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

[Props Valroa 26,051]

No. It is not my place to decide whether or not they exist. Everything dies at somepoint, if its by a diesese then someone else will die of a different thing. Fact of life. It would be wrong to change that. Overpopulation is already an issue, erasing diseses would just increase that and we would have other large problems to face with, and then questions about "Would you remove x" would come up and if thats removed it only gets more and more convoluted. 

[Crystal Peppermint 1,108]

What do you mean with the first part? What are you referencing to?

There are differences from everything to genetics to average IQ's between all the races and sub-races of our species. They aren't big, but they are there.

 

18 hours ago, Yakamaru said:

Africa and Asia are already the cause of overpopulation by fucking more than rabbits. China alone sits on almost 20% of the entire worlds' population. Sorry, you can't out-fuck poverty nor diseases. If anything, I blame Asians and Africans for our overpopulation problem. A problem they themselves caused.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Crystal Peppermint

[Bricks_Ahoy 860]

Difficult question, nope it is not my job to do that. I will agree with @Radience

[Yakamaru 3,076]

@Crystal Peppermint And? Two races in particular are sitting on nearly 80% of the total population.

Did you even bother to look at population levels in my previous post? Asia is sitting at 4.4 billion. Africa is sitting at 1.2 billion. And guess where the concentration of poverty, homelessness, little to no access to sanitation and water are located. Hint: It's not in Europe nor North America. If you guessed Australia you are wrong too.

China is an overpopulated mess, sitting at nearly 20% of the worlds population ALONE. Beijing the most polluted city on the planet where you have to wear masks in order to not die from all the crap floating in the air.

I blame Asians and Africans for breeding like rabbits. You can't out-fuck poverty nor all the other problems in your country simply by having a large population.

And now these people from the third-world are pouring into Europe and America without even bothering to assimilate let alone integrate into the host culture. You don't lie in a bed someone else have made. You lie in your own.

We do not have an overpopulation problem in Europe nor America. Europe is very slowly seeing a housing crisis due to taking in millions of "migrants", not to mention an insane rise in crime.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Yakamaru

[Kaneki 1,072]

Some diseases, maybe.

If it's something that is very life threatening or debilitating, sure. I really hate to see people suffer with these types of things, as I cannot imagine how painful it is for them and their families. Especially in places like Africa, where children are starving and suffering from awful diseases by the millions. It's awful and I wish it would not be.

If it's something that can be easily beaten, we should still work for things that lessen the severity, but it should still be there. For example, I happen to have high-functioning autism, and while it's still hard to function normally for some with this, it can easily be lessened by therapies and medication, as with what I've gone through. Though if I had something to solve with that, I would try to find a way to beat the seizure disorders that one-third of autistic people have, as I happen to have one, but I worry that I might have one again sometime, even with my medications I'm on to prevent that.

[Olsen1987 133]

nah.
it's a completely natural thing.
overpopulation of a species makes them weaker and easier to catch diseases.
we humans should be no different.

[Ginger Ale 722]

Natural Selection... Cruel or not we have to obey it. Life has balance, apart from terrible guilts and murders, we should just accept natural selection.

[Vulcan 3,254]

I would choose to eradicate all diseases...I believe that the advantages and benefits of long happy lives for most would outweigh the necessity of governments in strictly controlling birth rates or the population.

I'd rather be forced to vasectomy to keep my children to two rather than dread the possibility of having them grow in a household where I or my partner had died too early. 

 

[Mirage 24,142]

Is there some 'preferred' method of death then?

Nature destroys imbalances and weakness. That is what disease generally is - it is a sort of protection mechanism. One needs to consider that the body is made up of cells AND flora. When we die, the flora consumes the body. Therefore, disease is best understood as the dying process. Basically, the mechanisms of the body become so weakened that flora (diseases) thrive and slowly consume the body. Therefore, cancer is really nothing more than a dying process. Unfortunately, it is a slow process, and it is painful for even the living to witness, but we are of nature, not above it, and we didn't make the rules.

Don't get me started on doctors and how they profit from deliberately extending the dying process longer and longer... 

[Vulcan 3,254]

2 hours ago, Mirage said:

extending the dying process longer and longer..

Isn't that what medicine is? O_O

just extending the best by date for as long as possible

[Mirage 24,142]

Just now, Vulcan said:

Isn't that what medicine is? O_O

just extending the best by date for as long as possible

Yes. Drugs are allopathic - that is, medical doctors are trained to treat symptoms, not causes. Many medications override natural body functions, like Beta Blockers for high blood pressure. Read about Beta Blockers - you'll be shocked what they actually do. Doctors kill more people than all other diseases and even crimes - by far. However, the leading cause of 'preventable' death/disease is of course, poor lifestyle.

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

Depends on whether it's permanent or just a one-time thing. If I could eradicate literally all disease, human bodies would begin to slowly lose their resilience in a few years. If a new disease emerged after that time, it could end in (near-)extinction.

Besides, lots of people have made history by overcoming their diseases/handicaps and becoming an inspiration for other people to try harder. Most of you may know Stephen Hawkins, but there's also Philip Verheyen and several other such names.

Much as survival of the species pushes me to want all physical and mental ailments gone, reason tells me that's not a good idea.

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

dont think so  without a challenge human would weaken 

[Total Lunar Eclipse 515]

I would end disease. We've been eliminating diseases for centuries and people are having fewer babies than ever (especially young people) in most developed areas. 
 

 

On 10/31/2017 at 12:24 AM, Feather Spiral said:

Depends on whether it's permanent or just a one-time thing. If I could eradicate literally all disease, human bodies would begin to slowly lose their resilience in a few years. If a new disease emerged after that time, it could end in (near-)extinction.

Besides, lots of people have made history by overcoming their diseases/handicaps and becoming an inspiration for other people to try harder. Most of you may know Stephen Hawkins, but there's also Philip Verheyen and several other such names.

Much as survival of the species pushes me to want all physical and mental ailments gone, reason tells me that's not a good idea.

I'm legally blind and have been slowly losing my eyesight to a disease called glaucma. I'm an artst, I built my hobbies and job around art. It's one of the things I love most in life. One day, I won't be able to see anymore. Even people who live life regardless and don't show their pain suffer immensely from disease and handicaps. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Total Lunar Eclipse

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,411]

No way. Nature would just find a more effective way to kill. The world does that. When there are too much of a certain creature, nature finds a way to thin the herd. It's called carrying capacity. Earth can support about 13-15 billion people. After that? Be it famine, drought, shortages, or anything, nature finds a way to thin things out and it is usuaLly much less pleasant.

[Ganondorf8 11,118]

If it means that humans can live even longer--the same with animals--then I'm all for it.

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

On 3/6/2018 at 4:13 PM, Total Lunar Eclipse said:

I'm legally blind and have been slowly losing my eyesight to a disease called glaucma. I'm an artst, I built my hobbies and job around art. It's one of the things I love most in life. One day, I won't be able to see anymore. Even people who live life regardless and don't show their pain suffer immensely from disease and handicaps. 

I understand that, I never meant to say those people don't suffer from their ailments (or that disease and handicap are good things). All I'm saying is, such people can be role models to inspire regular people; it shows anything is possible if you work hard to find a way.

Anyway, it occurred to me that my previous reply was a bit unclear, especially on the "permanent vs once" part, so here's what I meant.

If I could end all currently existing diseases once, I wouldn't; something new could emerge at a later date, when our bodies have lost the ability to fight back, and the effects would be devastating. If I could end all disease for the rest of time, I think I would do it; there's really not much reason to allow people (and other beings) to suffer if there are no benefits to it.

[Total Lunar Eclipse 515]

51 minutes ago, Feather Spiral said:

I understand that, I never meant to say those people don't suffer from their ailments (or that disease and handicap are good things). All I'm saying is, such people can be role models to inspire regular people; it shows anything is possible if you work hard to find a way.

Anyway, it occurred to me that my previous reply was a bit unclear, especially on the "permanent vs once" part, so here's what I meant.

If I could end all currently existing diseases once, I wouldn't; something new could emerge at a later date, when our bodies have lost the ability to fight back, and the effects would be devastating. If I could end all disease for the rest of time, I think I would do it; there's really not much reason to allow people (and other beings) to suffer if there are no benefits to it.

I disagree. I know there are some people with disabilities and disease who would not accept a cure offered to them, but those are far and few between. Most would take it in a heartbeat. They hate not being able to do things, a lot of them can't get a job and can't even afford their own treatments to manage pain or keep the disease from getting worse or killing them. They're trapped in a financial hole in which their health continues to spiral down in an endless hell until they die, or decide to cut the cord early (suicide rates for people with certain disabilities are significantly higher than the general population). Many feel isolated when society expects nothing short of an inspirational story and won't help them.

There are also many people without diseases or disabilities who do just as inspirational things, so you'll never have a shortage of it. Even if you cured all disease right now, there would still be plenty of things for humanity to overcome.

 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Total Lunar Eclipse

[King of Canterlot 9,588]

If I could, then I would. If it means that no one would suffer from the pains of having a disease anymore, then I don't know why you wouldn't want to cure them all. 

On 3/6/2018 at 10:12 PM, Stone Cold Steve Tuna said:

Nature would just find a more effective way to kill.

Nature has been trying to kill mankind since we first came down from the tree tops as monkeys, yet we've still survived after all this time. At this point, I do believe that we as a species will find some way to survive even of nature tries to do her worst to us.    

8 minutes ago, Total Lunar Eclipse said:

Most would take it in a heartbeat.

My grandpa would be one of those who would be lining up to take the cure, he is blind and has been going blind for over 20 years now, if he had the opportunity to be able to see my grandma again, to be able to see his classic car collection again, to be able to drive again and not be tied down to the house, he would take the cure in a heartbeat- that's for sure. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by King of Canterlot

[TBD 17,228]

Nah, overpopulation is something the world doesn't need.

[Feather Spiral 1,892]

On 3/9/2018 at 7:25 PM, Total Lunar Eclipse said:

who would not accept a cure offered to them

I don't see why you felt the need to address that, because that's not what I was talking about at all. Being an inspiration to others is very different from being content the way you are.

On 3/9/2018 at 7:25 PM, Total Lunar Eclipse said:

so you'll never have a shortage of it

I never said it was only people with ailments who show the example, I know there are plenty of able-bodied role models. But one can always say: "they were just born smarter/stronger and more skilled, I can't do that". Seeing someone with a disability achieve great things, just shows how much it pays to work towards it.

I'm not sure why people disagree to arguments I never made, it's become somewhat of a habit recently.

[Nyactis Mewcis Catlum 670]

Absolutely. And in fact, I'm already playing a part in that by taking vaccines, which were created with the purpose of eradicating disease by preventing it from blossoming within a population.

For those who say "natural selection" should champion our decisions, answer me this: would you be fully okay with being complacent in the death of someone with an immune disease because you yourself did not have the vaccine for an illness? It is natural selection, right?

People with immune diseases are protected when healthier people take vaccines and assist in the eradication of disease. This concept is called "herd immunity". Those with immune diseases are unable to get vaccines in a lot of cases. This also applies to children and the elderly. Herd immunity allows them to be safe in a community when their immune systems are either not fully developed, stunted, or declining. The thing is, herd immunity only works if a majority of the population gets vaccines.

The idea of making no effort to combat diseases because of "natural selection" doesn't sit right with me for this reason. It's easy for a perfectly healthy person to say oh let's just let natural selection take care of it, and not consider how that mentality harms other people around them. And such an outlook can be used to justify putting many innocent people in danger. I mean, why bother protect yourself from illnesses...or why bother protect your partner from your illnesses, because it's just natural selection?

I'm sick as a dog as of writing this post. But I'm lucky. My immune system is designed well enough that I have a high chance of passing through this after a few days, no problem. Some people aren't so lucky, and I'm not going to be the one responsible in damning them just because they didn't win the genetics lottery.

[Pr0m4NV14 837]

That would put too many doctors out of business. 

[IsraelYabuki 439]

diseases have no place in our world, so I say yes. I would end all diseases.

[dead account 2,703]

No, I definitely wouldn't.