Corporate Conflict of Interest

[sly1]

If there was a cure for cancer would we it be released or suppressed? Due to the way capitalism works I find that its financially in the best interests of corporations to suppress finalities such as "cures" and promote "treatments"

This trend is not limited to the medical field although its the one probably most guilty. It spreads into resources and energy. Oil companies etc.

What would happen to capitalism if a source of limitless energy were found for very little upkeep and very little cost? What would happen to the medical field if finalities "cures" were produced and treatments were a thing of the past?

What would happen to capitalism and the US if oil was obsolete, inefficient fuel and a more common and efficient salt water fuel source was developed?

I find that these world changing solutions would not be too beneficial to corporations and government power structures.

There in lies the conflict of interest that sometimes makes me wonder if there EVER was the possibility of a better more efficient world. Would we EVER see it or know about it?

 

[Dinosaur]

It is obvious to me that the companies which manufactured adding machines prevented the spread of computer technology.

Also: All those manufactureres of bicycles & horse drawn vehicles prevented the automotive industry from coing into existence.

Nylon, rayon, et cetera were kept off the market by sheep herders & industries which manufactured silk items.

Think how well off we would be if those technologies had been allowed to flourish.

 

[sly1]

It is obvious to me that the companies which manufactured adding machines prevented the spread of computer technology.

Also: All those manufactureres of bicycles & horse drawn vehicles prevented the automotive industry from coing into existence.

Nylon, rayon, et cetera were kept off the market by sheep herders & industries which manufactured silk items.

Think how well off we would be if those technologies had been allowed to flourish.

lol funny however it is at the expense of sounding intelligent. Obviously there is a huge difference between the types of "discoveries" or technologies were talking about.

You brought up advancements and technologies that still rake in profits. The technology advancements I'm referring to are ones that would not rake in profit anywhere near their predecessors. Thus there would be a CONFLICT of interest when the company has to decide to produce advancement in technology that would reduce their overall profits or cut their funding or both.

Did I say all advancements in technology would be suppressed? No. I thought the obvious implication and overtone of my post was that technology advancements that would reduce, cut, limit, etc funding or profits for companies would probably be suppressed.

The only tech advancements people are likely to see or know about are ones that will still increase funding/profits.

The sarcastic response still didn’t answer my hypothetical questions though.

IF a salt/water fuel source was developed for lets say “transportation” WHAT effect in turn would that have on the oil companies and those invested in them?

If more efficient and less “processed” energy source were developed, WHAT effect would that in turn have on energy companies and those invested in them?

 

[Read-Only]

Sorry, but you are lilting at windmills. Regardless of what problem is overcome - like your example of cancer - there will always remain another...and another... and another...

 

[Search & Destroy]

capitalism oh capitalism, where are you?
It is not equally distributed that is for sure. I can get more capitalism at the Dollar store than I can in the cancer treatment ward. Move to Canada and capitalism has fled the hospitals for the high-grounds.

 

[sly1]

Sorry, but you are lilting at windmills. Regardless of what problem is overcome - like your example of cancer - there will always remain another...and another... and another...

I know that my post is extremely hypothetical but its to exaggerate my original point which might not be as clear as I would like.

My point or concept I'm getting at is that the current capitalist structure with big business and profits being KEY to their EXISTANCE is at conflict to Ideas/progression that would otherwise get in the way of that, such as a CURE for cancer in relation to a TREATMENT for cancer.

Companies prioritize on $$ to survive other companies doing the same thing. This is capitalism. The focus is on production of profit over production of efficient goods. The common idea is that the more efficient goods you make the more people will buy ending in more profit etc etc. Which might have a falsehood to is as the more "efficient" goods do not need to be repurchased as often if at all.

Traditionally the competition between companies to produce the next big advancement for the rights/profits on that tech/idea/discovery was what drove advancement.

Anyway this post is a conceptual one and I’m not claiming knowledge of what companies are or are not withholding that is beside my point. Rather I saw a possible dilemma in how capitalism and "human advancement" were relating to each other.

 

[imwithid]

Treatments are sought by companies. Cures are rare and often the side effects of research faculties within publicly funded educational institutions or incremental improvements to treatment.

It may seem cold blooded by the company to act on that which is its self interest but that is why there are other institutions that center on broader interests.

Let's also not forget that we are rather complex machines. Cures are not easy to come by. Life is wheel of misfortune. We're bound to get some disease at some point in our lives. Research scientists will have that in mind, I hope

Would vaccines fall between a cure and treatment?

 

[sly1]

Treatments are sought by companies. Cures are rare and often the side effects of research faculties within publicly funded educational institutions or incremental improvements to treatment.

It may seem cold blooded by the company to act on that which is its self interest but that is why there are other institutions that center on broader interests.

Let's also not forget that we are rather complex machines. Cures are not easy to come by. Life is wheel of misfortune. We're bound to get some disease at some point in our lives. Research scientists will have that in mind, I hope

Would vaccines fall between a cure and treatment?

Vaccines hmm I would think because they are constantly being developed/improved/redistributed they are more of a pre-emptive treatment rather than a cure.

I’m not as interested in the moral implications of the conflict:

For example if big business capitalism is acting in a cold hearted manner to further their industry > human welfare well its old news to me because humans have been exploiting each other for probably their entire existence big business is just a medium they use to do so.

I am more interested in the technological implications:

For example big business capitalism is acting in a manner, which re-routs away from more efficient and faster advancement of technology due to the overall goal of profits/funding. “Lets make money” and “lets advance technology” are not the same goal and will yield completely different routs of tech advancement.

There are some amazing advancements in technology lately by companies who’s economical aim is “consumer-based” and largely entertainment and communications which really is amazing for people who find detecting metal with their cell phones an important step in human technological advancement.

Obama apparently plants to drastically cut NASA funding which ironically is one of the few institutions that wasn’t operating under a conflict of interest that would re-rout the path of their tech advancement. So that’s no good.

Clarification Edit: efficient goods/techs are more world meaningful accomplishments than a cell phone that can detect metal objects.

 

[joepistole]

Sorry, but you are lilting at windmills. Regardless of what problem is overcome - like your example of cancer - there will always remain another...and another... and another...

As long as markets are open and competitive. I think one of the reasons we have not made much in the way of progress towards energy independence over the last 4 decades is because of the power of the industry to keep oil as the central source of energy.

 

[Read-Only]

Vaccines hmm I would think because they are constantly being developed/improved/redistributed they are more of a pre-emptive treatment rather than a cure.

No, vaccines are a preventative measure that can actually lead to becoming a cure - in the sense that the disease can be eliminated if the vaccines are distributed world-wide and actually used.

I take it you are unaware that happened with smallpox? With the same intensive application of other vaccines, it can happen again and again. The only problem lies with those who refuse vaccinations for themselves and/or their children.

 

[sly1]

No, vaccines are a preventative measure that can actually lead to becoming a cure - in the sense that the disease can be eliminated if the vaccines are distributed world-wide and actually used.

I take it you are unaware that happened with smallpox? With the same intensive application of other vaccines, it can happen again and again. The only problem lies with those who refuse vaccinations for themselves and/or their children.

Very valid point. I was aware of smallpox but it was an oversight I hadn't considered.

 

[Nasor]

If there was a cure for cancer would we it be released or suppressed? Due to the way capitalism works I find that its financially in the best interests of corporations to suppress finalities such as "cures" and promote "treatments"

You are making the common mistake of thinking about "companies" as if they were some sort of cohesive group that looked out for each other. In the real world companies compete ruthlessly with each other, and are more than happy to increase their own profits at someone else's expense. If company A comes up with a cure for cancer, then sure, that's going to cut into the profits of companies B, C, and D that are selling cancer treatments. But company A isn't going to care, because they're going to make a crapload of money selling their new cancer cure to everyone.

The only way your scenario would make any sense would be if the company that came up with the cure was already making huge amounts of money from the treatments, but even then it's hard to imagine how withholding the treatment could make any economic sense, because no one company is making enough off its cancer treatment drugs for it to be worthwhile. The profits that would come from a cure would be HUGE, especially if they're the only company that's selling it.

 

[Read-Only]

Very valid point. I was aware of smallpox but it was an oversight I hadn't considered.

Very good. And I can see that you're a rare sort of individual here - someone who can admit they made an oversight, honest, and one who can think logically - congratulations!

And that takes me back to my main point: Regardless of the progress made, in the medical world or elsewhere, once a problem is overcome there will always remain more to work on.

I could actually list hundreds of them if needed but I hope you've gotten the point. Here's just one example though: Things did not stop with the invention of the automobile. They continued on to improve performance, better braking and steering, better tires, glass, the addition of windshield wipers and heaters/ air conditioners, noise reduction, power windows and seats, GPS systems, automatic systems to call for help in the event of accidents - all the way up to vehicles that can now parallel-park on their own. And there will still be many more things to come. Nothing ever stands still in industry and business.

 

[Dinosaur]

There is more to the energy situation that the following would suggest.

I think one of the reasons we have not made much in the way of progress towards energy independence over the last 4 decades is because of the power of the industry to keep oil as the central source of energy.

There is a general phobia relating to nuclear power which has hurt the USA, which has had a lot more effect than any efforts by the power industry to promote the use of oil.

There is unneccesary concern over nuclear waste, which is a problem but less of one that most people think.

Fast breeder reactors create plutonium while generating power. The plutonium can be used to generate more power. The final waste products are way less radioactive than the output from a regular reactor. This technology was conisdered a problem because plutonium is excellent for use in nuclear weapons. Hence fast breeder reactors became politically incorrect. You might think that the US govt. is incapable of making nuclear weapons without breeder reactors: What a joke !

Politicians who should know better made points with sound bites. For example, Herb Denenberg (a consumer acvocate) said something like the following after the Three Mile Island incident.

The power industry does not care if they destroy one third of Pennsylvania

Consider the following.

• The Three Mile island incident caused no illness due to radiation. People living with a few miles of the reactor were not exposed to a measurable amount of radiation. There are cities in the world (I think Paris is one) whose normal background radiation is higher than what occurred within a few miles of TMI.
  
  
• A reactor meltdown does not cause a weapons like explosion.
  
  
• 2-3 actual nuclear weapons would not destroy one third of Pennsylvania.

Politicians & activists are either incredibley stupid or outright charlatans (probably the latter) when they make remarks like the above.

Fiction like the China Syndrome movie contributed to the general phobia.

France has been using supplying a lot of power via nuclear energy, a far higher percentage than that of the US.

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

If there was a cure for cancer would we it be released or suppressed? Due to the way capitalism works I find that its financially in the best interests of corporations to suppress finalities such as "cures" and promote "treatments"

This trend is not limited to the medical field although its the one probably most guilty. It spreads into resources and energy. Oil companies etc ....

The complication is the necessary presumption that nobody involved would deviate from the script. Untenable.

The complication of the complication is the question of whether, once that person or people deviated from the script, anyone would actually care.

Seriously, in the face of a cure for cancer, we would have to actually explain the situation to some of those "respectable" capitalists who would worry about profitability in palliative and hospice care.

• • •​

The power industry does not care if they destroy one third of Pennsylvania

Actually, these days it's North Carolina.

But I think we should also account for the fact that Three Mile Island occurred within the historical context of the Cold War. I'd have to see the original quote with some sort of source context to be any more specific than to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the alleged overstatement was one of those patriotic things.

To the other, it's comforting to know that the dirty effect of a nuclear explosion would be so local.

Of course, it makes me wonder why everyone got so freaked out over Padilla and his alleged dirty bomb.
____________________

Notes:

Project Censored. "Nuclear Waste Pools in North Carolina". Censored 2010: The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008-09. Ed. Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff. New York: Seven Stories, 2009. ProjectCensored.org. February 1, 2010. http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/4-nuclear-waste-pools-in-north-carolina/

 

[Nasor]

2-3 actual nuclear weapons would not destroy one third of Pennsylvania.

Heck, 100 modern nuclear warheads couldn't destroy a third of Pennsylvania.