[Poll] To end all disease

  • Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date

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
  • #26
119
1
Blahness said:
Transfer to this question: Would you kill a grown man in order to cure all diseases?

"All children are special" is the most BS ever, okay? When to kids turn from "special" to "not special"? When they turn 18? 13?

Don't buy it.

And yes, I would. As previous posters said, they'd kill children just to prove a point or get to a tyrant, why not to cure diseases?

Sad, yes, but true.
No, I wouldn't for the same reasons I stated in my previous post (#23).
 
  • #27
178
0
Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.
 
  • #28
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,304
124
0TheSwerve0 said:
Disease is a form of natural selection. We need to get rid of some people.
Old age would normally take care of that. But with baby boomers, even that may not work. We may have to take action, I am thinking of leaving them in uninhabited mountains. Hopefully the snakes, pumas and other wildlife will see the opportunity for a more equal calorie distribution.
 
  • #29
Nomy-the wanderer said:
I would not kill a single child, who am i to make such a decision controling the life of another, thinking that this would eb the solution of my problem, it's too selfish for my liking!
I would not allow a single disease to exist, who am I to make such a decision controlling the lives of others, thinking that this would be the solution of my problem, it's too selfish for my liking!

You know, if we lived in a society where already a child was sacrificed once a year every year in order to keep disease at bay, I think people would react in an equally horrified manner at the suggestion at replacing the sacrifice with a new and horrible thing called disease.

I think the selfish argument is the one that says "what if it was your child". Not that it isn't a strong appeal: I must admit, I'm selfish enough that I might resist if it were my child. But from an objective stance, my child has no more right to live than anybody else's, and they have no more right to live than the terminally ill.

How many would I kill? I'd wipe out no more than the number of children equal to all the deaths that will be caused by disease in the future; or a small error value less than the total number of humans capable of reproduction (there's no point in wiping out diesease if there's nobody around to enjoy it)

As for the Hitler question, I would not kill baby Hitler. The question in the OP suggests we KNOW the result of killing a child. There is absolutely no reason for me to believe that the world would be a better place with Hitler killed as an infant. As much as Hitler was an evil man, the world has turned out more or less okay (some might argue that point). Perhaps a past without Hitler would have led to an equally charismatic, equally evil man controlling Germany with a better head for military strategy.
 
  • #30
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
I always have problem with this kind of questions, because they come to my mind frequently. Is it moral to sacrifice someone because of lots of other people?
And the answer is "NO".
So although I could be 1 of those people who can be benifited from what you said, I still say NO. Even if I'd be sure that this child couldn't have any bright future!
 
  • #31
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132
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.
 
  • #32
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
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?
 
  • #33
178
0
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
 
  • #34
178
0
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.
 
  • #35
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
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.
 
  • #36
178
0
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:
 
  • #37
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
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:
 
  • #38
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
15
Ok Lisa, I grant you full control of this thread. I cant even believe this thread is around!

Feed it twice a day... it doesn't like cereal... and burp it every so often.
 
  • #39
178
0
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:
  • #40
Lisa!
Gold Member
612
94
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 alot. I don't think laughter could help those pessimistic people alot.
But yes you're right. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #41
178
0
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:
  • #42
EL
Science Advisor
547
0
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...
 
  • #43
178
0
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:

Related Threads on [Poll] To end all disease

  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
11K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
6K
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Top