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

Recommended Videos

Monkfish Acc.

New member
May 7, 2008
4,102
0
0
Danzorz said:
Why? Disease is what keeps peoples immune system up, if another disease came a long say...500 years after all were cured we would all die, very, VERY fast. Also overpopulation.
Your problems solve each other, if you think about it.
 

Dragon_of_red

New member
Dec 30, 2008
6,771
0
0
Well, it depends if it cures everything, like people would still like break bones and stuff, and die in physsical ways, thers no stopping that, so it would be easier to becomne a doctor and stuff but it wouldnt completely get rid of their work, and for overpopulation, and he didnt say it would increase your age, just your diseases, so your average age shouldnt increase, you stil get old and die, it ghappens, but if you have to complain, why dont they just make something like of your body starts to fail, instead of life support and keeping you alive, just, Euthanisia...
 

captainwillies

New member
Feb 17, 2008
992
0
0
Beefcakes said:
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
doctors are there for more than diseases. also this is not counting virus's that don't yet exist.
 

ShadowPen

New member
Feb 25, 2009
97
0
0
Does it cure stupid? Cause I think that is the world's #1 killer right now.

(I'm talking 'take hair dryer in shower' stupid, not 'thou does not agree with me, thus thou art stupid' stupid.)
 

Beefcakes

Pants Lord of Vodka
Aug 11, 2008
835
0
0
captainwillies said:
Beefcakes said:
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
doctors are there for more than diseases. also this is not counting virus's that don't yet exist.
Everything there is, and ever will be.
No virus's or diseases
 

DYin01

New member
Oct 18, 2008
644
0
0
It would probably cause overpopulation en masse and destroy the world. So, no. :D
 

Galliam

New member
Dec 26, 2008
237
0
0
I would give it out, and use that power to take control of the world. The idea that one man could cure everything would be so awe inspiring to the public that it would be easy to seize control.

seriously.
 

Knight Templar

Moved on
Dec 29, 2007
3,848
0
0
If I could kill all virus's I would but otherwise, no. Just let things pan out is how I see it.

If I had the cures because of hard work in a lab then yes, but still only virus's.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
No...sadly death's 'caused by diseases are necessary for Earth's population not to grow to much. If the planet becomes overpopulated, then that's a bad thing. Sadly, in order for some people to actually be able to live a comfortable life, others must die.

It's cruel indeed.

But even if you cured all diseases in the world, others would appear. You can cure cancer, and something more deadly will come along.
 

Hyperactiveman

New member
Oct 26, 2008
545
0
0
Even though it would be an extremely cheap move to make for humanity and not a solved problem or challenge... YES. Because I don't want anymore sadness in the world... except for when people lose in game matches. XD

Would everyone know that it's me?... And if I said no, would they know?
 

Woundingisfun

New member
Sep 2, 2008
192
0
0
The world would be overpopulated if there were no more diseases left. So I would really just cure people that is close to me.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
No, we are already over-populated as it is. Besides, when you hate most people you prefer to see them burn!
 

traceur_

New member
Feb 19, 2009
4,181
0
0
I wouldn't but hear me out. I think the earth is already way over populated with humans. I don't know a less morbid way to say this so here we go: we need to get rid of some humans, if we got rid of disease, we'd be overpopulated even more so than we are now, which would lead to food shortages and such. So yeh people need to die, but I guess I'm being a bit hypocritical because I would want a cure if I or a family member got sick, hmmm yeh. Damn that's an internal dilemma, damn it now I have to think!
 
Oct 28, 2008
74
0
0
I guess the guys going with "No,it's against natural selection" and "Bad luck for the vitims, overpopulation" were never life-threatening sick. Saying such things while you are sitting in your comfortable room and are healthy is incredibly arrogant.

Get cancer and then tell me its ok that you die because it happens according to natural selection. Ignorant kids...

Everybody deserves to live. Overpopulation, famines etc, are a lame excuse. With a change of life styles this wouldn't be a problem(even today we're producing enough food to ensure the wellbeing of all humans,it's just not equally distributed.) Western societies dump as much food (like bread that's older than one day) as a good part of the thirld world needs...

And birth rates lower when the standard of living rises. Look at first and second world countries. In Japan and parts of western europe some analysts even fear that the population of these countries will shrinkin the next years from low birth rates. Give humans education, jobs and chances and you don't have to fear overpopulation!
 

stinkypitz

New member
Jan 7, 2008
428
0
0
I have a terminal illness, and I would still choose not to give this cure to the human race. Sure, i would cure myself because im a hypocrite, but I agree with natural selection and overpopulation being more important than just one species. A cure like this would not create a utopia by any means, It would only serve to accelerate our extinction.
 

searanox

New member
Sep 22, 2008
864
0
0
Overpopulation is not an issue stemming from a lack of disease to kill off people, but stemming from socioeconomic imbalance. The reason why population rates are relatively higher in "third-world" countries is because chances of early death are far higher and wages are much lower; families need to get as many kids out and working as fast as possible just to be able to support themselves. Coupled with traditions of large families and religious that encourage sex for the sake of breeding (as well as some patriarchal societies where men take advantage of women without much if any chance of legal retribution), you have a recipe ripe for lots of child-making. There is a reason Western nations have far lower birth rates: increased socioeconomic stability leads to more personal leisure time available for contemplation of the world, discussion of ethics, etc., leading to increased secularism, as well as much-reduced risk of disease and fatality, and increasingly ego-centric lifestyles. This is a global trend and it is not a coincidence.

So yeah, fuck disease. Contrary to popular belief, most people all feel the same sort of emotions and have the same sorts of revelations and experiences within their lifetimes. It's very easy to think of the masses as a sort of distant phenomenon, but the reality is that there are billions of people in the world who feel and think very similarly to how you do, if not identically. Nobody wants to battle with disease, especially a life-threatening one. It's absolutely unforgivable to deny the ability to live life to its fullest to the world.
 

DoctorNick

New member
Oct 31, 2007
881
0
0
searanox said:
Overpopulation is not an issue stemming from a lack of disease to kill off people, but stemming from socioeconomic imbalance. The reason why population rates are relatively higher in "third-world" countries is because chances of early death are far higher and wages are much lower; families need to get as many kids out and working as fast as possible just to be able to support themselves. Coupled with traditions of large families and religious that encourage sex for the sake of breeding (as well as some patriarchal societies where men take advantage of women without much if any chance of legal retribution), you have a recipe ripe for lots of child-making. There is a reason Western nations have far lower birth rates: increased socioeconomic stability leads to more personal leisure time available for contemplation of the world, discussion of ethics, etc., leading to increased secularism, as well as much-reduced risk of disease and fatality, and increasingly ego-centric lifestyles. This is a global trend and it is not a coincidence.

So yeah, fuck disease. Contrary to popular belief, most people all feel the same sort of emotions and have the same sorts of revelations and experiences within their lifetimes. It's very easy to think of the masses as a sort of distant phenomenon, but the reality is that there are billions of people in the world who feel and think very similarly to how you do, if not identically. Nobody wants to battle with disease, especially a life-threatening one. It's absolutely unforgivable to deny the ability to live life to its fullest to the world.
THIS.

Thank you.

Can I have your babies?
 

DoctorNick

New member
Oct 31, 2007
881
0
0
searanox said:
DoctorNick said:
THIS.

Thank you.

Can I have your babies?
Uh... considering your username, probably not.
Ha, just kidding. :p

But really, even if major over population was a risk, which I am by no means saying I think it would be, it would STILL be worth taking the chance on it to END PHYSICAL SUFFERING AND MISERY.

Seriously.