= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on LINK: Diseases not sufficiently researched - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (38)
Didn't he just say?
Basic economics takes into account the likelihood that your actions will produce a benefit, and not just the benefit. Hasn't the author just stated the obvious?
I just don't get your point. I don't see any point to be made.
What are you "wondering" about? It seems like you object to his comment, but have given no indication why, and I see little to object to.
I am so stupid! How could I read that sentence, copy and paste it, and not get the meaning right? I honestly thought that the "but also" clause served to add potential breakthroughs to the list of things that should not motivate funding.
My only possible excuse is that my brain is wired for Spanish, and funny stuff happens when you translate "but" into Spanish.
Metus pointed out that the funding has "a bias for infectious diseases". That seems like a good criterion to add, at least when it comes to emerging diseases - diseases that haven't laid claim to many life-years yet, but might in the future. Mac made a similar point. But yeah, basically, the author nailed it.