Should we cure Cancer/Diseases/etc?

[Tarkus]

First post.

I don't see what the first post has to do with what I said.

And again I say, my opinion is as "biased" as a jewish's opinion about the holocaust. And I think we all agree the holocaust wasn't one of humanities most colourful moments

 

[MJ12]

I have to admit, I am actually pissed for the night, now knowing that some people think this way. (Well, no surprise really)
It's such a Hitler mentality. It worries the piss out of me to know that some people use his ideals without even realizing it.

 

[Tarkus]

I have to admit, I am actually pissed for the night, now knowing that some people think this way. (Well, no surprise really)
It's such a Hitler mentality. It worries the piss out of me to know that some people use his ideals without even realizing it.

Thank you for bringing the nazi to the discussion before me, as I feel exactly the same

EDIT - now I'm going to say something that's problably going to piss you a bit, but hey, I'm also pretty pissed. Just as I thought, you're only 16, and I was aiming at a lower age based on your opinions, which should worry you. The fact is that maybe not in a near future, but there will come the time when you'll maybe remember this thread, and what you've said, and be profoundly (sp?) ashamed of yourself. Unfortunately, I can't say I'm not anxious for that day to come

 

[Danimal]

This guy is hilarious. Why don't you post more? Oh wait, because you suck, now stfu.

You dare insult FarrowLesparrow?!

ENNUI! GET THE TABLE!

 

[Dog--]

Except I don't want to actively kill people. Mankind seems to have a habit of leaping before it looks, and this isn't really reversable.. You can't just stop giving people a cure when all our resources are gone.. It WILL start anarchy eventually..

 

[Raziaar]

You dare insult FarrowLesparrow?!

ENNUI! GET THE TABLE!

Don't do it! Danimal will fashion a ban stick from one of the legs!

 

[MJ12]

Except I don't want to actively kill people. Mankind seems to have a habit of leaping before it looks, and this isn't really reversable.. You can't just stop giving people a cure when all our resources are gone.. It WILL start anarchy eventually..

Once again, doing nothing is just as bad as physically killing them.

You dare insult FarrowLesparrow?!

I thought he was a noob spamming, I said sorry.

 

[Acepilotf14]

That's like asking if we should go back in time and kill Hitler.
The answer is NO.

 

[Dog--]

**** it. It was just a small thought I had today, and I THOUGHT it'd make an interesting conversation, apparently not.. Obviously I'm in favor of giving people the cure, it's not like I'd go and actively work AGAINST it's development or anything I don't WANT people to die, I'm just saying, a few deaths now could save billions of people or possibly our entire race, later on, in a much much larger time-frame, but, as I said, it's long after I'm dead.

 

[Tarkus]

Except I don't want to actively kill people. Mankind seems to have a habit of leaping before it looks, and this isn't really reversable.. You can't just stop giving people a cure when all our resources are gone.. It WILL start anarchy eventually..

But sacrificing people isn't the answer.What bothers me is that you're willing to sacrifice my life, and in the meantime I'm making my best to possibly save yours.

The question is, are YOU willing to sacrifice yourself to possibly "save billions" has you say? I'm not really expecting an answer to this because you can say yes and think no.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

On a more serious note than before. I don't know if Dog really believes that we should just destroy all the sick and lame. However, it's useful to always have someone play the devil's advocate, because it stops everyone just falling into the trap of 'Group Think' thinking. We might all just accept something because on the surface of it, it just seems to be the right thing, when actually we need to think about it more. Plus, it's interesting.

So, something to consider.
Selfish individuals will tend to prosper within a group but, altruistic groups will tend to prosper over groups predominantly made up from selfish individuals. So, in general terms, I think that of course we should try to heal everyone. It's more impractical in the long run to leave people to die (Either providing them with any kind of support, or just dealing with the bodies), than it is to cure them, because as medical science progresses, there is an ever increasing chance that those people you cure, will go on and add to the fabric of society, economically, culturally or 'whatever'.

That's me trying to be 'clinical' about it. It's also unrealistic to deal with problems in general terms, but you get the idea. Every case is dealt with individually, but in the context of "We'd like to heal these people if we can".



zombie, don't worry about that. I was spamming, but... heh... I'm not quite the noob I look. Many moons ago, the beer swilling Z reset my postcount after I made some remark about it not being in line with another forum I'd just joined. I think, on this site, I had something like 10,000 posts.

 

[el Chi]

Except I don't want to actively kill people. Mankind seems to have a habit of leaping before it looks, and this isn't really reversable.. You can't just stop giving people a cure when all our resources are gone.. It WILL start anarchy eventually..

Let's re-cap:
1. Mankind creates medicines.
2. The Earth's resources deplete due to mankind's various endeavours.
3. Medicines start to run out due to the repercussions of point 2.#
4. Anarchy breaks out.
5. Military police bitch-slap the ill for complaining too loud.

Wait - forget that last one. For now.

Your argument there is tremendously shaky to say the least.

 

[Dog--]

But sacrificing people isn't the answer.What bothers me is that you're willing to sacrifice my life, and in the meantime I'm making my best to possibly save yours.

The question is, are YOU willing to sacrifice yourself to possibly "save billions" has you say? I'm not really expecting an answer to this because you can say yes and think no.

I'll honestly say, right now, I would kill myself, if it meant saving another life. Just one other life. I'm not kidding at all, I'm serious.

 

[Tarkus]

On a more serious note than before. I don't know if Dog really believes that we should just destroy all the sick and lame. However, it's useful to always have someone play the devil's advocate, because it stops everyone just falling into the trap of 'Group Think' thinking. We might all just accept something because on the surface of it, it just seems to be the right thing, when actually we need to think about it more. Plus, it's interesting.

So, something to consider.
Selfish individuals will tend to prosper within a group but, altruistic groups will tend to prosper over groups predominantly made up from selfish individuals. So, in general terms, I think that of course we should try to heal everyone. It's more impractical in the long run to leave people to die (Either providing them with any kind of support, or just dealing with the bodies), than it is to cure them, because as medical science progresses, there is an ever increasing chance that those people you cure, will go on and add to the fabric of society, economically, culturally 'whatever'.

That's me trying to be 'clinical' about it. It's also unrealistic to deal with problems in general terms, but you get the idea. Every case is dealt with individually, but in the context of "We'd like to heal these people if we can".

You've actually brought up an interesting possibility. When we let people die, we could be letting a new einstein go, or a new mozart.

Dog, I can also right that right now I'd kill myself to save someone I really love or whatever, but I really can't be sure untill that time comes, if it comes at all, can I?

 

[el Chi]

Would it depend on who this other life was?

You've actually brought up an interesting possibility. When we let people die, we could be letting a new einstein go, or a new mozart.

Or a new Pol Pot.

 

[Tarkus]

Or a new Pol Pot.

You can never be sure. That doesn't justify letting someone die because they "could be" a new pol pot. I'd much rather let someone live because they can be someone good than let someone die because they could turn out to be bad

 

[Dog--]

I can't really prove that I'd kill myself to save someone else, but (not that it matters to people I don't know, here) I'd give my word that I would.

 

[Tarkus]

I can't really prove that I'd kill myself to save someone else, but (not that it matters to people I don't know, here) I'd give my word that I would.

If it didn't matter you wouldn't be posting on an internet forum in the first place

 

[Dog--]

No, I meant it doesn't matter that I'd give my word to strangers on the net, because you don't know me, so you wouldn't know if my word was worth anything. But I do keep my promises - and THAT'S what doesn't matter to the net.

 

[Tarkus]

I'm just glad the decision of curing diseases or not isn't up to you

 

[el Chi]

You can never be sure. That doesn't justify letting someone die because they "could be" a new pol pot. I'd much rather let someone live because they can be someone good than let someone die because they could turn out to be bad

I didn't saw we should let someone die because they could be the next Pol Pot. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your argument.

 

[Crushenator 500]

On a more serious note than before. I don't know if Dog really believes that we should just destroy all the sick and lame. However, it's useful to always have someone play the devil's advocate, because it stops everyone just falling into the trap of 'Group Think' thinking. We might all just accept something because on the surface of it, it just seems to be the right thing, when actually we need to think about it more. Plus, it's interesting.

So, something to consider.
Selfish individuals will tend to prosper within a group but, altruistic groups will tend to prosper over groups predominantly made up from selfish individuals. So, in general terms, I think that of course we should try to heal everyone. It's more impractical in the long run to leave people to die (Either providing them with any kind of support, or just dealing with the bodies), than it is to cure them, because as medical science progresses, there is an ever increasing chance that those people you cure, will go on and add to the fabric of society, economically, culturally or 'whatever'.

That's me trying to be 'clinical' about it. It's also unrealistic to deal with problems in general terms, but you get the idea. Every case is dealt with individually, but in the context of "We'd like to heal these people if we can".



zombie, don't worry about that. I was spamming, but... heh... I'm not quite the noob I look. Many moons ago, the beer swilling Z reset my postcount after I made some remark about it not being in line with another forum I'd just joined. I think, on this site, I had something like 10,000 posts.

Interesting...

Although on the other hand, TL;DR

Noob :arms:

 

[evil^milk]

We definitely should. And if it's overpopulation you're worried about - make it punishable by law to have more than two kids per family, or some less rigid law, or a more efficient, yet sensible, way of controlling population.

 

[Tarkus]

I didn't saw we should let someone die because they could be the next Pol Pot. I was simply pointing out a flaw in your argument.

But there isn't a flaw, and that wans't an argument either, it was just a possibility. Either way, deciding on life is always safer than deciding on death.

 

[Dog--]

We definitely should. And if it's overpopulation you're worried about - make it punishable by law to have more than two kids per family, or some less rigid law, or a more efficient, yet sensible, way of controlling population.

But the problem with that, is it'll most likely be too late before they make and enforce those laws.

 

[Tarkus]

We definitely should. And if it's overpopulation you're worried about - make it punishable by law to have more than two kids per family, or some less rigid law, or a more efficient, yet sensible, way of controlling population.

I think they're doing, or did that in China.

Well, I'm going, I'm sick of this discussion for the time being

 

[Dog--]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Actually, since they're doing it now.. I believe I'm completely wrong on everything.

Seriously.. No sarcasm or anything..

I'm not going to lie.. I got owned.

Hard.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

China is having a bit of a golden era at the moment. They have a predominantly young, male population, which means a lot of labour, without having to pay to support the elderly. It's going to mess them up in about 30-40 years time, but they're already trying to solve that by relaxing the baby laws.

Before Mao came along, China had a population about half the size, but then he encouraged everyone to make babies, to power the cultural revolution. In the long run, I think that was terrible. I'd certainly prefer a world with a global population closer to one billion, rather than more than a billion people in China alone.

 

[evil^milk]

It's not about getting owned. It's the fact that you learned something new today, and now you're a better person because of it. Hopefully.

 

[kineaesth]

This thread was an interesting experiment. Despite your obvious stance as simply devil's advocate, there was still quite some beef...

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

This thread was an interesting experiment. Despite your obvious stance as simply devil's advocate, there was still quite some beef...

I agree. I enjoy these types of discussions. So long as nobody goes round messing up other people's lives, I think it's very healthy to talk through these things. And we(OK, not us, but other people taking this sort of thing seriously) might even come up with some valuable insight in the process.

 

[Dog--]

I still stand by everything I said, in theory, but I never thought any government in the world would do anything until it's too late.. Most have a bad track record for that type of thing.

If government never did anything (and I had some sort of guarantee, pretend), I'd stand by my arguments I made in this thread.

But since that's not the case, disregard everything I've said except this post.

 

[Jintor]

To clarify, though, China's one-child policy only applies to ethnic majorities and suburbanites. Ethnic minorities, rural families and the results of China's one-child policy (that is, only children) are allowed to have more than one kid.

 

[Dog--]

But it's still a step in the right direction, and they realize the problem. I was thinking around 50 years for anything to even start happening.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Dog, is your problem with curing sick people, or just overpopulation in general? I'm not sure what your point was in the first place.


People who are affluent, get their three meals a day, a good night's sleep, and have some free time to spare, will tend to not have many children. That's the way things are in our parts of the world. Without immigration, the population in "western" parts of the world would probably be shrinking slightly. Or at least only appearing to grow because we're living longer. But even that would peak once we reached the limit of the human life span (Although I hope we won't!)

I'd hate a world where a social engineer would control people's lives from some kind of godly position in government. Better that they make the right choices as individuals. Mostly, people just don't have as many babies when they're educated. Contrary to popular believe, human beings will usually make the correct choice, so long as they are well informed. However, most of the time, people aren't. it isn't their fault, it's just the way things are right now. They'll get better... eventually.


RON PAUL OLOLOLOL

 

[mastag]

My mother is recovering from lung cancer, which probably should have killed her.

She also had a brain tumor that came back as an absess 9 times. I'm not kidding.

A straight up cure probably would have saved her a lot of pain.

 

[Dog--]

@Farrow - eventually.. When it's too late..

By the way, my problem is with overpopulation, cancer seems to be the biggest preventable factor within it. And please don't say war.. That's something you can't stop no matter what you do.

 

[ericms]

And please don't say war.. That's something you can't stop no matter what you do.

Waaaaaar, and lots of it.

 

[Musk]

Well maybe so long as the cure doesn't turn into anything like I Am Legend. Awesome movie though.

 

[theotherguy]

I also don't want anyone to take this personally, I mean I'm all for saving people, but this is a rare case in which saving lots of people probably wouldn't be a good idea in the long run, atleast not yet. The moral part of my opinion - save people. Save as much as possible. The statistical part of my opinion, don't invent a cure. Sounds heartless, but you got to think about the big picture.

Oh, shut the **** up.

Cancer isn't the biggest and most important curb on population growth. Its a horrid, deadly disease which has plauged humanity for aeons. Nobody wants to have cancer, nobody wants to die from cancer.

Your argument is not only morally indefensible but statistically and pragmatically indefensible. The population hardly needs to be culled by diseases such as cancer. We already die in droves from Heart Disease, and other cardiovascular diseases. To say that simply because this disease is "natural" it should be saved makes no sense either. Human beings are themselves natural. Population should be curbed through proactive use of contraception, condoms, and social change, NOT through disease, war and famine. We can scientifically reduce the population, not simply wait for nature to take its course.

Curing cancer is a very, very, very good thing for humanity. I can see nothing bad about curing it and quite frankly I find it offensive that you would even say such a thing. Either you are morally inept or, far more likely, simply retarded. Please learn something about demographics before you spout this sort of eugenicist bullshit.