Mr & Mrs Facebook to cure illness

[Osem]

Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan have pledged $3bn (£2.3bn) to fund medical research over the next decade.
At a press conference in San Francisco, they said their ultimate goal was to "cure, prevent or manage all diseases by the end of the century".
The funds will be distributed by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which they created in December 2015.
Tech leaders are increasingly turning their attention to health.
Earlier in the week, Microsoft said it intended to "solve" cancer by using artificial intelligence tools.
Google's DeepMind unit is working with the NHS to find a way to use computers to more accurately diagnose diseases.
And IBM and MIT announced a tie-up earlier this week to develop AI-based systems that could help clinicians improve the care of elderly and disabled patients.
Even so, the Chan Zuckerberg plan is marked by its ambition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37435425

The generosity is admirable but curing or preventing disease is simply going to create or exacerbate other problems isn't it? Unless a great deal more is done, this won't prevent deaths due to poverty, famine, overpopulation, war etc. so if we're going down this route surely we need to think it through first. On a global level it will surely result in population growth with even more mouths to feed and yet more demand for scarce resources - the very problems which are, in many cases, already fuelling conflict and mass migration around the world.

[Taf]

Philantrophy or good tax break?

Or more money into the many parallel but disconnected research establishments?

I think antibiotic resistance is going to cull large numbers of the world population at some point soon. That is where most money should be targeted ASAP.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

Philantrophy or good tax break?

Or more money into the many parallel but disconnected research establishments?

I think antibiotic resistance is going to cull large numbers of the world population at some point soon. That is where most money should be targeted ASAP.

Could be either or both but they're not mutually exclusive. They've also promised to give away the vast bulk of their wealth so I guess only time will tell if they live up to their promises.

We must be due a major cull sooner or later unless the future 'planned' for us is a worker ant like existence for the vast majority and the spoils of our labour for the powerful few...

Agreed antibiotic resistance is a far larger problem and if money is needed elsewhere it should go into birth control and all forms of contraception this world is only so big and technology can only overcome so much before limits are hit. Global population is too high now and growing a drastic reduction is needed either by desease or war but given the technology in militarys these days that might go too far in reducing the population.

[rhyds]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Agreed antibiotic resistance is a far larger problem and if money is needed elsewhere it should go into birth control and all forms of contraception this world is only so big and technology can only overcome so much before limits are hit. Global population is too high now and growing a drastic reduction is needed either by desease or war but given the technology in militarys these days that might go too far in reducing the population.

The biggest step towards that goal is better education for women in developing countries. As societies become better educated and better developed, women have fewer children. This is because fewer die in childhood (so you don't need to have six kids so that you can be sure 2 or 3 make it to adulthood) and because they have a broader range of choices in life rather than simply being a wife and mother.

I think more work needs to be done on the male attitudes in the developing world as what women may or may not want is often not a consideration.

Originally Posted by Osem

They've also promised to give away the vast bulk of their wealth so I guess only time will tell if they live up to their promises.

If they want to give up the vast bulk of their wealth, I'm here, ready to receive it.

Conversely better health may actually reduce overpopulation. Bill Gates spoke well about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llAG5V7x17A

Originally Posted by Damien

Conversely better health may actually reduce overpopulation. Bill Gates spoke well about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llAG5V7x17A

Agreed! If more children survive infancy in the 3rd world because of better healthcare and better disease control then parents maybe persuaded to limit the size of their family.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Paul M

If they want to give up the vast bulk of their wealth, I'm here, ready to receive it.

Yeah but you're not ill are you?



---------- Post added at 21:02 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Agreed! If more children survive infancy in the 3rd world because of better healthcare and better disease control then parents maybe persuaded to limit the size of their family.

What you mean like they've been persuaded to use condoms to avoid aids over the last 40 years? I'd wager that poverty and hunger are the biggest causes of illness and premature death so what's the point of more children surviving illness unless the causes (direct and indirect) of that illness are addressed?

Having for numerous generations believed that large families are the way to go (for whatever reason) I don't see that attitude changing any time soon, regardless of how many survive childhood. What I do see is a self fulfilling prophecy of population growth creating more demand for food, water and other resources.

Maybe a better approach would be to reward those who don't have large families...

[richard s]

It is the human thing to cure illnesses but if we defeat nature our planet will be over run with humans and all natural resources, wildlife, oceans etc., will be destroyed forever. Zuckerburg would be better of spending his dosh on protecting the planet. I liken the human race to Star Treks No. 1 foe the Borg.

[tweetiepooh]

While it's true that large families could be to ensure survival is some cultures it's a sign of wealth and success. Better health care would not in these circumstances help reduce population but could increase it.

If you eliminate some disease, something else would rear up to replace it. And survival from illness would just mean more older people with all the problems associated with that.

---
I thought Star Trek's number one foe were Tribbles!

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

While it's true that large families could be to ensure survival is some cultures it's a sign of wealth and success. Better health care would not in these circumstances help reduce population but could increase it.

If you eliminate some disease, something else would rear up to replace it. And survival from illness would just mean more older people with all the problems associated with that.

---
I thought Star Trek's number one foe were Tribbles!

Try Mark of Gideon

For the nightmare of overpopulation.