If you could cure every disease in the world, would you?

[Beefcakes]

If you had access to, and could mass produce, a cure to every disease in the world, would you give it away to everyone?
Note: It would not cure death, only illness's and massive trauma

I'm undecided, I think I would, but then again all of the worlds doctors and pharmacies and all health related businesses would die off instantly

And the world would overpopulate slowly, so it would make a food shortage very quickly...

What are your thoughts?
I will post more opinions of my own later, I'm too tired to think properly...

 

[sms_117b]

yes, but dilute it and make it a prolonged treatment making millions, you know, like most pharmaceuticals.

 

[Monkfish Acc.]

Um, why wouldn't you?

 

[Inverse Skies]

Yup. It'd put me out of a future career, but I'd simply go into researching something else. There is too much suffering in the world because of the burden of illness to let it go ignored.

 

[Beefcakes]

Um, why wouldn't you?

Kill off many industries, overpopulation, crash the world economy (worse than now, I think...)
But I would give it to the world, no matter the cost

 

[Frybird]

Um, why wouldn't you?

Overpopulation might become a problem.

I'd probably patent the cures it, make millions by selling them, and just before the patents run out, start to give them away for free, just so that:

a) I've done a sort of good deed
b) No one else can make money with my cures

 

[Tattaglia]

Give it away for free regardless of negative consequences. An end to health-related suffering is a vastly important thing, I reckon.

 

[Yokomitsu]

I most certainly would if i were to cure all disease i would be a God among all humans and i would never ever ever have to do anything for myself again, i know it sounds selfish but the way i see it no deed goes un-repayed.

 

[ShadowPen]

Rationally, no. Overpopulation. The world can only handle so many people, yadda yadda.

Though, if I were truely to come across such a cure, I know I would, despite my rationality, give it out. Only to friends and family first, then to everyone else after a load of pressure.

In the end, by saving us all, I'd doom us all...

 

[Aschenkatza]

Rationally, no. Overpopulation. The world can only handle so many people, yadda yadda.

Though, if I were truely to come across such a cure, I know I would, despite my rationality, give it out. Only to friends and family first, then to everyone else after a load of pressure.

In the end, by saving us all, I'd doom us all...

I was going to say yes till I read this. Seriously, it's true. Diseases are a way to control the population, animal and human. I know it's mean and rather harsh, but I don't want the planet to over populate because no one dies anymore.

 

[DoctorNick]

Yes. Yes I would.

Any costs of such a move are negligible next to living free of illness.

Over population is a social problem, nothing more or less and to try and force an external control on it like disease is both monstrous and misses the point entirely.

 

[ShadowPen]

Over population is a social problem, nothing more or less and to try and force an external control on it like disease is both monstrous and misses the point entirely.

Advances in medicine allow for a longer life span. A longer life span allows for more time mating (there was once a time when a 17 year old was considered a sage >_>). More time for mating means more babies. In the past, yes, there was more reproduction (no PS3, 360 or Wii to occupy us) but most babies didn't survive, and often times, the mother wouldn't make it either. Because of advances in medicine, we live longer, more of our offspring survive, and the mothers (usually) survive to reproduce again. Thus, medicine has much to do with overpopulation.

Its not inventing a disease to kill people, its, for lack of a better explanation, allowing nature to take its course.

 

[ChaoticLegion]

No, doing anything like this would destroy the entire fabric of Natural Selection.

 

[DoctorNick]

Over population is a social problem, nothing more or less and to try and force an external control on it like disease is both monstrous and misses the point entirely.

Advances in medicine allow for a longer life span. A longer life span allows for more time mating (there was once a time when a 17 year old was considered a sage >_>). More time for mating means more babies. In the past, yes, there was more reproduction (no PS3, 360 or Wii to occupy us) but most babies didn't survive, and often times, the mother wouldn't make it either. Because of advances in medicine, we live longer, more of our offspring survive, and the mothers (usually) survive to reproduce again. Thus, medicine has much to do with overpopulation.

Its not inventing a disease to kill people, its, for lack of a better explanation, allowing nature to take its course.

And I call bullshit because your assuming that because people CAN have kids that they WILL have kids. I can think of a bunch of countries [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline] who, despite having proper medical care and low child mortality rates, have SHRINKING populations.

People can live as long and as healthy as they damn well please and it won't make a bit of difference as long as each woman has only two children. (One to replace her and one to replace a man.)

 

[Insert_Name_Here]

To DoctorNick: Over population isn't really a social problem. If the world was overpopulated, then there'd be no way to produce enough food, and we'd all starve to death.

If you've got a miracle cure for every disease, then surely it would be possible to study it and find a way to alter it to cure only non-fatal diseases. That way there'd be lowered suffering, and also overpopulation wouldn't occur.

If your miracle cure doesn't allow this then it is a flat out "no" from me.

 

[DoctorNick]

To DoctorNick: Over population isn't really a social problem. If the world was overpopulated, then there'd be no way to produce enough food, and we'd all starve to death.

If you've got a miracle cure for every disease, then surely it would be possible to study it and find a way to alter it to cure only non-fatal diseases. That way there'd be lowered suffering, and also overpopulation wouldn't occur.

If your miracle cure doesn't allow this then it is a flat out "no" from me.

Ohh we're partying now!

It IS a social problem because in many places, and I would say the percentage of places where this is true is only going to rise, people have access to things like... condoms, and the pill, and personal choices, etc. So, if the majority of people CHOOSE to have either just enough kids to replace their generation or fewer, what happens? Your population stays the SAME or else it SHRINKS. It's only in places where people DON'T have access to about birth control wonders or if their culture precludes their use do you have an ever rising population.

So, access to technology and individual/cultural choices. Hmmm, sounds like a SOCIAL ISSUE to me!

 

[ShadowPen]

To DoctorNick: Over population isn't really a social problem. If the world was overpopulated, then there'd be no way to produce enough food, and we'd all starve to death.

If you've got a miracle cure for every disease, then surely it would be possible to study it and find a way to alter it to cure only non-fatal diseases. That way there'd be lowered suffering, and also overpopulation wouldn't occur.

If your miracle cure doesn't allow this then it is a flat out "no" from me.

Ohh we're partying now!

It IS a social problem because in many places, and I would say the percentage of places where this is true is only going to rise, people have access to things like... condoms, and the pill, and personal choices, etc. So, if the majority of people CHOOSE to have either just enough kids to replace their generation or fewer, what happens? Your population stays the SAME or else it SHRINKS. It's only in places where people DON'T have access to about birth control wonders or if their culture precludes their use do you have an ever rising population.

So, access to technology and individual/cultural choices. Hmmm, sounds like a SOCIAL ISSUE to me!

It IS a social issue, but its not JUST a social issue.

First off, wikipedia isn't exactly the best place for information. Use a better source next time (not saying it isn't true...).

But back to the point. Some countries MAKE it a social issue specifically to solve the problem. Something like that wouldn't work here, wouldn't work in many other countries, and probably isn't working as well there as it should be.

 

[Insert_Name_Here]

So after 2 children a couple will never be able to have sex again in fear of contraception failing, and having to euthanise there unborn child. Oh, and if a you fall in love with someone who has already had their baby limit then tough shit. In the end, babies would be getting killed off left, right and centre. If you want to release this drug into the world, you can choose between starving and worldwide riot from anti-abortion protestors.

 

[orifice]

No, no I wouldn't.