• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is it a good thing to find a cure for every disease?

Originally posted by: Continuity28
Originally posted by: yourdeardaniel
no, then ppl in medical industry and related areas would be out of jobs

So have them relocate to other areas... 😛
Hmm.. wouldn't those other areas all be filled with the people who are no longer sick??
 
Assuming you actually mean cure, and not just treat (a difference the FDA and drug companies don't seem to care about), yes. It would be nice. However, if by cure you mean treat the symptons of every disease, I'll say no. The last thing we need is more drugs in this country that do nothing to solve the problem, and only treat the symptoms as they bleed you of your life savings and your family of their inheritance.
 
Naw. Cause then more than likely medicine prices will soar through the roof. Then people wouldn't have to worry about STD's. Then what would the whole purpose of spending the tax money on education about sex be for?
 
No. Overpopulation would end us all. Also it would stop evolution of the human race dead in its tracks. What makes us strong and healthy is our ability to fight off diseases. If we don't have any diseases, then natural selection cannot occur. In the end we would just be killing ourselves.
 
Originally posted by: DAWeinG
No. Overpopulation would end us all.

With all the freed up workers, you can perhaps do research into space - and expand off of the planet? There's lots of possibilities really...
 
I'm gonna laugh when all the people who say no get AIDS and cancer and some other nasty diseases simultaneously. There may be problems with the disappearance of sickness, but they are definitely a decent trade off. Arguing any other way (loss of jobs, overpopulation, et cetera) just makes you look stupid.
 
Originally posted by: DAWeinG
No. Overpopulation would end us all.

t'is true... disease is population control... we all know china needs it 😉
besides, disease is a form of life that forces the strongest to survive and the weak to die... a form of adaptation and evolution... without it, humans would be weak.
 
There'd be no population control. It has it's ups and down. If we had a cure for everything; we'd be able to put more money into space exploration and maybe find a new planet to live on. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Lenine
I'm gonna laugh when all the people who say no get AIDS and cancer and some other nasty diseases simultaneously. There may be problems with the disappearance of sickness, but they are definitely a decent trade off. Arguing any other way (loss of jobs, overpopulation, et cetera) just makes you look stupid.

I think it's your narrow-mindedness that makes you look stupid.
 
Originally posted by: Continuity28
Originally posted by: DAWeinG
No. Overpopulation would end us all.

With all the freed up workers, you can perhaps do research into space - and expand off of the planet? There's lots of possibilities really...

Yes that is true but it doesn't really seem like it's going to be happening too soon. And even if human beings started migrating on other planets, the cure for every disease which could also lead to the elimination of it, goes against natural selection and evolution. If you are talking on the very long term, there's only so many planets that are explorable and suitable for human beings. Of course that's a whole other topic.

If you want another perspective, take a look at a strain of bacteria on a Petri dish. You give it limited resources, the agar, and you let it grow. Without introducing anything else such as antibiotics or other strains of bacteria, the colonies will eventually run out of food and die.
 
Back
Top