←back to thread

1165 points jbredeche | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.235s | source
Show context
chewbacha ◴[] No.43998395[source]
Good thing RFK pushed out the official overseeing this financing and the current administration is actively defunding the organizations that produced this.

Better to have more disabled or dead babies instead of science.

/s

replies(4): >>43998405 #>>43998421 #>>43998457 #>>43999045 #
pacoWebConsult ◴[] No.43998457[source]
From a purely utilitarian perspective, funding research like this is not an effective use of dollars at the margin. How many people could we save if an equivalent amount was put into reducing obesity, smoking, and drinking? How many people could we save if we stopped spending money we don't have to do things that the government isn't competent at allocating anyways?

That's not to say the research itself is not impressive nor important, but think critically about the fact that this money doesn't exist in a vacuum.

replies(17): >>43998481 #>>43998498 #>>43998524 #>>43998537 #>>43998559 #>>43998595 #>>43998611 #>>43998619 #>>43998647 #>>43998652 #>>43998676 #>>43998690 #>>43998700 #>>43998708 #>>43998726 #>>43998777 #>>43998807 #
tchalla ◴[] No.43998524[source]
I’m glad we don’t only think from a utilitarian perspective then.
replies(1): >>43998857 #
1. psychoslave ◴[] No.43998857[source]
It's not even that. Utilitarian premises still let a very broad set of perspective. A long term perspective on large humanity won't lead to same conclusion as what will be the most joy inducing experiences in the next 24h for the 1% wealthiest people in the world right now.