r/BeAmazed • u/princessprettyyy1 • Jan 06 '26

Technology The South Korean institute KAIST has created an exoskeleton that helps paralyzed people stand, walk, and climb stairs

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

22.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

447 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

53

u/SystemDeveloper Jan 06 '26

Except no matter how it's developed, it will be insanely expensive at the start. That's how mass production works

11

u/Important-Artist-597 Jan 06 '26

you do understand private corporations aim to make profits? If we didn't have to rely on private corporations, what would be used? our tax dollars. You know what the government shouldn't aim to do with healthcare? profit off of it.

Obviously there is high entry cost. It's about whether there is incentive for profit. You think people think it's magic? No one believes that. A simple tax on the ultra wealthy/better taxes on corporations would pay for our healthcare tenfold, and skip the giant corpos stealing our healthcare money for profit.

20

u/delinquentfatcat Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

Innovation was never and will never be a fit for socialism. This is why technology and medicine (especially anything consumer related) in the Western countries was leaps and bounds ahead of the Soviet bloc by the time it collapsed in 1991.

Geniuses and innovators must be rewarded, and they are willing to take a risk their venture won't work out (and most attempts end in failure). The government simply lacks such a risk/reward stimulus and the ability to allocate resources effectively for this. And talented people move towards fields where they are rewarded and have freedom to choose what to work on.

The exception are long-term moonshot projects like fundamental science and nuclear fusion, which cannot be profitable in the near- and mid-term and must be funded by governments. But medical devices like the one shown are a perfect example of the triumph of free enterprise.

19

u/Wow_u_sure_r_dumb Jan 06 '26

It’s actually crazy how many firsts the Soviet Union had in the space race but they’re overlooked because we beat them to the moon with a manned mission. The problem with the Soviet Union wasn’t the ideology, it was the authoritarianism, oppression and culture of fear.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

Also probably doesn't help the US started way ahead of them from the devastation of the war and the fact that the majority of the Russians were illiterate serfs during the Russian empire.

2

u/delinquentfatcat Jan 06 '26

You make good points, but it's worth pointing out that: 1) Russian serfs were freed in 1861 (with some restrictions). 2) Tsarist Russia had become the world's fastest growing economy by the time WWI broke out.

Many hold that, if not for the Bolshevik revolution and regime, it could have done far better than it did. Also see postwar West Germany vs. East Germany. One economic system works, one doesn't.

3

u/FixerofDeath Jan 06 '26

The ideology and the authoritarianism of the USSR were intrinsically linked.

2

u/DrBadGuy1073 Jan 06 '26

The problem with the Soviet Union wasn't the ideology

Lol. What do you think produced the authoritarianism, oppression and culture of fear? Besides killing each other do you think all Soviets just sang kumbaya and shared stuff?

1

u/Wow_u_sure_r_dumb Jan 08 '26

I think authoritarians will dress themselves up in whatever it takes to dominate and oppress everyone else. We’re not blaming capitalism for Trump’s authoritarianism right?

4

u/delinquentfatcat Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

It was all of the above. The absence of a free market economy and free enterprise ensured being stuck in the stone age with regards to any sort of consumer goods. Obtaining the most basic, primitive essentials like toilet paper and diapers was an ordeal involving long queues, rudeness and luck. Innovative, user-friendly products or services to make life better for people? No such vocabulary even existed in the USSR. Soviet cars were a great example - if you were able to get one at all, such as by being a war veteran and waiting 10 years in the queue to buy one.

Meanwhile you had brilliant engineers designing supersonic jets and spaceships and nuclear plants, with the motivation of "beating the Americans". And they were cutting-edge in many ways, but likewise, proved commercially unviable because governments don't understand markets. There was no competition for customers, no upside to making new things or services, or making it better and more effective, outside of military use.

By the arrival of the personal computer age, the gap was hopeless. A field created out of pure innovation thrived in an ecology of startups. Communist bureaucracy tried and only managed a pathetic parody of the amazing stuff that smart young people spontaneously created in California and elsewhere in the West.

1

u/trusty20 Jan 06 '26

You say these arbitrary, unevidenced statements like they are obviously true when they are obviously false lol. The US gov has completely fizzled the "moonshot projects" you described them as being a good fit for, quite literally they LOST the ability to get to space. Not put on temporary pause, NASA lost the capability to get to the moon, without a complete redo of so much of the work they already did the first time, SLS program is proof of how much of a failure this is. And ironically the private space is actually succeeding (SpaceX).

And on the flipside, you couldn't have been more wrong about the other side of your argument, that the USSR struggled to produce scientists / geniuses. Look up your claims to see you're wrong; they had vastly more scientists especially among women at the time. The USSR had decades of astounding success and massive technological leaps forward that you can't even begin to imagine.

I think you're confusing or perhaps deliberately conflating that the USSR imploded for reasons of authoritarianism, not some obviously inevitable failure of the abstract concept of socialism. The USSR since Stalin, had become addicted to authoritarian style leadership, with a massive swirling of paranoia due to the Cold War truly having all countries sabotaging each other rather than trying to see each other's success. Any criticism you bring of the "socialist economy" we've seen so far, I'll take your finger and trace it back to authoritarianism - i.e the command economy - which is not a necessary part of Socialism but something forced by Stalinism. And you can skip the "no true scottsman" rhetoric, I'm willing to actually make points rather than just use quips.

Truly, the best system is one that incorporates the best aspects of both Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism is an excellent optimization function for the economy. Socialism is an excellent ideology for a government to remain aligned with popular interests and progression, and to keep the population engaged in the economy rather than trying to intermittently exploit / cheat it, then hide from it. The beauty of moderation is that we can combine these two things to have Market Socialism - Socialism that does not reject the use of markets and currency but repurposes them. This is the form of socialism presented by more modern fiction like Star Trek with it's energy credits being units of exchange, and private property still permitted but simply less in fashion / less incentivized to accumulate without immediate need / plan for it. This is Socialism tempered by learnings from capitalism and an agreement in enshrining personal liberty.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

Innovation was never and will never be a fit for socialism.

  1. That is complete nonsense. Innovation didn’t start with capitalism. Innovation happened before it and can happen without it. That’s basically like saying that the only reason anyone ever does anything at all is for money. Which is obviously untrue. We absolutely can and will innovate without a profit motive.
  2. Socialized medicine is not the same thing as socialism.

0

u/delinquentfatcat Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

That it "can" happen is like saying grass "can" grow through cracks in concrete. Yeah, and?

Sure, in USSR you had Pajitnov inventing Tetris and being paid zilch for it, despite generating billions in value worldwide. And this inspired.... absolutely no one to create a game, unless there is a way to get paid. Pajitnov soon moved to the US where he could be rewarded, as did other smart people from ex-USSR.

Most innovation is NOT a scientist sitting in a lab finding a cure to a disease, it's bottom-up entrepreneurship. Even then, I personally know a cure inventor and guess what, they're also very motivated by "greed" a.k.a. taking care of their family, and doing it as a business venture while also helping humanity. There is nothing wrong with that.

As for 2. I was referring to the technologically backwards state of Soviet medicine, which was stifled same as everything else.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

Even then, I personally know a cure inventor and guess what, they're also very motivated by "greed" a.k.a. taking care of their family

Thank you for proving my point. In a socialist society your family will already be fed. Maybe we should just fucking feed people lmao.

Anyway the USSR had its flaws and I’ve got plenty of criticisms of it but you have to understand socialism a little deeper than just “the USSR was socialist and it failed so socialism bad” before you go making sweeping statements.

Capitalism also stifles innovation in plenty of ways too but we don’t like to talk about that.

0

u/delinquentfatcat Jan 06 '26

That you honestly think "In a socialist society your family will already be fed" reveals that you grew up coddled in a Western society and know jack shit about what actual socialism looks like. I grew up there, and it's hilarious to see you people living in comfort with your delusions of a better place.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

🙄

And where is that, hm? You grew up in Russia?

3

u/Treacherous_Peach Jan 06 '26

Capitalism is not he greatest system for all purposes but one reason it works is because it motivates people to make things accessible. Relying on everyone to be altruistic is a gamble, for one. But for another thing, capitalism, through ruthless competition, pushes efficiency to the limits. Cheaper, better, more widely accessible. A common problem in community funded things is there is no competition. Why would there be competition, after all? Without competition there is often no flow of ideas on efficiency. Ultimately, things stagnate.

In my opinion you need competition, you need motivation beyond altruism, and you need it to be funded by the govt for the purpose of common good. Thats largely how the most successful social leaning governments work. Still capitalist for the most part. But heavily subsidized (and watched by!) the govt for public beneficial projects.