And who knows, their model could be correct. But the unwillingness to consider "tradeoffs" makes me think it's just political angst and not a serious take
And who knows, their model could be correct. But the unwillingness to consider "tradeoffs" makes me think it's just political angst and not a serious take
1) A one time pill that not only cured any existing cancers in a user, but also permanently prevented any further ones. And to make it even better, it also is somehow relatively simple meaning it could be easily cloned and made extremely and globally affordable.
2) A complex (enabling a defacto monopoly on production), lengthy, and expensive treatment program that is 100% effective at curing any 1 type of cancer - that must be repeated per cancer and per individual as they emerge.
I do genuinely think that all big pharma execs would choose #2. They'd probably rationalize it as something like 'Well I'm curing cancer, and now I'll ensure we have the funds to continue working to solve even more illnesses, and everybody wins." So I'm sure in their minds they aren't villains, but that's because humans are just really really good at cognitive dissonance.
I guess the question then is: what major world problems can be fixed by eliminating / preventing bad actors, and what problems require a different solution?
I'm not claiming to know the answer