What I really have a problem with, is the thought that even if we HAD a cancer cure, we shouldn't *use* it, for fear of the 'consequences' of curing cancer. I do have to call bullshit on that.
If Cancer Were Cured...would it be bad?
- Thread starter T'Baio
- Start date
While we don't have a "cure" for cancer since cancer covers too many disease sites for a single cure to be effective, we already have to withhold certain types of treatment because of cost.
Some chemotherapy drugs are readily available in the US while not available for general use in the UK. Herceptin and Taxol are two such drugs. Herceptin has been proven to make women live longer in certain kinds of breast cancer, yet you can't get it in the UK unless you pay for it yourself. (well this was true a couple of years ago, so I'm assuming it's still true. I had a friend who couldn't get Taxol for lung cancer in the UK just last year).
As much as you may dislike the ethics of it, it's already happening.
Some chemotherapy drugs are readily available in the US while not available for general use in the UK. Herceptin and Taxol are two such drugs. Herceptin has been proven to make women live longer in certain kinds of breast cancer, yet you can't get it in the UK unless you pay for it yourself. (well this was true a couple of years ago, so I'm assuming it's still true. I had a friend who couldn't get Taxol for lung cancer in the UK just last year).
As much as you may dislike the ethics of it, it's already happening.
I'm not the one "establishing policy" and priorities, and thankfully there is no one doing that - if policies and priorities don't to some degree reflect the priorities of people in general, they will collapse sooner or later.
Don't try to impress upon me a greater regard for "the needs of society" than for the need of, hypothetically, my child. You'll fail, and you'll fail with the overwhelming majority of human beings every time.
Practice what you preach.
As a matter of fact, in a way, I do.
Insulin, despite being a life saving "pharmaceutical" that I need to live, is not provided for by our health care system. I have been fortunate enough to get it taken care of recently through the health care plan at my university, but for the preceding five years in which I've been diabetic, it cost me hundreds of dollars a month. Did I complain? Not too much. Because I understand the dramatic cost and the hit our taxes and/or universal health care system would take if it was provided.
So there.
And yes, I realize you were telling me to kill myself. For wanting to philosophize and wax hypothetical on a societal issue. Whatever was I thinking.
Insulin, despite being a life saving "pharmaceutical" that I need to live, is not provided for by our health care system. I have been fortunate enough to get it taken care of recently through the health care plan at my university, but for the preceding five years in which I've been diabetic, it cost me hundreds of dollars a month. Did I complain? Not too much. Because I understand the dramatic cost and the hit our taxes and/or universal health care system would take if it was provided.
So there.
And yes, I realize you were telling me to kill myself. For wanting to philosophize and wax hypothetical on a societal issue. Whatever was I thinking.
I don't think anyone is saying that anyway.
It's simply interesting to extrapolate the possible outcomes of major breakthroughs. A cancer cure is not immune to such outcomes.
I'm afraid this is for the most part an accurate statement.
For a society that works because of money (because humans made it so to begin with), it's going to be very difficult to eliminate any large medical problems (cancer and HIV/AIDS being just part of the equation).
Everyone are so concerned about the costs and that it would eventually lead to the entire economic collapse.
Well, I must say that if the present system isn't enough, eradicate it and create a new one where money is no object.
Resources may not be infinite, but at the same this is one extremely large planet, and there are numerous habitable areas on Earth that haven't been even settled on by us.
So I think it's safe to say that resources for this type of thing DO exist.
What would happen, is the collapse of current economic system, and virtually nothing else.
We'd still be here to create a new one after all.
But if we are doing things like improving the present system ... it's not going to work unless people in power shift their perceptions and stop being greedy/stupid.
If cancer were cured ... well, society would have to adapt with the individuals that are now able to work and overall contribute.
Problem is, even in present day and age, employment is a problem for healthy people, especially because the economy almost failed.
Perhaps an entire economic collapse should happen, or people/public would have to get off their lazy rear ends and force those in power to change the system.
Granted, there will be some people in power who do want to improve on things and aren't corrupted selfish morons.
But they are overruled by the majority of opposites and thus very little (next to nothing) is done in the long run.
I don't like the premise of people suffering, but if people insist on preserving the present (extremely bad) economic system, then I'm afraid that a cure for any larger ailment/disease/problem/disorder/whatever would be pretty bad for it.
Herceptin and Taxol are both approved for use by the NHS now.
Did no one watch I Am Legend? The cure for cancer will cause 95% of the population to drop dead, and will turn 4% into zombies that are hunting the remaining 1%! It will be the end of civilation!
In all seriousness, I say cure it. It will eliminate the suffering of untold numbers of people from an otherwise painful disease. If the population booms to a point where the world can't support all of us, then it will stop supporting until we reach "managable levels" again. But we'll worry about that if and when we get there.
In all seriousness, I say cure it. It will eliminate the suffering of untold numbers of people from an otherwise painful disease. If the population booms to a point where the world can't support all of us, then it will stop supporting until we reach "managable levels" again. But we'll worry about that if and when we get there.
I think Earth has more than enough resources to support an even larger number of humans (probably well over double of the current one).
Problem is, the system we have now cannot cope with the population we have (let alone a far larger number).
Oh I agree that even Earth has it's limits in how much people it can support , and I'm not suggesting that (would be a much better option to develop the tech so we can travel to other stars, terraform other planets, etc ... ), I'm merely stating that it's very likely that Earth can support more of human population compared to present numbers, but the system in place cannot cope with it.
Problem is, the system we have now cannot cope with the population we have (let alone a far larger number).
Oh I agree that even Earth has it's limits in how much people it can support , and I'm not suggesting that (would be a much better option to develop the tech so we can travel to other stars, terraform other planets, etc ... ), I'm merely stating that it's very likely that Earth can support more of human population compared to present numbers, but the system in place cannot cope with it.
A
Amaris
Guest
I believe cancer should be cured. We'll deal with the results of that decision as they come. Humanity adapts.
There are some who believe that "people die, it's just how things work", and that's true, but the rationalization usually only works for now, while one is still relatively healthy and young. When one is on death's bed, one may not be as sanguine.
There was a book I read years ago, where people who were over the age of 55 were euthanized so that society could function at it's peak. The young representatives of that government (mostly late 20/early 30's) were okay with this, as 55 was 2 to 3 decades away. Once one reached the early 50's, confidence started to falter. Another great example of this? Logan's Run. Michael York as the protagonist talking about how it's just the way of things, there was even a religion to support the idea that 30 was the end of the line, when it was obvious our bodies could handle so much more. Yet the people were satisfied, and I believe that's what we see here.
It is easy to say "It will come and I have no power to stop it" when one is young, because death is far away and has no teeth.
When one gets older, that axiom becomes "It will come but I can hold it off a little longer", to which one ages and it becomes "It will come but I can live another day". For some this isn't so, but I would wager the majority do feel this way. Death is death, and we fear it to some degree, even if that degree is only in passing thought.
You see, we've been blessed and cursed. We know we're going to die.
I look at my dog, she's 14 this month, and no matter how old she gets, she will die and she doesn't even know.
We do, and that helps us preserve the preciousness of life. We will always die, the question is after how long?
J.
There are some who believe that "people die, it's just how things work", and that's true, but the rationalization usually only works for now, while one is still relatively healthy and young. When one is on death's bed, one may not be as sanguine.
There was a book I read years ago, where people who were over the age of 55 were euthanized so that society could function at it's peak. The young representatives of that government (mostly late 20/early 30's) were okay with this, as 55 was 2 to 3 decades away. Once one reached the early 50's, confidence started to falter. Another great example of this? Logan's Run. Michael York as the protagonist talking about how it's just the way of things, there was even a religion to support the idea that 30 was the end of the line, when it was obvious our bodies could handle so much more. Yet the people were satisfied, and I believe that's what we see here.
It is easy to say "It will come and I have no power to stop it" when one is young, because death is far away and has no teeth.
When one gets older, that axiom becomes "It will come but I can hold it off a little longer", to which one ages and it becomes "It will come but I can live another day". For some this isn't so, but I would wager the majority do feel this way. Death is death, and we fear it to some degree, even if that degree is only in passing thought.
You see, we've been blessed and cursed. We know we're going to die.
I look at my dog, she's 14 this month, and no matter how old she gets, she will die and she doesn't even know.
We do, and that helps us preserve the preciousness of life. We will always die, the question is after how long?
J.
Similar threads
