[ChuckMcM]

We have already spent $500B on cancer research[1] and it hasn't cured. This also isn't an "either/or" proposition. As I mentioned, people travelling in space are subject to a lot of radiation which is known to cause cancer, so part of the research is going to be figuring out how to fix cells that are cancerous.

Cancer is a systemic problem, it isn't measles or polio or TB. You have to understand the system in order to fix it and pushing humans into new environments will give us better insights into the system we call human life.

[1] https://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/the-never-ending-war-...

[forapurpose]

> We have already spent $500B on cancer research[1] and it hasn't cured

That's a pretty absolutist statement. We've spent more preventing murder, but murder still happens. We have developed many treatments for cancer that have added many quality life years for millions of people.

[ChuckMcM]

I agree, both that it is absolutist and that we've spent more on preventing murder. What is the common thread to both of these absolutist comments? Both cancer and murder are systems in crisis, not 'things' in their own right. They have the same questions

1a) What causes a cell to decide live forever (metastasize)?

1b) What causes a person to decide that killing another person is the solution to some problem?

2a) How can we detect a cell that is about to metastasize? How can we stop it?

2b) How can we detect a person that is about to murder? How can we stop them?

3a) What would have to be true for cancer to never be the cause of death ever again?

3b) What would have to be true for murder to never be the cause of death ever again?

See? Both are systems where individual elements within the system have decided to work against the system rather than within its constructs.

There is no drug, no treatment, that will 'cure' cancer until we understand exactly what is going on in a cell that knocks it out of line. And there will be no end to murder until we understand exactly what is going on inside a person's head when they decide that is the correct course of action. Everything we do on these two fronts (cancer, and murder) are delaying actions to minimize their impact on the greater whole.

The other part that some people have assumed (but the GP did not) is that spending this money on Mars exploration would reduce the amount of money that is currently allocated to cancer research. It wouldn't, it was specified as 'new funds'.

[forapurpose]

> There is no drug, no treatment, that will 'cure' cancer until we understand exactly what is going on in a cell that knocks it out of line. ... Everything we do on these two fronts (cancer, and murder) are delaying actions to minimize their impact on the greater whole.

So what? Even if everything you say is true, the outcome of the research is possibly hundreds of millions of additional quality life years.

And there are many treatments that 'cure' cancer. Many people have cancer, are treated, and never have it again. Many have it, are treated, and live much longer than they otherwise would have. I'm not sure what you are saying, or why research that saves and prolongs lives has to meet some other standard (and what is that standard?).

[anticensor]

Yes, cancer and murder are duals. Do you think there may be a way to convert between measures against either?

[ChuckMcM]

Not sure how this relates to the argument. Can you be a bit more specific?

[bordercases]

I think what might be more damning is if the preventative measure for cancer is better full spectrum healthy habits