- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 33,846
- Reaction score
- 63,528
- Points
- 148
Isn't it, though. Our priorities as a species can be so messed up sometimes.
Established energy companies have a vested interest to fight against renewable energy
Established pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest to fight against actual cures for the chronic diseases they sell recurring treatments for.
I don't believe that to be true at all.
Most of those industries have competition - multiple companies selling fuel/drugs and competing against each other to produce fuel or treat diseases.
The company that makes major advances in renewables or in a cure has a massive advantage over the competition, and the ability to charge monopoly pricing for the life of a patent. Stock prices would explode.
Moreover, neither of those endeavors is single-faceted. Alternative fuels likely would require multiple such advances for different applications, and companies could still sell the fossil fuels they still have and make money. It's just that they'd invest differently moving forward.
And as for drugs, each individual company always runs the risk that a competitor will make something better and drive their drug out of business. Plus, there are legions of different drugs/diseases, and they're not all going to be cured simultaneously by a single advance anyway.
Point is, the "we don't want to out ourselves out of business" disincentive really doesn't exist. Certainly not to the point where it would outweigh the gain to the actual company making the breakthrough.
Plus, they're all at risk for some "outsider" making the progress anyway. Much better to be working in that direction yourself as well so as to mitigate the risk that you'll be left behind by an advancement.
Last edited: