this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
280 points (98.6% liked)
science
23964 readers
912 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hate how we treat animals for the benefit of an objectively worse animal.
Curing disease is undoubtedly worth animal suffering. Once the disease is cured the benefits will confer to all future humans until we go extinct, I am certain if you were suffering from alzheimers you'd be of a different opinion.
point these criticisms at the cosmetics industry.
I don't value the human experience like you do. Humans should die and suffer like any other animal. We're able to choose to do good and yet still inflict suffering for convenience. Instead of correcting systemic issues that cause increases in disease we inflict suffering on innocent animals in an attempt to provide a band aid that's often behind a paywall.
would you tell your spouse that after their diagnosis?
cartoonish evil.
You are not including the US in humanity clearly, because few can afford this kind of drug here.
Yea but the rest of us will still benefit. The US is like 5% of the world's population, give or take. Okay there's other countries with shitty health care systems (developing ones where they just haven't gotten there yet), but I'd reckon like 80% of the world's population would have easy and cheap or free access to it through government funded healthcare, or at least a better private system than the US. That's still a net good. Y'all just need to get your shit in order, but unfortunately at this point it's going to be harder and harder to do it without violence.
The existence of such a drug benefits humanity even if the USes barbaric policies prevent adoption.
furthermore even if nobody in the US got it ever it would still help an unimaginable number of people
what is the logic here? Don't help medicine move along because of one crazy country?
Advancements are only for the rich in these lands. Far from still being for the benefit, prolonging the rich's lives is arguably not.
It would be an advancement if the rights to the drug were owned by some sort of benefit corporation, or non profit, or were not sold to the worst people in the world.
It's not though. They are maximizing revenue with no one in government to stop them, to call them on gouging.
i'm a communist you're barking up the wrong tree
All value judgements are subjective. "Better" and "worse" are value judgements, not statements about reality, so they cannot be objective. But subjectively I agree with you that we treat animals awfully, not even mainly in science experiments - at least they have a tangible benefit. Just look at the way animals are bred to be tortured and murdered in factory farms.