Would You End All Disease at the Cost of a Child's Life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disease Poll

How far would you go?

  • Wouldn't kill a single child

    Votes: 24 70.6%

  • Would kill one

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 100

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 10,000

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Whatever it took

    Votes: 8 23.5%
  • Total voters
    34
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
42 replies · 7K views
0TheSwerve0 said:
Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.
Murder is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I forgot to say something, imagine the child was yours and then answer to this question!

0TheSwerve0 said:
Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.
Would you say the same thing if you were 1 of the sick people?
 
arildno said:
Murder is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.

to live is to kill, to kill is to live
 
Lisa! said:
I forgot to say something, imagine the child was yours and then answer to this question!


Would you say the same thing if you were 1 of the sick people?

I'd still think disease is a form of natural selection. Of course I wouldn't want to get rid of myself, I'm a self-interested organism...show me one that isn't.

On that note, let's kick some people out of California already, or at least push em inland.
 
0TheSwerve0 said:
I'd still think disease is a form of natural selection. Of course I wouldn't want to get rid of myself, I'm a self-interested organism...show me one that isn't.

On that note, let's kick some people out of California already, or at least push em inland.
All diseases don't end up with death very soon. There are lots of sick people who stay alive for a long time. Some of them even live as long as health people and then die. All governments have to pay for some part of their expenses and lots of other problem. So it's better for all that everyone would be health!Anyway if I was you, I'd never make jokes about this stuff! And I don't think all diseases are a form of natural selection.
 
Lisa! said:
All diseases don't end up with death very soon. There are lots of sick people who stay alive for a long time. Some of them even live as long as health people and then die. All governments have to pay for some part of their expenses and lots of other problem. So it's better for all that everyone would be health!Anyway if I was you, I'd never make jokes about this stuff! And I don't think all diseases are a form of natural selection.

Yeah, with our current adaptations, disease is no longer as threatening as it used to be. But there are new health problems - obesity, cancer (more prevalent perhaps), heart disease, depression...even new social ills i'd imagine. Not that I'm celebrating people dying and being depressed, it's just the truth that they are a part of natural selection. Any environmental pressure is a part of natural selection, anything that affects the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

If everyone was healthy, we'd still have costs - costs to housing, feeding, finding jobs for...Humans have always cared for their old and ill, it's just that now we've gotten so good at it (and worse at it in other ways, looking at the statistics for poverty and hunger) that we're being counterproductive. Of course, we would probably have a less beneficial social system if we just left those people to die. Primates survive through reciprocal altruism. Hard to find a balance between being self-interested and also surviving through "altruism"/inclusive fitness.

and hey, laughter is the best medicine :smile:
 
You know something it's true that the original post of this thread is "to end all diseases...", but I think the main question here is "would you do something immoral in order to do something extremely good for humanity?(sorry if someone else's mentioned this before). So I think our discussion about diseases here is off topic, but I really like to continue this discussion. I'd be really grateful if someone start a thread about that because I really don't have time to do it by myself right now. :shy:



0TheSwerve0 said:
Yeah, with our current adaptations, disease is no longer as threatening as it used to be. But there are new health problems - obesity, cancer (more prevalent perhaps), heart disease, depression...even new social ills i'd imagine. Not that I'm celebrating people dying and being depressed, it's just the truth that they are a part of natural selection. Any environmental pressure is a part of natural selection, anything that affects the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.

If everyone was healthy, we'd still have costs - costs to housing, feeding, finding jobs for...Humans have always cared for their old and ill, it's just that now we've gotten so good at it (and worse at it in other ways, looking at the statistics for poverty and hunger) that we're being counterproductive. Of course, we would probably have a less beneficial social system if we just left those people to die. Primates survive through reciprocal altruism. Hard to find a balance between being self-interested and also surviving through "altruism"/inclusive fitness.

and hey, laughter is the best medicine :smile:
Reply to this post later! :smile:
 
Ok Lisa, I grant you full control of this thread. I can't even believe this thread is around!

Feed it twice a day... it doesn't like cereal... and burp it every so often.
 
Lisa! said:
You know something it's true that the original post of this thread is "to end all diseases...", but I think the main question here is "would you do something immoral in order to do something extremely good for humanity?(sorry if someone else's mentioned this before). So I think our discussion about diseases here is off topic, but I really like to continue this discussion. I'd be really grateful if someone start a thread about that because I really don't have time to do it by myself right now. :shy:

lol, sorry to hijack your thread.

As for your question, I would definitely do something "immoral" to do something extremely good for humanity. Or at least in theory. Not sure much mental preparation I would need. I guess it depends on what the sacrifice is. Plus, I'm a bit superstitious, you know what happened to Agamemnon! I don't know if I could sacrifice my own child, or any child for that matter. I'd have to overcome instinct and cultural indoctrination. Maybe I could sacrifice an adult(s), only because I could find a bit more justification in sacrificing someone who has had a while to live.

However, when it comes to inflicting mental or physical pain, I'm not sure I could deal with that much. If I had to take a life, that's one thing, but drawing it out into a painful ordeal would really be out of the question. I mean, we are humans and we are empathetic and sympathetic to a great degree. And I don't think any amount of justification would give me the nerve to witness or know about what was being done. I guess that's the reason why I can't abide gory scenes with people obviously in pain, but I can handle dead bodies...they're simply matter at that point.

I also tend to think whatever muddle we're in, we're likely to get into another just as quickly so why sacrifice so much when you don't really get anywhere? As I've said in other threads, humans are the way they are by necessity so it really isn't up to us (to a large degree) whether or not we eliminate things like poverty or war through our desire. We have to create a need for it. Similarly, the world exerts pressures on living things, there is always going to be death and life, it doesn't have to be villified. Disease should not be seen as something necessarily evil, like war or human created suffering.


...edit: could I sacrifice myself for something extremely beneficial? I guess if it would save the world from some evil demon, lol. Realistically tho, it'd have to be worth a lot, like thousands of lives or perhaps the ensured survival of dolphins :smile:
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much,Pengwuino! :smile:
I finally got into the mood to continue the discussion. :wink:



0TheSwerve0 said:
Yeah, with our current adaptations, disease is no longer as threatening as it used to be. But there are new health problems - obesity, cancer (more prevalent perhaps), heart disease, depression...even new social ills i'd imagine. Not that I'm celebrating people dying and being depressed, it's just the truth that they are a part of natural selection. Any environmental pressure is a part of natural selection, anything that affects the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next.
Even it's a natural selection, we should try to do something about it!

If everyone was healthy, we'd still have costs - costs to housing, feeding, finding jobs for...Humans have always cared for their old and ill, it's just that now we've gotten so good at it (and worse at it in other ways, looking at the statistics for poverty and hunger) that we're being counterproductive. Of course, we would probably have a less beneficial social system if we just left those people to die. Primates survive through reciprocal altruism. Hard to find a balance between being self-interested and also surviving through "altruism"/inclusive fitness.
The costs would decrease if all people were healthy. Remember some sick people will stay alive almost as long as health people and they have the same costs plus an extera cost because of their sickness.

and hey, laughter is the best medicine :smile:
Happiness and being hopeful to the future, not taking the life so serious s the best medicine not only laughter. I saw lots of people who are depressed but they laugh a lot. I don't think laughter could help those pessimistic people a lot.
But yes you're right. :smile:
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think we should definitely treat sickness, I was mostly being facetious :smile: We do seem to be overcrowding and overconsuming, but it doesn't have to be this way. We just continue to expand with nothing to keep us in check...like disease, natural disasters, predation. I'm not making a moral judgment on whether or not we should, I'm just pointing out that things seem to be way off balanced (which is generally not good). So the only alternative is to consciously try to change things. Fat chance of that happening.

Haha, that'll teach me to use cliches!
Gotta laugh on the inside (in my case a maniacal one) :wink: I know depressed and dependent people who will do anything to fit in, including pretending to be happy. They're not really having a good time.
 
Last edited:
Pengwuino said:
If you had the chance to permanently cure all diseases, but the price of doing this was that you had to kill a child, would you? How bout 100, how bout 10,000?

I would like to do whatever it takes, but probably could not...
 
How about this (don't want to derail this topic completely, but this just came to me and of course I can't keep anything to myself!) -
There are parallel universes.
We find a way to enter these universes.
We find one that is a paradise, but we will ruin it if we enter it and disrupt the balance. We cannot close the gates to this universe either except through destroying our own universe. The only choice is to risk the possibility of contaminating that universe by keeping ours in existence or destroying our universe to keep the other world a paradise.
The destruction of our own universe would not entail pain, but we would be winked out of existence. Perhaps it is worth it and perhaps simply existing is enough for both worlds. Let us imagine, however, that this fall from paradise is exactly as jarring and irrevocable as it sounds.

What would you do and why? What values are playing a role? Does the concept of ourselves refer to our existence in our universe of origin or to humanity as a whole in any universe, anywhere?
 
Last edited: