Medicinal Cures :v

[Ecstasy]

Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we have some guy, kay, pick some random group of people, say the Jews (or hey what about those ching-chongs over in China who needs them)? Let him decide he doesn't like them, and in the name of Almighty Population Control, wipe out a good chunk of 'em. Here's the best part: the rest of us will sit back and pretend nothing is happening and we'll go about our merry ways.

Not to sound like a crazy hippie lady, I'm totally against not finding cures for these diseases. As many people have stated, it's easy to say 'let them die/suffer arrrr >D' if it doesn't affect you. But everyone will be affected by cancer at one point, whether it be you diagnosed with it or someone close to you. There are babies diagnosed with brain cancer, young kids, teenagers, being robbed of a chance to really experience life.

These diseases are tearing apart millions of families and lives. I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but it's very similar to Nazi-Germany: everyone is aware of a problem yet you can't be bothered to help a /very/ large group of people survive. You're advocating for people's deaths. These people aren't random blobs or numbers or robots. They're people with actual feelings, interests, friends, lovers.

Example: Emily

[Ken]

I'm not completely for not finding cures, but there's also the economy to think about. Once people find cures for all these diseases, and put them in the form of pills and whatnot, a lot of general practitioners will lose their jobs.

That, and I still think we need a strong sense of morality in the far future. That's not saying I don't feel bad for the families, but uh, I like to think in a more economical standpoint? :C

[indiadrummer]

we should cure diseases such as ebola and malaria, those diseases which are terribly painful and horrific. The diseases that plague third world countries should obviously be taken out. That being said, if people don't die the overall quality of life for others goes down.... So.... I don't really know.

[violent_anger]

The plight is not the number itself, but the actual reduction.

I'd have replied long ago, but I never got what you meant by this...

And Jay or Domon or whatever you wanna be, those general practitioners will still be needed to diagnose and prescribe deh pillz, rite?

[Ken]

Yes, but they won't be in such high demand or won't be a job to aspire towards as much anymore. General practitioners are paid depending on the number of patients that book appointments and shit, so patients with incurable diseases today give them more money. If we eliminate cancer and the such, the amount of patients will decrease thus lowering their salary.

[Prodigy]

Originally Posted by violent_anger

I'd have replied long ago, but I never got what you meant by this...

Have you yet? If not: You keep acting as though my numbers are based on some secret knowledge I have of some ideal number: That number that I have either taken away from the current population, or that I have prescribed, as you call it, an ideal number for the current population: That varying number really was not my intention. You're acting as though the specific numbers I put forth are what I'm aiming for and then everything will be okay. All I am doing is giving a far fetched estimate to what my real premise is: A reduction. Simply- The current population is obviously too high and that effects people's quality of lives, economy, even worse spreading of diseases, demand, blah blah blah. And to that, I say reduction. Not for some confounded number: For the goal of the reduction of our current population over the planet. Does that clarify for you? I should bloody well hope so.

Originally Posted by Twilight Demon

(insert long post here)

I just knew fluids. I don't pay too much attention to it except for the whole, "you have AIDS? Yeah, just don't get any fluids of yours near me. I don't care what color, if a color. Just no."

As to the Death-Row, thing.. Death-Row and inmates that are there for Life. I'm sorry if I'm sounding rather harsh, but shit. These people are only hampering our economy. Too bad we don't have any more uncharted continents to pull a whole UK<Australia ordeal. ;P But seriously, it is a problem. I don't see the legitimacy of keeping an inmate in for life and yet it's not serious enough for you to want to give him a lethal sentence. To me, that's just stupid. And on that note, the Death-Row inmates really do take too long to get rid of. "It costs so much money." You should think about that before giving them that sentence then, assholes. I know firing squad is supposed to be all "inhumane", but a bullet to the back of your head should be pretty quick.

If you're going to feel like a person has committed crimes worthy of his/her own death, and then sentence him/her to it, what's the point then in trying to be humane? I'm not saying torture anyone (though some probably deserve that), but really. It's like saying, "I'm going to punish you Billy, but I'm going to make sure that my spanking won't hurt you at all, okay?" Ridiculous. Utterly stupid and hypocritical. If they deserve death, I don't think they should be given any cookies and milk and be allowed to stroll out the easy way.

Originally Posted by dat wun guh

say the Jews

lol nazi.

Originally Posted by that crazy hippie lady

Not to sound like a crazy hippie lady

Oh, but you are, love. Look who it's quoted to! And you said those words! D:
;3333/<3333 <--Take your pick.
And hmm.. are you stalking my threads here, pretty lady?

In any case, Stephy. You know a big chunk of what I actually said is quite the exaggeration. As far as offing innocents and regular members of the society, I doubt I'd be game for some random slaughtering.
...However, many of these diseases and viruses keep changing. Evolving. Me? I think 'mother nature' is trying to do something. For those who believe in some god, if not 'God', you think they/he would let this happen if it wasn't in their/his plan?
As for kids, keep in mind of the fact that it is all biological. And, in that sense, genetic. From that, it is the parent's fault. I'm not saying that the parents intended on this to happen, but it is obviously due to them. Whether by something that happened within the time from consummation to birth, the age of the parents (ie. mental retardation), or if it is because of the parent's genes: it doesn't matter what. They got that from the parent who was either too careless or too stupid to try and prevent those problems that could occur. Parents relying only on a doctor and not researching themselves can get bad diagnostics. It's like parents relying on the school for discipline, and yet then not allowing the school to actually punish the kids. Most parents look to everything else before even thinking they might have to work to be a good parent. They think they can pick and choose. This is life. It's never going to just work that way. Also, a kid will not 'inherit' AIDS if his parents do not have it. A child will not be as prone to having cancer as another child who has a bad family track record on exhibiting signs of cancer. I personally feel less concerned about curing than I am in preventing.

And look, most scientists believe that AIDS came from apes. Now let's just say we humans are just oh-so-special as to develop a cure for ourselves. When will anyone even give a rat's ass about the apes? I highly doubt there will be any gear into it. Perhaps a very select few might get on this, like members of PETA. And it's not like people aren't already the cause of many ape deaths and whatnot, among many other creatures on this planet. Hell, we lock them up in cages to be the entertainment of hundreds of little snot-nosed kids every day. And I can't imagine that every single one is treated like a king. Or that every single one just /loves/ being in captivity and having no choice as in what or where their lives might have taken them. I may be getting more thoughtful than relevant, but if one is to talk of morality, one should actually look outside their own selfish race when doing something.

------
Oh, and Mr. Jay Khanh Kasshu, there will always be new diseases or problems to replace the old ones. Practitioners will just have more to diagnose. It will be the researchers who will need something new to work on, methinks.

Uhh.. I guess I'll stop this post here. >:

[violent_anger]

Here I'm only responding to your response to me. Or something.

So uh, first off, my bad. Secondly, the alternative is that would could just make our resource gathering more effective and whatnot. Say we genetically engineer rice to be more nutritious or filling, and manage to get all of the rice to be like that. You've just greatly increased the number of people that can be fed by rice. Suddenly those extra billion that were better off shot like Old Yeller can be given some of the leftover rice.

[Blaze]

What the hell is wrong with you?
If we don't continue research for finding cures for things like AIDs, then millions of people around the world will live the same ruined lives they live now but without the hope of a cure, and with the knowledge that they are garaunteed an early death. Developing a vaccine won't make us feel invulnerable. It doesn't workl that way. Once the vaccine is developed and used, the virus will simply find a way to grow stronger, and in the process produce new ones that we haven't seen before. Devloping a vaccine doesn't kill a virus, it forces the virus to grow stronger and change. Modern doctors aren't dumb enough to devlop a vaccine and say "There. Done. Now it'll be like AIDs never existed", they know to keep on monitoring its effectivess and to be on the look out for new viruses.

You're concerned about overpopulation? So what, there's a ridiculous amount of land that could be made fertile for more living spaces and crop-growing, people just can't be bothered to put in the effort. Keeping people dying to avoid overpopulation? So f**king what, it's still a human life!

And Cancer is a mutation and is forever changing, and every human on the planet has and will always have the possibility to get cancer. But you are right about one thing. We shouldn't need to rely on vaccines and tratements, we should be taught about how to prevent it, rather than what cures are available.

[Phoenix]

Not that I disagree with you, but there's a flaw in your argument, Kurix.

You're concerned about overpopulation? So what, there's a ridiculous amount of land that could be made fertile for more living spaces and crop-growing, people just can't be bothered to put in the effort. Keeping people dying to avoid overpopulation? So f**king what, it's still a human life!

Then what if overpopulation causes people to starve to death? You're essentially saying "They shouldn't die because of AIDS, but starvation is ok". You're giving some people their lives by taking away (indirectly) other lives. The difference is you don't feel responsible about the others because you didn't directly cause their death, like you would if you chose not to pursue a cure to AIDS or cancer, but whether you had a hand in it or not, a dead person is still a dead person.

Overpopulation would starve people to death. Why is it that cancer concerns you more?

[Ken]

Originally Posted by Kurix

Developing a vaccine won't make us feel invulnerable. It doesn't work that way. Once the vaccine is developed and used, the virus will simply find a way to grow stronger, and in the process produce new ones that we haven't seen before. Devloping a vaccine doesn't kill a virus, it forces the virus to grow stronger and change. Modern doctors aren't dumb enough to devlop a vaccine and say "There. Done. Now it'll be like AIDs never existed", they know to keep on monitoring its effectivess and to be on the look out for new viruses.

On the contrary. If North America were to create a pill and keep it's state free of cancer for five years, then it will be designated as a cure. Once that happens, people will start to think that it's impossible to ever get cancer again, and with this mindset, they'll start to think along the lines of "Since science is capable of curing cancer that was once considered incurable, then we can go to lengths far greater than we ever imagined!" People will start to consider cloning, prolonging life, etc. which goes against the views of bioethics, the study of ethics in science and what we should and shouldn't do.

This idea that science solves everything will cause the general public to consider themselves more invulverable with each new discovery which is not a good sign.

On a side note, AIDS isn't a virus, it's a symptom.

[violent_anger]

Then what if overpopulation causes people to starve to death? You're essentially saying "They shouldn't die because of AIDS, but starvation is ok". You're giving some people their lives by taking away (indirectly) other lives. The difference is you don't feel responsible about the others because you didn't directly cause their death, like you would if you chose not to pursue a cure to AIDS or cancer, but whether you had a hand in it or not, a dead person is still a dead person.

Overpopulation would starve people to death. Why is it that cancer concerns you more?

I think he covered that when he mentioned making land more fertile.

On the contrary. If North America were to create a pill and keep it's state free of cancer for five years, then it will be designated as a cure. Once that happens, people will start to think that it's impossible to ever get cancer again, and with this mindset, they'll start to think along the lines of "Since science is capable of curing cancer that was once considered incurable, then we can go to lengths far greater than we ever imagined!" People will start to consider cloning, prolonging life, etc. which goes against the views of bioethics, the study of ethics in science and what we should and shouldn't do.

Heh, how much do you think people will freak out when they start getting cancer and whatnot again?

[Ken]

Originally Posted by violent_anger

I think he covered that when he mentioned making land more fertile.

You actually think the government is going to do anything about it? =/

Heh, how much do you think people will freak out when they start getting cancer and whatnot again?

Pretty big if it starts hitting the general population again, and it might end up on the news with something along the lines of "Cancer hits after 6 years..." or similar. Scientists will become heavily pressured to find a cure again and the general public will be like, "****, WHERE'S MY CURE! DFSDFSADFSDF" since they've become so accustomed to living without cancer.

Most people don't know jack shit about viruses and chronic diseases, so lol.

[Phoenix]

I think he covered that when he mentioned making land more fertile.

It's not about land being infertile, it's about there being way too many people to feed. What do you propose; raze Beijing to plant rice? Once you industrialize an area, it stays industrialized forever.

[Blaze]

Oh well, there's my thought owned.

[Ecstasy]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

It's not about land being infertile, it's about there being way too many people to feed. What do you propose; raze Beijing to plant rice? Once you industrialize an area, it stays industrialized forever.

Not that any Western country would ever go for this, but there's always the possibility of creating a fixed amount of food for each person every week, in a very communist-esque way.