Three of the world’s most intractable problems are about to be massively alleviated to a degree that merits global street parties – but the bunting is being withheld by a surprising number of misery-gutses.
Much vested interest, smugness and ideological puritanism have greeted the pending revolutions in obesity treatment, emissions-free personal transport and an end to the seeming inevitability of going gaga in one’s old age.
Until recently it seemed impossible that the progression of Alzheimer’s disease could be drastically slowed, that weight loss could be made exponentially easier with a simple regular injection or that electric vehicles (EVs) might be produced affordably from more sustainable resources.
Most people are therefore elated at news of donanemab, a veritable bollard against Alzheimer’s if it’s detected early, the highly effective weight-loss injectables – Ozempic, Mounjaro and others – and the impending flood of cheap Chinese EVs onto the world market.
These are far from magic bullets, but why so much indignation about breakthroughs that’ll improve life for a probable majority?
The haughty initial response to weight-loss injectables is well understood: fatties should do it the hard way despite often having lifetime conditioning towards calorie-dense food and bodies that consequently don’t move well.
After early scarcity, the drugs’ zooming sales are leaving the Jeremiahs in the dust.
But to carp at the Alzheimer’s treatment takes industrial-strength Eeyorism. Even those who choke at inventor Eli Lilly’s profits from donanemab must concede the pharma giant persevered with dementia research long after the industry hit the wall with amyloid plaque treatments that gave little relief.
The terror, grief and misery its new drug will spare people are incalculable.
But oh no, say the doomsters. We’re not ready for it. Few public health systems are sufficiently geared for early diagnosis so this is going to cause problems. You can practically hear the massed squelching of sweaty palms hand-wringing.
News that home blood-test kits that can detect Alzheimer’s will soon be widely available hasn’t deterred the catastrophists, who can’t envisage consumer and political demand galvanising early detection now there’s finally hope of relief.
As for the evil of cheap Chinese EVs, where to start? Sino-phobes have sound reasons for distrust, not least the scope for spy technology. But if these vehicles help keep the superpower’s economy from tanking, that’s one up for geo-political stability, for a start.
The cars’ affordability could also obviate Western governments’ more unpopular and expensive curtailments of private-car use. Supposing vehicle emissions are cured by mass EV uptake, politicians will have to be more rigorous in justifying anti-congestion measures. It’ll challenge the frequent public-policy undertone of “people going wherever they like is frivolous and decadent”, “people should live near work, housing affordability not being our problem” and “if people can’t wrangle toddlers on bikes or on [often non-existent] buses, they should [whisper it] not breed”.
Naturally, Western car giants are incandescent, having struggled to make EVs pay. But what would they have consumers do? If Chinese EVs perform well at a better price, with a better resource profile as seems likely, the selfish tossers will buy them. Boardroom titans who’ve sneerily championed “disruption” will have to deal with their own serving of it. But of course they’ll cheerfully turn theirs – mass-obsolescence of their products – into a new “opportunity”. Won’t they?
There’ll be other downsides to the three revolutions, chiefly healthier people – aka drug cheats – living longer, annoying the Spartans.
The cynics might also have to stomach consequent alleviation of the looming global demographic and labour crisis: the top-heavy oldest demographic being able and compos mentis for all those vacant jobs.
