Socialism

[ribozyme]

Socialism DOESN’T work … although I sincerely believe it is the best form of government. There is no point in discussing how things* should *work if the pragmatic applications are limited.

Unfortunately, the obstacles for socialism seem rather insurmountable, and it seems antithetical to the human nature. We need to remember that our proclivities are derived from our savannah dwelling ancestors in Africa millions of years ago. During this time, selfishness and competition insured the propagation of ones genes, thus explaining why humans have selfishness today. I sincerely believe that approaches such as Dorothy Day’s “revolution of the heart” will fail as they do not consider the biochemical pathways conducive to charity and altruism. People like her need to remember that we are, unfortunately, members of the species Homo sapiens, although her propensity towards altruism (assuming the tenuous assumption that altruism can be quantified psychometrically) is probably several standard deviations above the mean of humans in general as I would assume altruism would be distributed in a Gaussian fashion as it is the result of multiple alleles working together. Because of the central limit theorem, altruism would be distributed via a normal distribution (or in a bell curve); some are naturally more charitable and altruistic than others. This can explain our selfishness parsimoniously and perhaps falsifies the hypothesis that God guided human evolution because the consequences are a species capable of conducting mass murder such as various genocides. Hardly the epitome of God’s creation I guess.

Since I am extremely misanthropic (fairly salient from reading my posts including this one) and lack empathy (but I am extremely sympathetic), I would use such pharmaceutical interventions to improve my conduct. I wonder whether Catholics actually believe that we have an obligation to use such interventions assuming they were safe and easily accessible. Since people such as Vern-san extolled the virtues of charity in this thread and grace, I suppose biochemical interventions to overcome our selfish predilections would be enthusiastically supported.

Here is one potential example:

Human beings routinely help strangers at costs to themselves. Sometimes the help offered is generous—offering more than the other expects. The proximate mechanisms supporting generosity are not well-understood, but several lines of research suggest a role for empathy. In this study, participants were infused with 40 IU oxytocin (OT) or placebo and engaged in a blinded, one-shot decision on how to split a sum of money with a stranger that could be rejected. Those on OT were 80% more generous than those given a placebo. OT had no effect on a unilateral monetary transfer task dissociating generosity from altruism. OT and altruism together predicted almost half the interpersonal variation in generosity. Notably, OT had twofold larger impact on generosity compared to altruism. This indicates that generosity is associated with both altruism as well as an emotional identification with another person.

We investigated the role of empathy in producing generosity by manipulating a physiologic mechanism hypothesized to instantiate empathy, the neuromodulator oxytocin (OT). A substantial animal literature has established that OT facilitates attachment to offspring, and in monogamous mammals, cohabiting sexual partners and same-sex conspecifics [31]–[33]. Recent human studies have shown that OT facilitates a temporary attachment between strangers, increasing trust and reciprocity [34]–[38]. In the present paper, we test whether OT is a proximate mechanism prompting generosity between anonymous human strangers. Two tasks were used to dissociate the physiologic role of empathy in producing generosity and altruism using monetary transfers. Monetary transfers were used to obtain objective and active measures of generosity and altruism.

futurepundit.com/archives/004760.html

I will hypothesize that oxycotin was probably useful in our natural history as it allowed mothers to nurse their children, and this will help them allow their genes to be preserved in their children as their children would be allowed to mature. I do not recommend this to be currently used as the long term side effects are currently unknown. My main point is that we can foster the virtues of love and charity through alternative means such as biochemical interventions. Also, I wanted to elicit a response about the morality of using biochemical interventions to promote ethical conduct. I suppose the Church would deem it moral because the Church doesn’t seem to have a diktat prohibiting the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

 

[tvdxer]

That’s rather interesting, living in Detroit, we see entire clincs that cater to Canadians who cannot get the proper care they need in time in Canada.

You will see billboards in Windsor, Ontario advertising same day MRI’s and biopsies. Why? because a Canadian cannot get those in a timely way.

The only MRI system in all of Windsor ( a city with 100,000 people and 2 hospitals) is in a vet’s office. You can get an MRI for you horse or dog there, but for a human to get one, you have to wait weeks and then drive to London or Toronto.

My wife is from Canada, and she got to keep her Dermatologist. Why? Because he has an office in the States. The Canadian system limits how many patients he is allowed to see each year ( as a money saving measure), so he opened an office in the Detroit area and works a few days a week there, so hit won’t hit his artificial patient limit in Sept or so and be payless for the rest of the year.

Here in Minnesota, it is (or was) very popular for senior citizens to take a bus to Thunder Bay, Ontario for cheap pharmaceuticals.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here in Minnesota, it is (or was) very popular for senior citizens to take a bus to Thunder Bay, Ontario for cheap pharmaceuticals.

The Canadians (and Europeans) have low drug prices by instituting price controls that make it impossible for manufacturers to recoup their R&D costs. This has had two side effects:

1. Privately financed Drug R&D has dramatically fallen in those countries – thus slowing the world dramatically in developing life-saving drugs.
2. Virtually the whole cost of drug R&D is thrown on the American consumer.

If the United States adopts the Canadian/European approach, drug R&D will come to a halt.

 

[milde]

The Canadians (and Europeans) have low drug prices by instituting price controls that make it impossible for manufacturers to recoup their R&D costs. This has had two side effects:

1. Privately financed Drug R&D has dramatically fallen in those countries – thus slowing the world dramatically in developing life-saving drugs.
2. Virtually the whole cost of drug R&D is thrown on the American consumer.

If the United States adopts the Canadian/European approach, drug R&D will come to a halt.

Tell this to someone who wants “free” health care and their eyes just glaze over. It’s surprisingly difficult to explain to people where all these life saving drugs come from. Heck, I can’t even explain to people what motivates your doctor to come into work in the morning and make an appointment with you.

You can just go straight to the heart of it and offer them a plane ticket to Canada next time they have a heart attack. Any who thinks that’s a good idea just may well deserve to be there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tell this to someone who wants “free” health care and their eyes just glaze over. It’s surprisingly difficult to explain to people where all these life saving drugs come from. Heck, I can’t even explain to people what motivates your doctor to come into work in the morning and make an appointment with you.

You can just go straight to the heart of it and offer them a plane ticket to Canada next time they have a heart attack. Any who thinks that’s a good idea just may well deserve to be there.

Some people seem to think there is really such a thing as a free lunch – and that they are entitled to it.

 

[ribozyme]

Some people seem to think there is really such a thing as a free lunch – and that they are entitled to it.

Hey don’t worry, I am sure the pharmaceutical company’s get lots of money from Nexium instead of selling Prilosec. (Reference to AstraZeneca). Of course, it really isn’t an example of innovation, as esomeprazole (Nexium) is simply the active enantiomer of omeprazole (Prilosec, which is racemic).

I guess we can deny some terminal cancer patients their bevacizumab and erlotinib if they cannot pay. Those pharmaceuticals only offer a few months in life extension anyway.

I supposed it is justified in a utilitarian system (assuming the money is used to pay for more R&D instead of marketing or the opulent lifestyle of the board of directors). I suppose it is justified in a Catholic moral theology too because I think erlotinib and bevacizumab may count as extraordinary interventions to extend life in the Catholic system.

But I suppose it’s okay, Catholicism is not an egalitarian religion and deems suffering a virtue.

 

[milde]

Hey don’t worry, I am sure the pharmaceutical company’s get lots of money from Nexium instead of selling Prilosec. (Reference to AstraZeneca). Of course, it really isn’t an example of innovation, as esomeprazole (Nexium) is simply the active enantiomer of omeprazole (Prilosec, which is racemic).

I guess we can deny some terminal cancer patients their bevacizumab and erlotinib if they cannot pay. Those compounds only offer a few months in life extension anyway.

You must be one of the people that think all the brilliant scientists making these drugs should work for free and live with their family in a cardboard box. right? Or is that only for the 90% of the scientists that work on the drugs that never make it to market and cost billions but earn nothing?

 

[milde]

Hey don’t worry, I am sure the pharmaceutical company’s get lots of money from Nexium instead of selling Prilosec. (Reference to AstraZeneca). Of course, it really isn’t an example of innovation, as esomeprazole (Nexium) is simply the active enantiomer of omeprazole (Prilosec, which is racemic).

I guess we can deny some terminal cancer patients their bevacizumab and erlotinib if they cannot pay. Those compounds only offer a few months in life extension anyway.

By the way, a good argument can be made for giving this drugs for free to people who would never be able to buy them. This works because the R&D costs are extremely high compared to the manufacturing costs. Naturally you must be extremely careful to not allow these free drugs to get funneled to a black market or you remove the necessary investment for future drug development.

And please don’t speak about how rich these drug companies are getting (as if that’s a crime anyway). Because they aren’t. You overlooked the long line of startups that blew millions upon millions on research and were never able to bring a blockbuster drug to market. Those millions are real money that ultimately come from pension plans, 401K’s, etc.

 

[ribozyme]

You must be one of the people that think all the brilliant scientists making these drugs should work for free and live with their family in a cardboard box. right? Or is that only for the 90% of the scientists that work on the drugs that never make it to market and cost billions but earn nothing?

No, they still need to support their families. I know it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to bring a drug to phase III clinical trials. I do not think it is the scientists’ salaries that are the major concern in drug development.

But again, I suppose it is okay not allow some people valuable pharmaceuticals if they cannot pay. Better not concern yourself with economic inequality and focus on abortion instead.

Ok there are consequences for the free market… like I said denying people drugs. For example, erlotinib made about 600 million in sales in 2006. However I do believe OSI Pharmaceuticals need the money to sponsor other trials for their other oncology products that is in their pipeline.

 

[milde]

But again, I suppose it is okay not allow some people valuable pharmaceuticals if they cannot pay. Better not concern yourself with economic inequality and focus on abortion instead.

The free market works very well in this instance since production costs are low for these drugs. Many drug companies recognize this and provide free aids drugs to African countries, etc. We don’t need to let poor people die for lack of drugs.

Other medical costs are more difficult to work out because there’s a finite amount of medical staff and facilities to go around.

Economic inequality doesn’t really bother me too much. There are certainly people who need charity,but most “poor” people in this country own a home, a car, and have cable TV (gasp!). I’ve also known quite a few with bad attitudes about “rich people”, although if you ask them they can’t say they know any. Just drives me nuts. What was that thing about God helping those that help themselves?

 

[ribozyme]

The free market works very well in this instance since production costs are low for these drugs. Many drug companies recognize this and provide free aids drugs to African countries, etc. We don’t need to let poor people die for lack of drugs.

Other medical costs are more difficult to work out because there’s a finite amount of medical staff and facilities to go around.

Economic inequality doesn’t really bother me too much. There are certainly people who need charity,but most “poor” people in this country own a home, a car, and have cable TV (gasp!). I’ve also known quite a few with bad attitudes about “rich people”, although if you ask them they can’t say they know any. Just drives me nuts. What was that thing about God helping those that help themselves?

I think Africans can acquire some of their drugs from Indian pharmaceutical companies. However, even paying generic prices for these drugs, they still could not afford it. Unfortunately, absolute poverty in Africa is a refractory problem that is many of orders of magnitude too complex for our technology to solve.

 

[ribozyme]

Ok, I am willing to make some sacrifices such as denying some terminal cancer patients drugs. Why? Because I sincerely believe it is the advancement of technology, not charity, that will ameliorate the greatest amount of human suffering. If it maximizes R&D spending and innovation, it can be considered ethical from a utilitarian perspective.

Of course, charity can alleviate some suffering and I do believe the world would be a pleasant place to live if altruism and cooperation were rife.

For example,

So how does my philosophy break down in dollars and cents? An American household with an income of $50,000 spends around $30,000 annually on necessities, according to the Conference Board, a nonprofit economic research organization. Therefore, for a household bringing in $50,000 a year, donations to help the world’s poor should be as close as possible to $20,000. The $30,000 required for necessities holds for higher incomes as well. So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000. Again, the formula is simple: whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.

Now, evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/19990905.htm

So instead of indulging in fine restaurants and vacations, one can donate their money. Charity, in my definition, is economic redistribution; socialism, in other words. It is self-abnegation from indulgence to donate resources to those who need it most. I do not agree that a family who makes $50,000 according to Singer should donate their extra $20,000 dollars to charity as they should save some of that money for extra financial security.

However, it gives me ethical qualms to deny people drugs with a profound effect on patient survival such as imatinib for CML.

Newly diagnosed patients who take imatinib as their first-line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) can expect to live on average six years longer than those who take more traditional interferon-alpha therapy, the researchers found. Based on projected costs and survival estimates, the group calculated the incremental cost of imatinib at $43,100 per life-year saved. A commonly accepted cost threshold for medical therapies in the United States is $50,000 per life-year saved

The Duke team’s model estimated the expected long-term survival of patients taking imatinib based on long-term survival data from patients who achieved a complete cytogenetic response in earlier clinical trials of interferon-alpha. The analysis found that leukemia patients taking imatinib as a first-line therapy would survive for an estimated 15.3 years, compared with 9.1 years for those taking interferon-alpha – an increase of 6.2 years, on average.

After adjusting for quality of life, the patients taking imatinib gained an estimated 5.85 quality-adjusted life years, with an increase in lifetime cost of approximately $241,800, the researchers reported. The researchers estimated the undiscounted lifetime costs of imatinib at $424,600 compared to $182,800 for interferon.

After discounting costs and survival benefits that occur in the future, incremental lifetime costs were found to be $168,100 higher with imatinib, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $43,100 per life-year saved and $43,300 per quality-adjusted life year saved.

dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=8336

My example with erlotinib, in contrast, only extends life by about two weeks in advanced pancreatic cancer (see this), but I do have qualms about denying them gemcitabine though.

 

[milde]

It really comes down to charity. Allow people personal choice on how to use the assets they have earned. No one has a right to assign the property of others over to someone else.

I really believe most people have too little faith in human charity. It’s amazing what people will do when you let them instead of trying to force them.

 

[Al_Masetti]

To add to your general knowledge of this topic, read “Divini Redemptoris” by Pope Pius XI. The english language subtitle is “Atheistic Communism”.

But read the stuff inside and do a contrast and compare with your understanding of Socialism.

You can get it on-line for free. Or contact St. Paul Books & Media. [my copy is pre-internet.]

 

[ribozyme]

It really comes down to charity. Allow people personal choice on how to use the assets they have earned. No one has a right to assign the property of others over to someone else.

I really believe most people have too little faith in human charity. It’s amazing what people will do when you let them instead of trying to force them.

I do not have faith in human charity… for example, Peter Singer notes that some people spend their money on opulent houses and meals instead of donating that money to the poor.

Regarding the issue of charity vs. technology, I do believe that technology will solve most of humanity’s problems. Charity, however, is necessary to redistribute that technology to those who could not provide for it themselves. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, however, is an excellent charity that recongizes the importance of technology. Thus they sponsor grants to help develop technology that will help the poor. (For example they gave an 11.3 million dollar grant to help develop genetically engineered rice with increase quanities of vitamin A, Vitamin E, and several micronutrients. )

For example, in Ray Kurzweil’s book The Singularity is Near, he didn’t stress charity, but his primary thesis is that the advancement of technology will solve humanity’s maladies. This is the type of book that endows me with optimism and hope regarding our species’ future. I do think humanity will prosper if we acknowledge that God will not help us and we have to realize that it is our duty to improve our own lives. We need to construct the tools that will allow us to do this.

Charity is extremely limited in its present form to ameliorate human suffering. I suppose in the long run socialism is rather detrimental if it stifles innovation. Also, another implication is that policies that restrict scientific inquiry such as the ban on embryonic stem cells is also inimical to the advancement of technology. However, a recent advance in stem cell research may render this limitation irrelevant.

 

[milde]

Name a socialist or communist society in history that has provided more for their poor than American capitalism does today. I can come up with numerous ones that provided less. How many can you come up with that provided more?

 

[milde]

I do not have faith in human charity… for example, Peter Singer notes that some people spend their money on opulent houses and meals instead of donating that money to the poor.

Regarding the issue of charity vs. technology, I do believe that technology will solve most of humanity’s problems. Charity, however, is necessary to redistribute that technology to those who could not provide for it themselves. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, however, is an excellent charity that recongizes the importance of technology. Thus they sponsor grants to help develop technology that will help the poor. (For example they gave an 11.3 million dollar grant to help develop genetically engineered rice with increase quanities of vitamin A, Vitamin E, and several micronutrients. )

For example, in Ray Kurzweil’s book The Singularity is Near, he didn’t stress charity, but his primary thesis is that the advancement of technology will solve humanity’s maladies. This is the type of book that endows me with optimism and hope regarding our species’ future. I do think humanity will prosper if we acknowledge that God will not help us and we have to realize that it is our duty to improve our own lives. We need to construct the tools that will allow us to do this.

Charity is extremely limited in its present form to ameliorate human suffering. I suppose in the long run socialism is rather detrimental if it stifles innovation. Also, another implication is that policies that restrict scientific inquiry such as the ban on embryonic stem cells is also inimical to the advancement of technology. However, a recent advance in stem cell research may render this limitation irrelevant.

So what you are saying is that you know better how other people should use their assets and that gives you the right to force your choices for them upon them. I tend to disagree with most everyone that is so insistent they are correct that they feel the right to take what I own simply because they want it and think I’m not doing the right thing with it.

Come to think of it, I can’t imagine teaching my children that it’s ok to take what someone else has simply because you think you have a better use for it.

 

[ribozyme]

Name a socialist or communist society in history that has provided more for their poor than American capitalism does today. I can come up with numerous ones that provided less. How many can you come up with that provided more?

Already conceded your point:

I suppose in the long run socialism is rather detrimental if it stifles innovation.

And I do not believe socialism or communism will work within the species *Homo sapiens *unfortunately, unless the human propensity for competition and hierarchial tendencies are engineered away, and altruism and empathy are significantly enhanced.

Catholics stress charity instead of government redistribution as means of the reduction of suffering. My main point in my series of posts is that technology trumps charity in the reduction of suffering. I want you to challenge that…

But regarding massive economic redistribution, I do believe it is necessary during some point in the future (and I do not think it is feasible today) as one primary concern is that the access to technology will only be limited to the extremely wealthy. I fear that life extension and other forms of human enhancement may only be available to the wealthy, so redistribution is necessary for equitable access. (However, those technologies are not currently available).

 

[ribozyme]

So what you are saying is that you know better how other people should use their assets and that gives you the right to force your choices for them upon them. I tend to disagree with most everyone that is so insistent they are correct that they feel the right to take what I own simply because they want it and think I’m not doing the right thing with it.

Come to think of it, I can’t imagine teaching my children that it’s ok to take what someone else has simply because you think you have a better use for it.

No, my main point regarding charity is that it is better to use the money for charity instead of using it for a vacation, expensive food, and a grandiose house for yourself.

I thought Catholics deem excessive selfishness a vice as Peter Singer would concur.

I do not know how to allocate money for charity myself. For example, Aubrey de Grey thinks it would be better to use money to sponsor life extension research instead of using that money to provision HIV medication and vaccines for African people. I disagree with this however. I suppose it is up to ones discretion whether to give money to the Methuselah Mouse Prize or UNICEF as they both have benevolent goals.

 

[system]

So what you are saying is that you know better how other people should use their assets and that gives you the right to force your choices for them upon them. I tend to disagree with most everyone that is so insistent they are correct that they feel the right to take what I own simply because they want it and think I’m not doing the right thing with it.

Come to think of it, I can’t imagine teaching my children that it’s ok to take what someone else has simply because you think you have a better use for it.

You’ve just described exactly what our government does by taxing. Each year I HAVE TO give thousands of bucks to the US govt. That’s money I could have directly sent to New Orleans or Biloxi, but no, my government thinks it has better ideas than I when it comes to my own money, and who know what their doing with it? Depleted uranium shells? Propping up a dictator somewhere? Lining somebody’s pockets?