Libertarian Diskanen

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18760
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 15 Jan 2019, 12:54

I expect health care costs for many if not most diseases and disorders will plummet as genetic medicine overtakes the current state of the art. For that matter, it's only a matter of time before later generation 3D printers will be able to home manufacture pharmaceuticals. Our great-grandchildren will wonder why we poured so much money into something they take for granted as a nearly incidental expense.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24199
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Jennifer » 15 Jan 2019, 14:54

Mo wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 12:28
Jennifer wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 20:16
Do y'all remember the time someone (IIRC Ellie) posted some idiotic twitter complaint a la "Prescription glasses prove capitalism is evil, because people with poor vision must pay money if they want to see"? Of course it's a stupid argument which among other things confuses cause and effect.
This is close, but not right. Luxottica proves that capitalism is evil*. Those glasses should have cost you half as much.

* Kidding sorta.
Sure Luxottica IS scummy, but they demonstrate the evils of monopolies, NOT "capitalism."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26627
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Warren » 15 Jan 2019, 16:20

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 12:54
I expect health care costs for many if not most diseases and disorders will plummet as genetic medicine overtakes the current state of the art. For that matter, it's only a matter of time before later generation 3D printers will be able to home manufacture pharmaceuticals. Our great-grandchildren will wonder why we poured so much money into something they take for granted as a nearly incidental expense.
This is the only hope I see. But I don't think I'll live long enough to see it.
I think in terms of credibility and it's all black eyes as far as you can see in the media landscape. - JasonL

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18760
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 15 Jan 2019, 16:33

Jennifer wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 14:54
Mo wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 12:28
Jennifer wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 20:16
Do y'all remember the time someone (IIRC Ellie) posted some idiotic twitter complaint a la "Prescription glasses prove capitalism is evil, because people with poor vision must pay money if they want to see"? Of course it's a stupid argument which among other things confuses cause and effect.
This is close, but not right. Luxottica proves that capitalism is evil*. Those glasses should have cost you half as much.

* Kidding sorta.
Sure Luxottica IS scummy, but they demonstrate the evils of monopolies, NOT "capitalism."
Except, of course, they're not a real monopoly. Warby Parker, Lookmatic and a number of foreign companies aren't owned by them. I own some pre-Luxottica Ray Bans, but the round frames I wore until my cataract surgery came from England. Yeah, they were pricey, but Warby Parker isn't, nor are many other online stores. People have options if they have any interest in looking for them.

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7069
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Jadagul » 15 Jan 2019, 16:56

My glasses cost like $45 and half of that is paying for the transition lenses.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28087
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2019, 17:01

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 12:54
I expect health care costs for many if not most diseases and disorders will plummet as genetic medicine overtakes the current state of the art. For that matter, it's only a matter of time before later generation 3D printers will be able to home manufacture pharmaceuticals.
Um, 3D printing is very different from chemical synthesis.

Yes, the production costs of pharmaceuticals are quite small compared with the R&D and marketing costs, but synthesis of safe medications still requires a certain degree of quality control, which requires professionals. Home-brew medication synthesis ain't happening anytime soon (if ever).
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13518
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Eric the .5b » 15 Jan 2019, 17:54

thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 17:01
Um, 3D printing is very different from chemical synthesis.
After a discussion of 3D printed weapons elsewhere, it's become obvious to me that there are fucktons of people out there who believe, for whatever reasons of cluelessness, that these things are nigh-on Star Trek replicators, and that, Sometime Real Soon, they'll be churning out drugs, food, and phaser pistols.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26627
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Warren » 15 Jan 2019, 17:57

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 17:54
thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 17:01
Um, 3D printing is very different from chemical synthesis.
After a discussion of 3D printed weapons elsewhere, it's become obvious to me that there are fucktons of people out there who believe, for whatever reasons of cluelessness, that these things are nigh-on Star Trek replicators, and that, Sometime Real Soon, they'll be churning out drugs, food, and phaser pistols.
My understanding is that the technology already exists to assemble molecules nucleus by nucleus.
I think in terms of credibility and it's all black eyes as far as you can see in the media landscape. - JasonL

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 4061
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Painboy » 15 Jan 2019, 19:23

Jennifer wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 20:16
On some level, I suppose, we'll have to accept that healthcare in general is going to run at an overall loss;
I'm snipping out this part because I think this is an assumption I often see being made by people and think it's kind of odd.

Morally speaking that would mean forever plundering the next generation. Basically Ellie's kids are going to be paying for my care when I get older. Money that they could have used for college or their own well being is going to be gobbled up leaving them to depend on the generations following them to provide for them. It's like some kind of institutionalized Confucianism.

Practically speaking this is unsustainable given population trends. The population of the planet is projected to level off in the next 50 years or so. So each individuals portion of that bill is just going to get larger and larger. All to try and keep 90 year-olds alive a few more years.

This to me is why there is no real total government solution to this because old people vote, they are going to be a growing percentage of the population, and are going to want to vote themselves all the healthcare their wrinkly hands can grab up. So when politicians have control they'll just keep kicking the can down the road.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18760
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 15 Jan 2019, 19:32

thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 17:01
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 12:54
I expect health care costs for many if not most diseases and disorders will plummet as genetic medicine overtakes the current state of the art. For that matter, it's only a matter of time before later generation 3D printers will be able to home manufacture pharmaceuticals.
Um, 3D printing is very different from chemical synthesis.

Yes, the production costs of pharmaceuticals are quite small compared with the R&D and marketing costs, but synthesis of safe medications still requires a certain degree of quality control, which requires professionals. Home-brew medication synthesis ain't happening anytime soon (if ever).
Um, yeah, I know, which is why I said "great-grandchildren" and 3D printer was just shorthand for DYI home technology. But it's still just technology, so unless you can predict what will be available to the average consumer fifty years from now with the perspicacity of someone in 1969 seeing smartphones, etc. or give me a better reason why it won't happen than because the government won't permit it, I'm sticking with my prediction. Which at least you have some chance of being around to tell my memory I was wrong.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24199
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Jennifer » 15 Jan 2019, 19:35

Painboy wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 19:23
Jennifer wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 20:16
On some level, I suppose, we'll have to accept that healthcare in general is going to run at an overall loss;
I'm snipping out this part because I think this is an assumption I often see being made by people and think it's kind of odd.
It IS a loss (except for the maternity and elective surgery exemptions I mentioned). Same way that if you pay to fix a dent in your car, you're at a loss compared to someone whose car was never dented in the first place. Paying money to fix that dent (as opposed to, say, paying money to get the car a better music system or speakers) only gets you back to the pre-dent, pre-damage status quo.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28087
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by thoreau » 15 Jan 2019, 22:37

Warren wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 17:57
My understanding is that the technology already exists to assemble molecules nucleus by nucleus.
In some special cases, yes, people can position individual atoms.

At scale? In reasonable time? No. Not even close. We'll continue to need chemists for a very, very, VERY long time.

I suggest you talk to Timothy and dbcooper before you embarrass yourself any further.
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 19:32
Um, yeah, I know, which is why I said "great-grandchildren" and 3D printer was just shorthand for DYI home technology. But it's still just technology, so unless you can predict what will be available to the average consumer fifty years from now with the perspicacity of someone in 1969 seeing smartphones, etc. or give me a better reason why it won't happen than because the government won't permit it, I'm sticking with my prediction.
While technological progress is real and wonderful, the entire history of chemistry and materials science has been a proliferation of methods and tools, not a consolidation into integrated, general-purpose tools. Yes, computers and information technology have moved in the direction of integrating many functionalities, but plenty of other technologies have moved in the direction of specialization and differentiation. There's a reason why high-tech manufacturing has global supply chains, parts and components and ingredients made in many places and through many stages with many different inputs. You see an ever-increasing number of types of things and types of components and materials going into them, not consolidation towards "general-purpose" tools. There's no chemical equivalent of a Turing machine.

Really, it's the reason why Theranos was a dodgy notion from the start: You can't apply the Silicon Valley paradigm of disruptive young geniuses to chemistry. Computers are relentlessly simple in a certain sense, and so an exceedingly clever prodigy can come up with a breakthrough of very high value at a very young age, using one general-purpose tool (a computer) and working with ideas that only have to be tested for self-consistency, not consistency with the huge unknowns of the material world. Leaps in chemistry require learning many different specialized tools (often expensive) using many different input materials (again, often expensive) in an environment that requires expensive, controlled infrastructure in order to remain safe. A computer prodigy can go on caffeine-fueled coding binges in their own living room, without having to periodically wait for deliveries of anything other than pizza, and with few physical risks aside from carpal tunnel. Even the most brilliant chemist has to keep testing ideas against reality, not just against the rules of logical consistency.

Chemistry is not at all simple in the ways that computers are, and so it won't be disrupted in the same way. That's not to say that disruptions will never come, but they'll be smaller in scale, consequential to the people making a particular thing, but not transformative for consumers in the way of information technologies that integrate increasingly many things.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24510
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Mo » 16 Jan 2019, 03:16

Not to mention, the basic safety equipment, like a hood so that you don’t kill everyone in tour house with chemical fumes, will likely remain expensive because there’s zero mass demand for a home industrial hood to push prices down.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7069
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Jadagul » 16 Jan 2019, 03:30

Mo wrote:
16 Jan 2019, 03:16
Not to mention, the basic safety equipment, like a hood so that you don’t kill everyone in tour house with chemical fumes, will likely remain expensive because there’s zero mass demand for a home industrial hood to push prices down.
I demand a home industrial hood.

I demand it go over my stove.

But yeah, at-home drug synthesis seems...unlikely.

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9684
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by nicole » 16 Jan 2019, 08:52

Painboy wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 19:23
Jennifer wrote:
14 Jan 2019, 20:16
On some level, I suppose, we'll have to accept that healthcare in general is going to run at an overall loss;
I'm snipping out this part because I think this is an assumption I often see being made by people and think it's kind of odd.

Morally speaking that would mean forever plundering the next generation. Basically Ellie's kids are going to be paying for my care when I get older. Money that they could have used for college or their own well being is going to be gobbled up leaving them to depend on the generations following them to provide for them. It's like some kind of institutionalized Confucianism.

Practically speaking this is unsustainable given population trends. The population of the planet is projected to level off in the next 50 years or so. So each individuals portion of that bill is just going to get larger and larger. All to try and keep 90 year-olds alive a few more years.

This to me is why there is no real total government solution to this because old people vote, they are going to be a growing percentage of the population, and are going to want to vote themselves all the healthcare their wrinkly hands can grab up. So when politicians have control they'll just keep kicking the can down the road.
I mean, yeah. Traditionally, humanity is a Ponzi scheme. And the scam is starting to break down.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18760
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 16 Jan 2019, 12:47

*shrug* I bow to your collective superior knowledge of basic scientific obstacles to DYI pharmacology and perhaps it *is* a bridge too far; but while I don't expect the laws of chemistry to change, we're still basically talking about what's not going to be possible in the future based on the state of the art in what is, at bottom, merely technology today. Historically, that's been a losing argument, so even if what I'm suggesting sounds more like alchemy than achievable technology, I'd still bet the basic premise; that is, that the cost of health care plummets within the next century, is sound.

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 3215
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 07:56
Location: Newyorkachusetts

Re: Libertarian Diskanen

Post by Jasper » 16 Jan 2019, 16:00

thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 22:37
Warren wrote:
15 Jan 2019, 17:57
My understanding is that the technology already exists to assemble molecules nucleus by nucleus.
In some special cases, yes, people can position individual atoms.

At scale? In reasonable time? No. Not even close. We'll continue to need chemists for a very, very, VERY long time.

I suggest you talk to Timothy and dbcooper before you embarrass yourself any further.
Don't listen to him Warren. What you're thinking of is cold fusion. I built a reactor in my basement. I'm just waiting for the peer-review. In the meantime, wanna invest?
"i'd like to move toward not combusting except on special occasions like arbor day." - dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests