Simpler Question About Future People

[D.L.M.]

any amount. it doesnt matter given your parameters.

[D.L.M.]

oops i guess someone already said that. but you gave us how much money we had and said that basically we can give any amount to cure it in 1000 years. x is a variable. and that not matter how much i give there is a 90% chance that in the next 1000 years they will find a cure.so i donate .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001 cent. and am very unhappy to part with this small fortune.

[adverseselection]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since x could be any number between 0 and 10 million dollars and since x guarantees that there will be no cancer in 1000 years according to the question, my x would be one penny. Then I might very well put the rest into current cancer research. <font color="green"> </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT.

What does QFT mean?

I think the answer is much, much lower than expected, simply because the likelihood that Cancer (mebbe even the human race) will be around in a 1000 years is not that likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

[josh_x]

If it isn't clear i believe sklansky is asking what is the most you would pay to improve the odds of a cure from 90% to 100%

[JPFisher55]

Zero. If in 1,000 years humans have not cured cancer, then they don't deserve to cure cancer. If cancer is not cured by then, the level of technology will be back to middle ages technology.

[DivideByZero]

What will likely happen is that if someone were to invest the money, they expect to get it back plus interest because they will charge cancer patients some huge amount of money for the "cure" once it's discovered.

[seemorenuts]

Why aren't medical researchers more famous and paid more?

I like cancer research as a spectator sport, I feel we all benefit from being in the loop as to what is involved in what they do. Maybe television programmers can contribute.

On the other hand, I just get bored with most sports, $100M over x years, I just don't understand people.

[unfrgvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely convinced this would even be a good idea,

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to go to third level thinking. What happens if you cure cancer and it causes massive over population and bilions of people starve and riot and generally behave badly? Or someone that would have died of cancer ends up being the one who pushes the red button causing the end of hummanity? How much is that worth to you?

[r3vbr]

Cancer will be surely cured by then. I expect we will achieve imortality in the next 200 years. Read Ray Kurtzweil. Technology develops in an exponential rate, and people dont understand what exponential growth really means in practical terms. Only wait and see what we will acomplish still within our lifetimes. That said, I'd pay $50 because that's worth nothing to me and its a nice insurance for some worst-case-scenario of technology halting because of war or other cause.

[BPTK]

Not sure what my answer to the question is, but I will say this:

Everyone dies eventually.

Edit: No, I have decided what my answer would be, and it is $0. Any money I would donate would go to solving problems that exist right now (starvation, etc.), especially given the 90% chance of cancer being cured anyway.