetically enhance yourself, go right ahead. It's your body, your life, you do whatever you want to it. Even assuming humans were somehow genetically degenerated in the distant future, how should that effect a social system which bans the initiation of physical force?

I'm just taking into consideration the long-term effects of an increasingly industrialized society. That is all. If humans were to become genetically degenerate from long-term reliance on machines to do work for them, I think that'd be a cause for concern for the populace. I'm wondering if LFC would have any sort of inherent safeguard against this, like it does against monopolies, where it simply probably won't happen due to the economic theory.

For example, I reckon that physically strong humans will always have a certain breeding advantage, even if only for aesthetics, and that it may be the case that under LFC, weaker humans get bred-out in the course of competition. If anyone disagrees with this, I'd be curious as to why.

What does that have to do with politics assuming a rights protecting Capitalist government is in place? Are you saying man should be forced to go back to a time when technology was non-existent and man must be forced to survive through back-breaking physical labor, excluding any products or inventions mans' mind can and has created? This whole line of questioning, including the 'overpopulation' talk (more humans = bad for the environment) seems extremely anti-reason and anti-life. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

It doesn't have to do with politics so much as it is the future of the human race. Don't put words in my mouth; I'm certainly not saying that man should be forced out of his technology. That's absurd. What seems anti-reason and anti-life is not questioning and trying to form an educated opinion. I question because I want to know what everyone's thoughts are about these sorts of things. I have my own thoughts, and I could do all my own thinking, but it's always good to get outside perspectives. None of this line of questioning, if you want to call it a line of questioning, has been meant as a criticism of Objectivism... just questions from a newbie to the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provided we enter a completely free society where the enhancement of man becomes a technological feasibility you'll probably see markets for human enhancement arise. Who doesn't want to be stronger, faster or live longer? Athletic ability in sports and Olympic events is still heavily prized and records keep getting broken, what "selected" Phelps to be a great swimmer other than himself? Such a genetic profile has not been essential to human survival and does not help us live longer or make us stronger in any meaningful (in terms of productive power and enhanced survival) sense. Bodybuilding is not a hobby in the 3rd world. Our ancestors were selected, not to be the greatest, most able sportsman in terms of athletic ability, they were selected by survival in its lowest form, a continual struggle against storms, starvation, and fights with one another, one could say this "fit" genetic compliment has caused us to "drift" to where we cannot survive a society that has abundant resources by causing heart attacks. This of course assumes that men actually rely on genetic compliment for survival rather than reason, in which case the said poorly selected can adjust his diet, using his reason. Genetic therapy will probably exist in the future to keep children from inheriting clearly deficient traits, like deafness or sickle cell and what not, and eventually you'll see enhancement rise to the level where we will give ourselves stronger bones, perhaps for military, or survival purposes we will give ourselves bones enhanced in a way that natural selection would never produce. Human degeneracy is less a factor of genetic drift, and more a factor of malnutrition, which you see commonly in unfree countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you suppose things like this would be dealt with?

There's something here that I notice happen a lot when people ask questions about Objectivism and / or Capitalism. There seems to be an assumption that the bottom line dollar figure is the only thing that motivates people in these two systems. Believe it or not, there are Objecivists and Capitalists who actually like to help people and make life better for themselves and others. They find value in doing these things that is not necessarily conveyed by the bottom line.

LFC wouldn't deal with this, a compassionate person who also makes a living in research could be the one to find the cure. The LFC system would allow any person that wanted to do that with the opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans, as-is, are pretty reliant on technology, and the use of more technology will only make this more so.

I've heard it said that humans could only live within a relatively small circular band around the earth without the existence of clothing because of the temperature and exposure. The human body is both very frail and very resilient depending on the context. That's why it's a good thing we have a brain. Human beings are reliant on clothes, food, water, and a host of other things (technology). To say that humans are reliant on something is not necessarily a bad thing, it's a recognition of a fact of reality. Our brain allows us to utilize those things that we need to keep us alive and striving. When a deficiency of a certain thing pops up, we have a tendency to use our brains and adapt to the changing situation. If we lost 'technology' tomorrow, I suspect quite a few people would have a hard time dealing with that. Some probably will die. Others will continue to employ that most important organ, the brain, to continue their survival.

Those who become "too reliant" on technology may not be employing their brains as the should, but there are countless examples of that in the world today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard it said that humans could only live within a relatively small circular band around the earth without the existence of clothing because of the temperature and exposure. The human body is both very frail and very resilient depending on the context. That's why it's a good thing we have a brain. Human beings are reliant on clothes, food, water, and a host of other things (technology). To say that humans are reliant on something is not necessarily a bad thing, it's a recognition of a fact of reality. Our brain allows us to utilize those things that we need to keep us alive and striving. When a deficiency of a certain thing pops up, we have a tendency to use our brains and adapt to the changing situation. If we lost 'technology' tomorrow, I suspect quite a few people would have a hard time dealing with that. Some probably will die. Others will continue to employ that most important organ, the brain, to continue their survival.

Those who become "too reliant" on technology may not be employing their brains as the should, but there are countless examples of that in the world today.

Additionally, to gain some perspective on this, humans are fairly generalist even WITHOUT modern technology. We can survive in a much broader range of environments than many, many other creatures. Do you know how many critters are restricted to one particular spot just a few square miles or less? Humans are pretty physiologically flexible, all things considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if the people that need help have no value to trade.

Well, aside from this statement being patently wrong on it's face, it's also wrong in a different aspect as well. Even if the people that need help have nothing to trade, there are a variety of different business models that provide capital for organizations that deal with those who need help but have no value to trade.

The manner in which it fails on it's face is that (as I said) some people find value just in helping other people, even when it is at their own expense. This is not necessarily self-sacrificing.

What a bleak view you have of Objectivists and Capitalism.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the opposite end of the spectrum, what about transhumanism? When genetic modification for people becomes available, in a free market situation, wouldn't that result in large numbers of people having to have genetic modifications in order to stay competitive, and this would destroy market competition in a way that would not be conducive to an economically healthy society (or, perhaps, physically)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

genetic modifications in order to stay competitive, and this would destroy market competition

How does becoming more competitive result in less market competiveness? The only way to destroy market competition is to decrease competitiveness; increasing it increases market competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans, as-is, are pretty reliant on technology, and the use of more technology will only make this more so.

And so? Humans have been reliant on technology ever since one of our pre-human ancestors found a broken piece of flint could be used as a more effective hunting weapon than a mere rock. We are technological beings. We make use of technology to adapt the world to us. Without any technology we'd die pretty fast (imagine yourself alone in the jungle, naked, without even as much as a sharpened stick, what kind of lifespan would you have?)

As to genetic "enahncements," if everyone can get them then it's as if no one did. That is, the playing field is leveled again.

You know what would be a great genetic enhancement? A smarter, better immune system. One that could tell real threats from harmless nuissances or even actively helpful outside agents (like implants, transplants and such). That would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think, those fish that lost their eyes because they never used them. Even evolutionarily, if you don't use something, you start to lose it, slowly. Yeah, I guess you're right in saying that I'm approaching it circularly, but I'm not arguing with circular logic. Humans, as-is, are pretty reliant on technology, and the use of more technology will only make this more so.

[...]

I'm just taking into consideration the long-term effects of an increasingly industrialized society. That is all. If humans were to become genetically degenerate from long-term reliance on machines to do work for them, I think that'd be a cause for concern for the populace. I'm wondering if LFC would have any sort of inherent safeguard against this, like it does against monopolies, where it simply probably won't happen due to the economic theory.

You're talking very long term here, thousands of years. If you want to go that route, have you ever heard of nano-technology? My guess is that humans will become stronger and more robust with more advanced technology.

At the end of the day, I guess we don't have safe guards against every eventuality dreamed up, but that is always the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if the people that need help have no value to trade.

If you mean they have nothing of monetary value to trade, it's silly to assume the person is of no other value at all to any other person on the planet. Anyone visiting this forum should understand that doing something without a monetary return does not imply altruism.

If you mean the person literally has no value, then why would that person deserve help?

Onto the relevant topic, if I had the ability to find the cure for cancer, I would do it. I wouldn't care if I get zero dollars in the process. For a person like me, finding the answer is enough. But enough other people value the same thing that I could receive grants and other support. So receiving zero dollars in unlikely anyway in an LFC society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean they have nothing of monetary value to trade, it's silly to assume the person is of no other value at all to any other person on the planet. Anyone visiting this forum should understand that doing something without a monetary return does not imply altruism.

If you mean the person literally has no value, then why would that person deserve help?

Onto the relevant topic, if I had the ability to find the cure for cancer, I would do it. I wouldn't care if I get zero dollars in the process. For a person like me, finding the answer is enough. But enough other people value the same thing that I could receive grants and other support. So receiving zero dollars in unlikely anyway in an LFC society.

If you found a cure for cancer, it'd be a gross injustice if you didn't become unfathomably rich. What an awesome value it would be to have that wretched disease vanquished from our lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you found a cure for cancer, it'd be a gross injustice if you didn't become unfathomably rich. What an awesome value it would be to have that wretched disease vanquished from our lives.

Well said.

I recall reading about a hypothetical in which a man could cure disease simply by touching someone. The question was then posed as to what this man should do. It pointed out that most 'decent' people would treat the man as a slave of society, and that knowing this plus the sheer number of people on the planet the man would think he'd be in chains for life and so would keep it to himself if he could. In such a 'moral' world the man would end up just taking that boon with him to the grave.

The article went on to point out that if people kept their heads and did their sums, and if the man's liberty kept unabridged, he could become fabulously wealthy AND everyone would get his services.

First, the calculations were that at a rate of yay many people per second (imagine the guy on a golf cart and lightly slapping people on the face as he drove past a tightly packed line) and on a reasonable work schedule, everyone on the planet would be attended to within a reasonable number of years. Naturally the order of who goes where in the line would be organised in order of urgency, but in the end we'd ALL get the touch.

Second, the article noted that in a free world he'd be at liberty to practice price discrimination. He could easily charge the dirt poor one cent for his trouble, the super-rich as much as he liked, and everyone else on a well-thought-out sliding scale. By the end of his few years working only about as hard as a regular truck-driver he'd end up one of the richest people on Earth.

Thirdly, after the bulk of us were taken care of, that would leave the issue of him dealing with the occasional newborn in need of his attention. Then he'd be down to one light forehead tap every few seconds. By that time he'd be able to live in sumptuous style and continue to gain revenue by dead-easy work as a professional celebrity.

In a free world operating on self-interest everyone would benefit. Viva self-interest and freedom! In a non-free world, operating on altruism, nobody gets a damn thing. Altruism screws people.

The article concluded by noting that its point was, not that this supernaturalism proved anything about our real world, but that people's irrationality and questionable moral ideas prevented them from thinking straight and blinded them to other possibilities. Most people would take the initial premise and just run with it like headless chickens, operating on emotions programmed by moral upbringing, not bothering to question that or to do their sums, and not bothering to pay attention to the man's own desires or well-being. When that sort of psychoepistemology is allowed to determine our actions then THAT is the way in which unreason and altruism screw people for real.

The article wasn't written by an Objectivist, but nevertheless it was very enlightening.

JJM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...