= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jasonmcdowell comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (470)
Loā Hô, a Taiwanese physician and poet.
What I really like about this quote is that I'm fairly sure the 'old doctor' is himself.
I care. If illness is abolished and a doctor of any age is starving, they can stay at my place and I'll feed them. Alternately, we could raise taxes slightly to finance government-mandated programs for training and reconversion of young doctors and early retirement for old doctors.
In other words: beware of though-mindedly accepting bad consequences of overall good policies. Look for a superior alternative first.
I agree. Unfortunately, the way it actually works is, "No, we can't allow your universal cure -- the AMA/[your country's MD association] is upset."
"No, we can't accept your free widgets -- that would cost our widgetmakers major sales."
"No, I don't want you to work for me for free -- that would put domestic servants out of jobs."
"No, I don't want to marry you -- that would hurt the income of local prostitutes."
"No, I don't want your solar radiation -- that would put our light and heat industries out of business."
Edit: Even better: "No, I don't want you to be my friend -- what about my therapist's loss of revenue?"
That is a brilliant line. Now I'm trying to work out how to create a circumstance in which to use it.
The worst thing about how frequenting prostitutes is no longer socially acceptable, even for males, is that there are so many quips and jokes that just don't work any more.
Was it ever socially acceptable?
IRL it's the pharmaceutic labs that block it, not the docs.
That's one of the reasons why you try to mitigate bad side effects: so that people who'll suffer on net from the efffects will STFU.
In theory, yes. And I'd much prefer a one-time ("extortion") payment to a domestic industry to allow cheaper imports, than allow the global economy to remain in a perpetual rut just so a few people don't have to change jobs.
But the fact that this alternative is Pareto-efficient doesn't mean the potential sufferers will STFU -- rather, it costs the alternative its public support, probably because the average person, sympathetic to the domestic industry, still sees it as extortion. And the people in the domestic industry don't want to see themselves as extortioners either! (Relevant Landsburg post.)
IAWYC. One quibble:
If illness is abolished, what's the point of retirement?
To keep dusky sports pubs in business, of course.
That can be a danger, but I think starvation is an obvious enough problem that people won't take this literally.
Starvation is an illness. (Or food dependency if you prefer.)
It is the curse of thermodynamic jurisdiction.
SMBC #2305 is another, more cynical instance of the false dichotomy.