Why is the medical community trying to cure terminal illnesses?

[WeaponZero]

It sounds like a stupid question to ask until you think about this important detail:

These naturally occurring terminal diseases are natural mechanisms to keep the population of the world under control. Without people dying of diseases like cancer, tuberculosis, and other such illnesses, the world would become so overpopulated that it would basically become hell on earth. Not enough food, not enough space, anarchy, etc. And that is something that would be a lot more difficult to solve than curing diseases.

So why are we bothering?

[Anonymous]

Well by researching genetics we not only learn about possibly curing or more likely managing disease states, we also learn about biology in general. It is discovery. One thing you might not realize is that at the same time we are researching how to produce more food and energy. Genetically modified organisms have helped us to produce far more food than we did just 20 years ago. The tools, techniques, and discoveries used and made in disease research are also applicable to genetic biological engineering of new plant crops, new bio energy sources, and new bio materials. Molecular biology is basicly the driving force of innovation for the next century. If you look back at the past 200 years you'll see a physics boom with things like the steam engine and the light bulb, then the following 100 years was the chemistry boom with fertilizers, and pharmacueticals, plastics, petroleum, etc. This generation is all about biology. A lot is going to change int he next 100 years because of it. It will be an entirely new world. The research we are doing now on disease (I'm one of those researchers) contributes to the over all understanding of biology and fosters all of these new innovations that are coming. That means new materials, that means more energy, that means more food, that means more jobs, that means longer lives, that means a better quality of life for millions if not billions of people. You lack vision and are only seeing one very very small piece of the puzzle.

[WeaponZero]

I see where you're going with this and what you fail to see is that my concern is not just for humanity but for all species that exist in this world. The more progress we make, the more we screw we things up for every other form of life that exists in the world pretty much. And that is something you can't deny.

[Opinion Owner]

Yes I agree every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Humans have not been the best judge of what will be beneficial even for ourselves. None the less, mutations are constantly occurring in all organisms and constantly changing. It's called evolution. It happens very slowly over many generations, but one thing I've learned is that nature always balances things out. You may have heard of the term natural selection. =) We have been influencing nature for many generations. You might have

[Opinion Owner]

heard of animal husbandry or plant breading. We didn't need genetics to screw with nature. We were doing it before we even really knew what we were doing. Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, and others helped us to understand this process. Now we are doing it at light speed which can potentially be dangerous, but it's a chance I'm willing to take. We do take many precautions. None the less there are always ramifications to our actions.

[WoIIie]

So if tomorrow you were to find out that you had cancer, you would accept that and let the process run it's course? Hey, you are a part of the population and apparently the world could do with less of you. Sounds harsh, but that's your argument against finding cures.

For the sake of defending your argument, you might say yes. But the reason why you would make such a decision is because you don't value your own life the same as others value theirs. Is it fair for you to place a value on someone else's life? Not at all.

[WeaponZero]

It's not so much my life, or even the lives of people, but the state of the world for all life forms on it that concerns me.

[WoIIie]

Our generation isn't close to reaching the point of overpopulation so rest assured, there are far greater concerns out there. The inability to fund our very own infrastucture is a far greater cause of poverty and suffering than overpopulation.

[WeaponZero]

There are solutions, but they're too radical to ever be implemented realistically. People would be too reluctant to sway from their ideals.

[Leamonade]

Everyone has the right to live. Just because it's called a terminal illness and it's SO FAR (key word being so far) incurable doesn't mean that it'll still be the same way be in a few years. The way you think, I could go on and ask why do people even bother taking care of their health at all? Them dying is preventing Earth from overpopulation, right?

I don't think that curing people that suffer from mental illnesses will be the cause of overpopulation. It might contribute to it, but there are so many other factors that interfere that contribute to it a lot more than ill people being cured.

[WeaponZero]

It's just that, the way I see it, these diseases exist within nature for a reason. They're a natural mechanism existing within the ecology of the world that serves a purpose.

[cyrus7]

in a lot of the cases, these disease come from man-made things or ARE man-made

[WeaponZero]

in some cases yes. But not the examples I listed =) And there are many that are natural.

[Leamonade]

True, but at the same time, a lot of things were natural and hindered man populating the Earth. Before medicine was available, people died from fever and such - doesn't mean that men should die, only that the more humanity progresses, the more we overcome these challenges.

[acka72]

Because it brings in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. If someone tells you you are going to die of cancer you pay $$$$$ to save yourself. I don't agree with universal healthcare because you are right we are too many people.

[Lilyaris]

If your little brother/sister or daughter/son, who you love deeply (if you love them...) had cancer, would you not try everything in your power to cure them? Most people who are trying to find a cure for terminal illnesses have been touched by one whether directly or indirectly. It's human nature to not want to give up a loved one to death. Lol, it's human nature to not want to die yourself. So, we fight or "try to cure terminal illnesses" so that we can live and keep those who make our lives worthwhile alive too.

[Darkfairie17]

People die from all causes, not just terminal illnesses or disease. We also haven't cured all the diseases, so we still have some natural selection.

Social trends are also helping to lower the population, at least in developed nations, people are having less kids.

I guess I am a little prejudiced about this topic, since I have a disease that without treatment would kill me.

[Belgie]

It's in our nature, to want to improve and extend our lives.

This includes understanding what makes us sick and what causes us pain, and how we can alleviate such things.

Over population is not something that humanity has ever had to face before, so how can you say it will prove difficult to solve? That's just an assumption on your part, with no historical supporting evidence.

[Anonymous]

Yeah we should probably get rid of birth control and condoms, too, so we can all embrace our bodies' "natural mechanisms" to reproduce.

I'm assuming you've never had a close friend or relative die of a terminal illness at a young age?

[WeaponZero]

I bring up population control and you respond with eliminating birth control? Why do you think I would support that?

And no I haven't. I'm saying that, from a logical point of view, the more people are born and the fewer people die, the more the world as a whole will be negatively affected due to population problems that it is simply not within science's grasp to deal with.

[Opinion Owner]

I knew you wouldn't support it, but it's the exact opposite, logical case of what you're saying. Why spend money on creating forms of birth control to interfere with nature's ways of reproducing. Just like spending money on "terminal illness cures" interferes with nature's ways of controlling the population, as you say.

[WeaponZero]

Well, let me ask you this. What do you think the world would be like if they were to totally eradicate all disease? Theoretically speaking.

[Opinion Owner]

I think humanity will have much bigger problems than population overgrowth if we ever get to the point of eradicating disease. Anndddd thanks for the down vote for me playing devil's advocate.

[WeaponZero]

Wasn't me. I was waiting to hear your comments before I gave an up/downvote.

[WeaponZero]

See? =P

[Opinion Owner]

Lol fair enough. Thanks

[selfishstars]

Because people fear death and the loss of loved ones.

And where would you draw the line anyway? There are a lot of illnesses and diseases that would have been considered terminal in the past, but we have cures for them now. I mean, essentially you could argue not practicing medicine at all, and just allowing nature to take it's course. (Not that I don't understand the point you're making).

[AndyWes]

Because the American philosophy of life goes back to John Locke. And that philosophy places huge importance on preventive medicine and prolonging life as long as possible. No one one wants to die.

[WeaponZero]

Individually you're right. But looking at the bigger picture, it would be far worse if the world became overpopulated because everyone who is currently dying of health/disease related ailments lived to be 120 years old before dying of "natural causes."

[AndyWes]

Western Civilization, Europe and North American, where the money is mostly to cure terminals diseases, have such low fertility rates that we're in little danger of overpopulating things ourselves. Sadly, Western Civilization is aging and will die out at this rate. Which is pretty sad. I'd rather keep things status quo than have a part of the world die out, especially mine, lol. :(

[cyrus7]

The point is, we are to branch out...

colonize other planets, become more advanced beings.. for that we need more man power.

The only thing holding that back is government, and war (inspired by government and greed)

[WeaponZero]

You bring up a good point, but shouldn't that be a priority BEFORE we address diseases? You know, so that we don't have to deal with the whole overpopulation fiasco to begin with?

[cyrus7]

no... I bet you'd be saying things a lot differently if you had a terminal disease :)

[WeaponZero]

Honestly? I don't think I would be =)

[cyrus7]

mhm you say that now lol

[vishna]

Because we love those people and couldn't bear to live without them and are devastated when we loose them so trying to fight those diseases is the natural thing to do.

[lolli]

There is enouugh food and space. The ones with the big bucks that control everything make it this way. They probably don't care to make cures till one of their own is infected.

[Anonymous]

What a silly question. Those diseases aren't going to stop overpopulation which is already going on and growing, and hell on earth is already starting because of it. If anything they might make it worse by causing social and economic problems.