If you were given the opportunity to end all diseases, Would you?

[Vulcan 3,254]

Say you are given the opportunity to end all diseases present and future, humans can and will still die from age or circumstance but they can no longer be affected by all manner of illnesses.

. .. On one hand you'd end a lot of suffering like a lot of suffering so many good people wouldn't have to die... So many lives would not be ruined... but on the other there's a chance you might inadvertently doom the world by overpopulation...or worse

Would you do it? 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Coffee

[Lenny 249]

No because Olive garden bread sticks ARENT unlimited

Shocking.

[Vulcan 3,254]

7 minutes ago, Lenny said:

No because Olive garden bread sticks ARENT unlimited

Shocking.

A Cruel but fair point

[Guest]

Can't say for sure. I wouldn't care about random human beings dying cause of it but the ones I potentially care about could be suffering from them. Ending every disease would change everything, and potentially cause a lot of problems, so I'd say no.

[cmarston1 5,951]

Possibly, but then I remember the threat of overpopulation, and start doubting whether or not to do so.

[SugarCoatxMarblePie 701]

Yeah I would. I mean, overpopulation kinda causes diseases to spread normally, so it'd definitely be a problem eventually but we would develop space travel or something then it wouldn't matter. But an aging population reproduces less, so um, it might not happen actually, the overpopulation that is.

[CinnamonPop 3,341]

Honestly, I wouldn't. There's of course the over-population issue, but you also have the people with a awful moral compass still living. If their influence affects a powerful country such as Russia, Japan, the United States, or Germany; then we may see a World War III and perhaps a Nuclear War/ Fallout. Disease can help the effort to destroy that immidiately. Also, bacteria will find a way to bypass the new drug that I wouldn't make. Only one touch between the bacteria could be able to let them recognize the threat and develop a resistance to the drug. i don't know about Viruses or Protozoa much, but I do know that bacteria can, and will find a way through the drug. If we do kill all the bacteria, then our body's systems will surely fail due to our dependancy on good bacteria.

[Lunar Echo 10,334]

We live in a big world, a lot of this world is not inhabited by humans, so those who say we'd be over-populated don't have a true grasp on just how much space we really have. Second to that is the fact we're sending people to outer space in the near future to visit other planets in our solar system and hopefully inhabit full-time, that takes a lot of man power. And if we're ridden of all disease we'd need less precautionary measures for people entering and leaving space, we wouldn't need to worry about space germs/viruses. I think to be ridden of all illness and diseases to human-kind would be a tremendous help to our civilisation, biological warfare would no longer be a threat, as everyone would be immune.

 

Also, we'd no longer need to worry about getting intimate with people as we'd be immune to their disease.  

Edited June 24, 2017 by Lunar Echo

[Scrubbed user 3,415]

16 minutes ago, CinnamonPop said:

Honestly, I wouldn't. There's of course the over-population issue, but you also have the people with a awful moral compass still living. If their influence affects a powerful country such as Russia, Japan, the United States, or Germany; then we may see a World War III and perhaps a Nuclear War/ Fallout.

Well, disease isn't the only means of getting rid of these people, and don't even need any war or nuclear weapons. 

[CinnamonPop 3,341]

Just now, Vulon Bii said:

Well, disease isn't the only means of getting rid of these people, and don't even need any war or nuclear weapons. 

Don't worry, I'm just speaking hypothetically. I'm a pessimist by nature, so yeah. ^^

[Ruddboy Olaf 10,627]

Yes, but I'd do it for me and my family. I could care less about everyone in the world. 

[Snow Frostflame 3,567]

Does heart failure count as a disease... *looks it up*.... ehh kinda. So yes you're correct it would cause over population. Though I think it would be worth it, my uncle died of cancer just days before my 7th birthday... he was an idol to me. But I'm getting side tracked... no one should have to suffer from a disease, or watch a love one slowly fade away from one. Now yes this would cause overpopulation, but now that humans are immune to disease we can focus our science on other things such as researching new technology and advanced space travel. We could colonize in space and on other planets, overpopulation would be the least of our worries then.

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

9 minutes ago, Lunar Echo said:

We live in a big world, a lot of this world is not inhabited by humans, so those who say we'd be over-populated don't have a true grasp on just how much space we really have.

Overpopulation has less to do with the actual space people inhabit, and more with the amount of resources they consume.  

 

9 minutes ago, Lunar Echo said:

Second to that is the fact we're sending people to outer space in the near future to visit other planets in our solar system and hopefully inhabit full-time, that takes a lot of man power. 

I think it's a little silly to say that overpopulation won't be an issue because "hopefully we'll be able to create colonies on other planets ". Like, I know that they are planning on creating a colony on mars, but we're still a long way from creating such a colony that'd be able to house enough people that it'd actually make a difference when it comes to overpopulation. 

[Celli 4,332]

5 minutes ago, Yamet said:

Overpopulation has less to do with the actual space people inhabit, and more with the amount of resources they consume.  

Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with this. Especially since that's already a problem without overpopulation.

[Castle Bleck 19,163]

 

I mean, you did say people could still age and/or be killed (not to mention everything Lunar Echo said), so it's not like overpopulation would be too likely.

 

Might as well make s*** as ideal as possible, I say.

Edited June 24, 2017 by A.V.

[Lunar Echo 10,334]

4 hours ago, Yamet said:

Overpopulation has less to do with the actual space people inhabit, and more with the amount of resources they consume.  

And I suppose you will say we have no resources left, the Earth is rich in resources, even former Empire Colonies that were purely set-up for resource collection have only been scratching the surface of what we got. I don't believe having a sudden spike of population due to a world immune to disease will affect it all that much, plus, by the time we're "actually" low on vital resources we'd already have set-up mining colonies on other planets, we'd just grow to even greater heights as a species. And we'd still have a lot of dead people in this world from such things as Wars, Accidents, Wild Life, Crimes so it's not like we haven't the stoppers to control the influx in human populace at too fast a rate, we'd just have a world more able to do things that were more risky without immunity.

4 hours ago, Yamet said:

I think it's a little silly to say that overpopulation won't be an issue because "hopefully we'll be able to create colonies on other planets ". Like, I know that they are planning on creating a colony on mars, but we're still a long way from creating such a colony that'd be able to house enough people that it'd actually make a difference when it comes to overpopulation. 

We're so small, Earth is humongous to us, it would take a veeeeeeerrrrrry long time for anything bad like a lack of resources to ultimately affect everyone living in the world. And hey, you got to keep the dream alive, you got to keep aiming for the stars, it's the reason humanity has achieved so much. We're a challenging species, we like to take problems and fix them and make them easier, we like to achieve, we like to make things that will completely change the very way of life for everyone, we're inventors.  

Edited June 24, 2017 by Lunar Echo

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

1 minute ago, Lunar Echo said:

And I suppose you will say we have no resources left, the Earth is rich in resources, even former Empire Colonies that were purely set-up for resource collection have only been scratching on the surface.

Mind if I ask for your source on that one? And if you're curious, humans are expected to reach peak phosphorus around 2030. And while that might not sound like it's a big deal, let's not forget that phosphorus is a very important part in fertilizer. So without it, we'd starve. And we're just going to reach that peak much faster if we had to provide food for everyone who otherwise would have died from diseases. 

And even if those resources did exist, can we extract them with the technology we have today? 

26 minutes ago, Lunar Echo said:

by the time we're "actually" low on vital resources we'd already have set-up mining colonies on other planet

How do you know that? Are you able to see into the future or are you just assuming we'll be able to? 

28 minutes ago, Lunar Echo said:

we're inventors.  

True. But there are certain limits to what we can do. Asp it's rather silly to pretend that we'll defiantly invent a way out problems like this without even considering what would happen if we can't.  

[Lunar Echo 10,334]

3 hours ago, Yamet said:

How do you know that? Are you able to see into the future or are you just assuming we'll be able to? 

Well considering our scientists are able to make food from little more than the dna of a certain food in a lab we have plenty of methods to keep people fed in the future. It's only a matter of time before this becomes main stream, it may not be the most popular method to keep food supplies stocked but it's a method and it works. We have so many more labs and scientists today than we ever had in the past, working on ways to change the way we produce food so that nice things like this are possible.

3 hours ago, Yamet said:

Mind if I ask for your source on that one? And if you're curious, humans are expected to reach peak phosphorus around 2030. And while that might not sound like it's a big deal, let's not forget that phosphorus is a very important part in fertilizer. So without it, we'd starve. And we're just going to reach that peak much faster if we had to provide food for everyone who otherwise would have died from diseases. 

I refuse to believe we'd all starve just because we're missing phosphorus, people won't just let that happen, especially if it means their ass is on the line. If we do run out of phosphorus, we'll find another way to get it done, I don't have the answer to that but am sure someone smart out there will come up with something otherwise, goodbye humanity. Not everything is end all is all, there is more than one way to get things done or solved, and this case is no exception. 

3 hours ago, Yamet said:

True. But there are certain limits to what we can do. Asp it's rather silly to pretend that we'll defiantly invent a way out problems like this without even considering what would happen if we can't.  

That's true, but we face great ordeals every day as a species, but we don't give up and we keep on fighting, the Black Plague killed lots of people but they prevailed in the end. I don't think it's silly to believe we as humans would just give up and all die just because things got too difficult, if that was the case we'd all be speaking German today, I'm sorry but I just don't think it's a bad idea for humanity to be immune to all diseases. Am sure things would happen, every action has a reaction in life, there would be problems, but a lot of things come with pros and cons. 

Edited June 24, 2017 by Lunar Echo

[Windchime 184]

The thing is, right, that the poor have a higher amount of progeny than rich countries, because they want multiple children in the hopes of defying the odds of survival, because offspring in poorer families die due to disease, primarily. Furthermore, the healthcare budget in the majority of all countries tends to be the highest of them all, of course, elderly care included. The elderly care will, of course, rise, but I ballpark a net decrease in govt. expenditure, especially when you think about the reduction of costs because of expensive, long-term or obscure diseases that no longer have to be treated. Add that up to the entire population, and you get a costly total sum.

Back to my original point. Any money gained from decrease in healthcare expenditure can then go to education and family planning for families in poverty, whose expenditures also drastically decreased, probably. This will help reduce the overall population and every family can have as many or as few children as they desire.

Of course, with decreased expenditure for health per child, more couples would have enough money to consider more children than two, but I don't think that argument holds water, since a decrease in birth rate is appearing in first world countries nevertheless.

All in all, this honestly adds up to a total net benefit, and be serious, hoping to kill specific evil people by chance with disease without the use of biological warfare is silly. Biological warfare is a war crime and an absolute terror, so if that problem could be eliminated, that would be absolutely wonderful.

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

6 hours ago, Lunar Echo said:

Well considering we're scientists are able to make food from little more than the dna of a certain food in a lab we have plenty of methods to keep people fed in the future

Last time I checked, and I could be wrong so feel free to correct me (with sources, naturally), that that kind of science isn't yet reliable enough to actually feed enough people to make a significant difference. But I could be wrong about that. 

6 hours ago, Lunar Echo said:

If we do run out of phosphorus, we'll find another way to get it done, I don't have the answer to that but am sure someone smart out there will come up with something otherwise, goodbye humanity.

Once again, can you see into the future or are you just assuming that we'll find another way? Yes, there are two ways to do a couple of things, but some can only be done with one, and maybe this falls into the latter category.

Also, I did  exaggerate a bit. We'll only starve to death if we don't to change our ways.  Ergo, the majority of people would have to work on farms in order to produce enough food. But on it's own raises multiple problems. 

6 hours ago, Lunar Echo said:

That's true, but we face great ordeals every day as humans, but we don't give up and we keep on fighting, the black plague killed lots of people but they prevailed in the end. I don't think it's silly to believe we as humans would just give up and all die just because things got too difficult, if that was the case we'd all be speaking German today,

I'm not saying that we all should just give up because things are hard. I'm saying that we can't just expect people to find solutions to everything all of the time. We have to face the fact that are things we can't solve and that we can't make those problems worse. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Yamet

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

If we get rid of all diseases does it really mean we'd get rid of all diseases? Because of biological warfare and nuclear weapons, we have man-made diseases that will birth anew the original natural diseases. So, I don't think it would help all that much getting rid of 'all' diseases in the long run as we humans will find ways to torture each other or anything in the most mind-boggling ways imaginable.

Human nature is fickle and unpredictable, so where there's a will, there's a way.  

[PlzDelete 2,455]

After reading all these comments... I'm going to have to agree with the ones that say no... overpopulation is a HUGE issue. Plus its nearly impossible to cure them all anyway. I feel a bid bad about saying no but honestly, I could care less if half the population disappeared. Less people means more opportunity to fix the worlds problems.  

[GrimGrimoire 4,970]

 

If we are talking magically in the blink of an eye somehow (which I assuming by the gist of this thread) then no. I actually really hate to say this having lost family to disease, but I do not think whisking away a problem just magically makes everything better and would just create more problems in a lot of other ways. The world is already dealing with hunger, resource and homelessness issues all around it, and the sudden removal of illness and disease would increase that enormously. Now if we are talking scientifically, then yes, because I feel by the time they can safely say all illness and disease on Earth has been eradicated, we will have also made strides to solving hunger and resource issues as well which are the cause of many of those diseases and illness we wish to remove.

That being said, there are many scientists who already envision a future free of disease since we are getting more and more into the idea of DNA alteration. Of course we won't see it in any realistic time free by our living standards I do not believe, but who knows what the future will bring?

[Vulcan 3,254]

17 hours ago, Yamet said:

Mind if I ask for your source on that one? And if you're curious, humans are expected to reach peak phosphorus around 2030. And while that might not sound like it's a big deal, let's not forget that phosphorus is a very important part in fertilizer. So without it, we'd starve. And we're just going to reach that peak much faster if we had to provide food for everyone who otherwise would have died from diseases. 

I don't think I can sleep peacefully at night for the next couple weeks knowing that this very possible reality now looms over my head O_O

14 hours ago, ZethaPonderer said:

 

If we get rid of all diseases does it really mean we'd get rid of all diseases? Because of biological warfare and nuclear weapons, we have man-made diseases that will birth anew the original natural diseases. So, I don't think it would help all that much getting rid of 'all' diseases in the long run as we humans will find ways to torture each other or anything in the most mind-boggling ways imaginable.

Human nature is fickle and unpredictable, so where there's a will, there's a way.  

 

 

That brings an interesting point....Overpopulation may not necessarily be an issue but would a world where governments forcibly control populations through one-child policies and possible death panels, or even just begin killing each other in order to balance out the number of folks be any worse that a world filled with disease that kils just as many? .-. 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Coffee

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

4 hours ago, Coffee said:

That brings an interesting point....Overpopulation may not necessarily be an issue but would a world where governments forcibly control populations through one-child policies and possible death panels, or even just begin killing each other in order to balance out the number of folks be any worse that a world filled with disease that kils just as many? .-. 

It really depends on what ideology does the government abide by in order to control the people. That is what governments do right? Controlling the ignorant masses like us in hopes that we don't commit acts of stupidity and rebellion that would harm the country in anyway. After all, if humanity did not have free will, governments will not exist.

If we humans were pure evil, we would embrace policies and ideals of murdering innocents as an ethically just code to abide by e.g. killing all babies that show little to no potential to be evil or devout followers of the Devil/Satan/Anything that symbolizes the embodiment of evil. (Thankfully, this is not the case and I hope not though reality might surprise me)  

But, obviously in the end of the day it's how we look at it. We live in a world that has limited resources, its an undeniable economic reality due to the existence of scarcity. But, due to our free will, we can choose either the worst decision to damn humanity and the world due to our own self-interest, or choose the best decision to make the world and humanity a tolerable place due to our own self-sacrificing. What do you choose? Self-Interest or Self-Sacrificing?  

Sadly, I am just as guilty like most of humanity who adhere to the path of self-interest, but I will soon come to understand what it means to self-sacrifice to forge the harmony that humanity have always depended on.

Edited June 25, 2017 by ZethaPonderer