This is like the US saying that 3rd world countries aren't morally or spiritually ready for contraceptives and penicillin. It's one thing to hoard wealth, materials, military tech - it's entirely another to hoard medicine and other knowledge.
*ahem*
Bad example.
Why is this a bad example? Contraceptives are one of the big issues in several countries, because people don't have them or know how to use them, so they keep having kids, and thus food shortages grow worse and worse. I remember in Turkey and several other middle eastern countries, it's a pretty big deal.
I think what he's getting at is that the US *does* discourage the distribution of contribution of contraceptives in Third World countries, as the current administration's policy tends to teach abstinence as the preferred or only form of birth control, both at home and in its foreign aid.
I think having people that can split planets in two with a mere thought does somewhat change the underlying assumptions of a moral system. So yes, I would say that the moral systems in the Marvel Universe are fundamentally different and therefore can't really be applied to the real world.
This is probably branching way out into D&D realm, but I'd really love to hear why you think this. Does inventing more powerful weapons change moral systems in fundamental ways?
I think comparing powerful weapons with a super-human is a mistake. Weapons systems that could have any mass-level effect on society require a great amount of approval to use. There's no one guy who can just say "I want to explode this nuclear device right now!". There's definitely a process in place through which a person must go through in order to use something of such a magnitude.
Now when you look at a super-human things would be much different. Someone like Superman has the ability to unilaterally decide to wreak havoc. Really though, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What/who's interests should a super-human serve? Their country? Gender? Race? Or is it as simple as serving the "better" interests? If so, who determines the value of interest?
Honestly, you could postulate over this forever and I don't think you'd ever get a satisfactory answer. And that's why I'm glad we don't have real crocodile-men and/or giant super robots.
So, I really think it ought to be discounted, just like we ignore Doom acting like a racist and Monica Rambeau being the most helpless god-like being this side of the perpetually tied up Wonder Woman of the 1940's.
Agreed. There's some plot devices that don't work.... this cure for cancer, for one, was a terrible idea.
And Matt... really, your concept of how Wakandans should act reeks of an idealistic notion. But the problem is this fantastical universe is still fundamentally realist... and takes into account the subjectivity of relative situations. SageinaRage had it right in the parallels between isolationists in the real world (and in the Marvel Universe) vs Wakanda. They're not inherently bad people, you just can't justify everything they do with objective/altruistic answers. That's undoubtedly going to piss off some people, but that's how they've been written.
That's nonsense: the reasons AIDS drugs are expensive are (a) they're owned by private companies who had to invest billions in developing them, and they need to recoup the appropriate profits; and (b) the leaders of many African nations either don't believe in AIDS (or some aspect of its epidemiology) or refuse outsider aid.
Wakanda owns this cancer cure, they can give it away for free, or spend some of their vast, endless economic worth subsidizing it some other way.
THIS is what I was talking about when I said I didn't like double standards. Pharmaceutical companies are still companies; they mix an intent to make life better for all humanity with making money. It's just like in the Doctor Strange Mini (The Oath) released a couple years back; Strange was trying to find a cure for Wong's cancer but it was a Pharmaceutical company who was hampering Strange's efforts... You can't trust companies who spend and earn billions of dollars to do things that will run them at a deficit but is the 'right' thing to do. I agree that Wakanda should probably do things like helping cancer victims in-house. But then we have the problem of how do we let anyone into Wakanda when they're isolationists and xenophobic... and so we have a cycle.
The Ragin' Canadian on
" You can't say that, you're crazy!"
" No, I'm eccentric... only poor people are called crazy."
Man... it's been so long since we've had a Black Panther fight... I'm actually tearing up a bit over here.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I think what he's getting at is that the US *does* discourage the distribution of contribution of contraceptives in Third World countries, as the current administration's policy tends to teach abstinence as the preferred or only form of birth control, both at home and in its foreign aid.
Ahh right, I had forgotten about that. Well, it's still not completely similar, because the people making those policies are probably not using condoms either...I would hope.
I think comparing powerful weapons with a super-human is a mistake. Weapons systems that could have any mass-level effect on society require a great amount of approval to use. There's no one guy who can just say "I want to explode this nuclear device right now!". There's definitely a process in place through which a person must go through in order to use something of such a magnitude.
Now when you look at a super-human things would be much different. Someone like Superman has the ability to unilaterally decide to wreak havoc. Really though, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What/who's interests should a super-human serve? Their country? Gender? Race? Or is it as simple as serving the "better" interests? If so, who determines the value of interest?
Those systems to prevent their use are something that we have imposed upon ourselves, there's nothing inherently a part of the weapons to cause that, other than the complexity of their construction. Once a nuclear weapon is built, it doesn't take more than one person to detonate it, minus the extra safeguards that are not a part of the actual weapon per se.
But still, I don't think that the actual moral systems change any, it just emphasizes their importance.
Hey lets flip the issue a bit, If the US had a cure for cancer and witheld it from Wakanda until Wakanda opened its borders and share its mineral wealth would that be a dickish move? (personaly I think it would be. AND also not completly out of character of the US goverment.)
As it is the wakandans are being a dicks not because they have a cure for cancer, but because they have not told the world what they have to do to get it. I mean if they want us to behave better I would gladly introduce Pet a Puppy, Kiss a Kitten days to get a cure for cancer. As it is we are standig outside watching them lord it over us with this cure, never giving it to us. thats a dick move.
Also in the end: How would giving up the cure for cancer weaken Wakanda? If anything it would strenghten their position with respect to the outside world. "Be Nice to us or we will stop producing the cure" is a pretty powerfull threat.
On the other hand: If the world knew of Wakanda hoarding the cure for cancer, well if they where Xenophobic before, they will have a reason for it now. Because a lot of people worldwide would support a war if the end result was the end of cancer. Wakanda may have crazy good tech, but against the whole world(and their superpowered defenders), not so much.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
i guess the question comes down to whether or not a country really has any kind of responsibility to people who are not citizens.
and, incidentally, i always got the impression from the way the cure was mentioned in the comic that it wasn't that they thought that to release it would weaken Wakanda so much as it would be distorted and used improperly by outside governments and forces. i have nothing to back this up, but based on my general impression of Wakandan culture, i would bet the cure is free for any Wakandan that needs it. would the same be true in the u.s.?
i guess the question comes down to whether or not a country really has any kind of responsibility to people who are not citizens.
and, incidentally, i always got the impression from the way the cure was mentioned in the comic that it wasn't that they thought that to release it would weaken Wakanda so much as it would be distorted and used improperly by outside governments and forces. i have nothing to back this up, but based on my general impression of Wakandan culture, i would bet the cure is free for any Wakandan that needs it. would the same be true in the u.s.?
I agree with your reading.
In the US, it would depend who owned the cure. I wont bore everyone with a summary of patent law here (especially since I lack specialized knowledge in biomedicine patent law I would want to have before summarizing it fairly) but if Wakanda publicly released the science behind the cure, it would be free to everyone. No one in the USA would be able to patent it, because ample "prior art" would exist, showing that no one in the USA developed it. Drug companies would be free to manufacture it, and distribute it at their own price points. Simultaneously, Wakanda (and anyone else who was so inclined) would be able to manufacture it and distribute it for free. Given that 90-plus percent of drug costs can be attributed to R&D, the actual cost of manufacture would likely be insignificant.
Posts
Anally.
That's like saying you're not going to read Captain America because you think most Americans are jerks.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I'm not going to read Black Panther because I can't be bothered.
I mean, is it actually good?
Anally.
But the Priest run is excellent
I think what he's getting at is that the US *does* discourage the distribution of contribution of contraceptives in Third World countries, as the current administration's policy tends to teach abstinence as the preferred or only form of birth control, both at home and in its foreign aid.
I think comparing powerful weapons with a super-human is a mistake. Weapons systems that could have any mass-level effect on society require a great amount of approval to use. There's no one guy who can just say "I want to explode this nuclear device right now!". There's definitely a process in place through which a person must go through in order to use something of such a magnitude.
Now when you look at a super-human things would be much different. Someone like Superman has the ability to unilaterally decide to wreak havoc. Really though, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What/who's interests should a super-human serve? Their country? Gender? Race? Or is it as simple as serving the "better" interests? If so, who determines the value of interest?
Honestly, you could postulate over this forever and I don't think you'd ever get a satisfactory answer. And that's why I'm glad we don't have real crocodile-men and/or giant super robots.
And Matt... really, your concept of how Wakandans should act reeks of an idealistic notion. But the problem is this fantastical universe is still fundamentally realist... and takes into account the subjectivity of relative situations. SageinaRage had it right in the parallels between isolationists in the real world (and in the Marvel Universe) vs Wakanda. They're not inherently bad people, you just can't justify everything they do with objective/altruistic answers. That's undoubtedly going to piss off some people, but that's how they've been written.
THIS is what I was talking about when I said I didn't like double standards. Pharmaceutical companies are still companies; they mix an intent to make life better for all humanity with making money. It's just like in the Doctor Strange Mini (The Oath) released a couple years back; Strange was trying to find a cure for Wong's cancer but it was a Pharmaceutical company who was hampering Strange's efforts... You can't trust companies who spend and earn billions of dollars to do things that will run them at a deficit but is the 'right' thing to do. I agree that Wakanda should probably do things like helping cancer victims in-house. But then we have the problem of how do we let anyone into Wakanda when they're isolationists and xenophobic... and so we have a cycle.
" No, I'm eccentric... only poor people are called crazy."
Ahh right, I had forgotten about that. Well, it's still not completely similar, because the people making those policies are probably not using condoms either...I would hope.
Those systems to prevent their use are something that we have imposed upon ourselves, there's nothing inherently a part of the weapons to cause that, other than the complexity of their construction. Once a nuclear weapon is built, it doesn't take more than one person to detonate it, minus the extra safeguards that are not a part of the actual weapon per se.
But still, I don't think that the actual moral systems change any, it just emphasizes their importance.
why would you do that to Geebs
As it is the wakandans are being a dicks not because they have a cure for cancer, but because they have not told the world what they have to do to get it. I mean if they want us to behave better I would gladly introduce Pet a Puppy, Kiss a Kitten days to get a cure for cancer. As it is we are standig outside watching them lord it over us with this cure, never giving it to us. thats a dick move.
Also in the end: How would giving up the cure for cancer weaken Wakanda? If anything it would strenghten their position with respect to the outside world. "Be Nice to us or we will stop producing the cure" is a pretty powerfull threat.
On the other hand: If the world knew of Wakanda hoarding the cure for cancer, well if they where Xenophobic before, they will have a reason for it now. Because a lot of people worldwide would support a war if the end result was the end of cancer. Wakanda may have crazy good tech, but against the whole world(and their superpowered defenders), not so much.
and, incidentally, i always got the impression from the way the cure was mentioned in the comic that it wasn't that they thought that to release it would weaken Wakanda so much as it would be distorted and used improperly by outside governments and forces. i have nothing to back this up, but based on my general impression of Wakandan culture, i would bet the cure is free for any Wakandan that needs it. would the same be true in the u.s.?
I agree with your reading.
In the US, it would depend who owned the cure. I wont bore everyone with a summary of patent law here (especially since I lack specialized knowledge in biomedicine patent law I would want to have before summarizing it fairly) but if Wakanda publicly released the science behind the cure, it would be free to everyone. No one in the USA would be able to patent it, because ample "prior art" would exist, showing that no one in the USA developed it. Drug companies would be free to manufacture it, and distribute it at their own price points. Simultaneously, Wakanda (and anyone else who was so inclined) would be able to manufacture it and distribute it for free. Given that 90-plus percent of drug costs can be attributed to R&D, the actual cost of manufacture would likely be insignificant.