CT: The President puts this choice into your hands.

Matt (@irvzilla) 8 years, 10 months ago

Consider this: a company comes to the government agency you are the chairman of. They tell you they have found a substance that they guarantee will cure cancer. You have to approve the production of their product. Do you allow them to become *probably* the most powerful company on the planet? Or do you want the opportunity to hang out with mom and dad until they are 120 years of age plus despite overpopulation?

Personally, i say burn the recipe. Humans are flirting with disaster as is IMO with global warming and nukes. If people live to be 120,130,140 on average problems will only be exponentiated. Its against mother natures way. Just let it go

January 21, 2013 at 11:09 pm
Eren T (1) (@onthespot) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Your idea on the effects of this invention seems reasonable to me, although it gets more interesting when you go deeper.

Due to the fact that human being is not meant to be objective, it’s better to answer this question from different sides.

I believe that people can not care about cancer that much until they come across with it, like for example if one has the cancer or a family member/friend is diagnosed cancer. Just think about a mother whose child has cancer and will not survive another year. It’s a little extreme example, but surely it happens. Or seeing your spouse exhausted and “consumed” by all that chemotherapy. I think it would be unfair to take away this opportunity when it’s possible.

On the other hand someone who only hears cancer from 9gag posts or small talks etc. you can not expect from him to give his best opinion about it anyway.

The third and the last side is the people like you and me who thinks about it and tries to come to a final logical solution. Although it is amazing what people can think, unfortunately 99% of the time there will be things that we don’t see and bring to calculation. That’s why I don’t believe there is a solution that can be described in a writing.

There are two things that can be described in this writing: First, it is inevitable that one day the cure of cancer will be found. There were diseases/plagues that killed a vast amount of people, which are today totally curable without any problem. There are diseases/plagues like cancer or AIDS that are still incurable, but will surely be cured someday. And there will be diseases/plagues which we don’t know yet but will encounter. So even if the decision is up to you right now and you say no, there will be another that says yes.

Second thing is about the things you mentioned in your question: the effects; overpopulation, hunger, poverty etc. These are the problems that will exist, regardless the fact that there will be a cure for cancer, or even for AIDS. I know that the nature has it’s ways, but curing a disease won’t be able to stop it from balancing itself.

What I would do? I would say yes, because I’m aware that this is a part of progress, it will happen eventually, so why not now?

TheSkaFish (962)M (@theskafish) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@irvzilla, I disagree. Cancer is an excruciating, long and drawn out painful death. Does anyone really deserve to die that way? Often from circumstances they had no idea would lead to it? No. And that’s only the pain to the individual afflicted with it…it doesn’t even consider the pain of all those around them who wish they would live. I’d get rid of cancer in a heartbeat if I could, if fact, I think anyone withholding the cure would be nothing short of inhumane and criminal.

dr. hamsa (42) (@s7221919) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

By the time overpopulation becomes a factor we will have space colonies and synthetic food constructed from basic elements . Cure the cancer let “god” sort it out.

Matt (16) (@irvzilla) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Interesting responses. I thought there would be more people that say no, dont allow it to come out.

Mike Wuest (510) (@mikeyw829) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@irvzilla, How do you know what mother nature’s way is? Humans are a part of nature, despite how most people forget this. Who says it’s not mother nature’s way for us to invent a cure for cancer?

DaJetPlane (994)M (@lytning91) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

The cure should definitely come out. Almost every other death imaginable is faster than cancer, so let them die from something else besides cancer and, in the process, give our economy bigger gains from the multitude of jobs that would come from being the first country to manufacture a cure for cancer.

Manimal (2,998) (@manimal) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@theskafish, “Cancer is an excruciating, long and drawn out painful death. Does anyone really deserve to die that way?”

Apparently, a whole lot of people do.

“Often from circumstances they had no idea would lead to it?”

Ignorance is never an acceptable excuse. Especially not in the FUCKING INFORMATION AGE.

This is natural selection at work. Don’t hate that which created you and keeps you growing. That’s nothing short of ungrateful.

“And that’s only the pain to the individual afflicted with it…it doesn’t even consider the pain of all those around them who wish they would live.”

Voluntary, self-inflicted pain with no basis in reality. If you choose to feel bad about someone dying, that’s on you.
People have always died, always will, that’s part of life. It’s not a big deal.

“I’d get rid of cancer in a heartbeat if I could, if fact, I think anyone withholding the cure would be nothing short of inhumane and criminal.”

What about the long run? Isn’t it more inhumane to keep millions of destructive people alive, amplifying over-population and food shortage, damaging the planet, support smoking and self-abuse, make the retirement homes even more crammed, extending miserable lives, wasting the resources of the masses, removing selective pressure, aiding degeneration of mankind, etc?

Gotta take a look at the big picture every now and then.
Fear of death and attachment to people is all ego corruption.

Cancer doesn’t just happen, it’s worked for and earned. Some things kill you because they’re supposed to.
If you don’t wanna die, don’t do those things. Simple as that.

And I repeat, ignorance is no excuse.

Matt (16) (@irvzilla) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@Mikeyw829 well with that mindset than it was natures intent for humans to invent cars and the ability to utilize non renewable resources like oil and wood in turn killing the earth. Doubt it is natures way to kill itself.

E.C.F. Doyle (346) (@chekovchameleon) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@irvzilla, Let it come out. If this drug is against “mother nature” then we should stop all science and modern medicine. Alcohol and LSD are also against “mother nature” in that regard, shit even bread. The implications of not allowing such a drug far outweigh those of allowing it to enter the market.

I don’t know if people would live to 120 without cancer.

Matt (16) (@irvzilla) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Yeah its just a hypothetical, but i agree with letting science do its thing and improve our lives, but at some point we are going to get too advanced for our own good. I think in this case, a cure for cancer would be too far for our own good.

Mike Wuest (510) (@mikeyw829) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@irvzilla, Burning fossil fuels and destroying the planet equivalent to what a cancer cell does in the human body, just on a macrocosmic scale. So why are cancer cells part of nature, but human actions aren’t? Humans are cells on the planet. Even our destructive actions are still a part of nature, just like the destructive actions of cancer cells are a part of nature. Just like the cancer cell eventually kills the host if it gets out of control, that’s what humanity will do on the planet. We’ll destroy ourselves, just like cancer ultimately destroys itself. So now tell me how human actions aren’t part of nature? Or tell me how cancer IS part of nature. It cannot be one and the other.

Unless you would say that cancer isn’t a part of nature, you are flat out contradicting yourself. And if cancer is not a part of nature, then why shouldn’t we find a way to eliminate it? Don’t jump to conclusions about things, don’t just assume human actions aren’t part of nature just because they are ‘destructive.’ There’s destruction in ‘nature’ all of the time. I put quotes around it because everything is nature. There is a purpose to things. If everything were always perfect, there would be no room for realizations, no room for improvement.

Michael (33) (@michaellll) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

Why would I go to the government first?

And to the second posts claim that human beings are not by fact ment to be objective, do I then just assume that laws, theorems, and principles we founded on accidental mindless errors. Humans by nature are rational creatures. We make a conscious decision to view something either objectively or not.

Now to answer your origional question yes I say sell the cure and if you can afford it buy it, that is if you want to buy it. As far as overpopulation is concerned, unless you have an accurate figure of the influx of newborns to death ratio then you cannot claim that overpopulation is a legitimate problem. I have no idea as to whether that existes or not (the numerical data to support overpolulation.)

Mike M (13) (@mikem) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

I say let out the cure. Scientific progress doesn’t happen in a vacuum, so if one company has found a cure, others won’t be far behind. Eventually it will happen so why not take advantage while you can? Plus, even if you think it’s destructive, think about all the other destructive technologies that have been made public… and all the other disease cures too.

TheSkaFish (962)M (@theskafish) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@manimal, “Ignorance is never an acceptable excuse. Especially not in the FUCKING INFORMATION AGE.”

The problem with this is that there is so much conflicting information out there, and also misinformation disguised as truth. A good chunk of this information is not even information at all, it’s just the bullshit of crackpots. I could look on the internet all day for advice on how to avoid cancer, and some of it might be true and some of it might be wild conjecture. And what about when there is a conflict of information? Someone could claim to be a doctor, but that doesn’t mean anything. They might be intentionally misleading people through the will of Big Pharma or just that they are a psychopath, they might actually be a doctor and think they know the answer but are wrong, or they might not be a doctor at all since anyone can say they are anyone on the internet. The Information Age is more like the Misinformation Age, the truth isn’t more distinguishable than the lies.

I could look in books, but there’s always new journals of medical science coming out replacing the old information with new. Again, how does one begin to tell the truth from the lies, or if not lies, simply wrong information? On top of that, I neither have the time nor the money to go to med school, and even if I did, how do I know that what they teach me there isn’t also innocently incorrect at best, or out-and-out lies spread by the corporate-controlled education system to perpetuate the problem for their own gain, at worst? If you never learned how to tell the truth from a lie or were intentionally misinformed about differentiating between truth and lies, or never had cause to believe that someone was lying to you, then how can you be at fault for believing the lie when nothing around you suggested that it was a lie? Hell, cigarettes used to be advertised as GOOD for you. Without any insider information, who would have had cause to doubt it?

Cancer isn’t the same thing as something obvious, like jumping off a building just to see what happens, even though you can see examples of gravity on a daily basis. Not everyone who gets cancer is a smoker, buying packs of cigarettes regardless of the surgeon general’s warning printed on the sides. Not only that but what other people do affects you, with or without your knowledge or consent. Exhaust, industrial pollution, secondhand smoke, and who knows what else are probable carcinogens. I could give up my car, continue to abstain from smoking, and move out of the suburbs away from pollution (but now what about farm pesticides in the country?), and these things would all affect me anyway. This is why I have such difficulty with the conservative point of view in general…..you can be responsible to the point of paranoia, and still get fucked six ways to Sunday. What about regular, grocery store food? It looks, smells, and tastes like how we’ve been led to believe that food should look, smell, taste, and otherwise appear to our senses. No sane person would “choose” or “work for” getting cancer, but all the misinformation that is spread about it has us doing the wrong things without us even knowing it. It’s like being told since day 1 that milk is cyanide and cyanide is milk.

Matt (16) (@irvzilla) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@mikeyW829 yeah but unlike cancer we humans have a conscious that could allow us to live in harmony with our host and never abuse it to the point of death.

@theskafish , with that attitude then why ever go to school and become educated at all? Of course the information COULD be manipulated but gather varying perspectives and begin to put the big picture together yourself. That leads to the true understanding of something. Information will always be replaced because humanity is always moving forward and getting more accurate.

Just saying these things for the sake of the debate.

TheSkaFish (962)M (@theskafish) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@irvzilla, my point was that you can be as responsible and healthy as you possibly can, only to have disastrous things like cancer happen to you anyway. All the more reason to get rid of it if we could….as I said, not everyone who gets cancer is just a smoker who blows off the surgeon general’s warning on packs of cigarettes. A lot of people, and animals, who get cancer are innocent victims – maybe they did something that caused cancer but they didn’t know it, and had no cause for alarm. It would be monstrous to just let them die if there is something we can do.

Mike Wuest (510) (@mikeyw829) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

@irvzilla, I wouldn’t be so sure that most people have conscious control over what they do. If we have control, we wouldn’t be abusing the planet. So we don’t have control. Some people do, sure. Just like some cells have control in the human body and don’t go on multiplying without regard for the whole. We aren’t anymore special or different than cells, and I think you fail to realize that.

So how do you know what harmony is anyways? How do you know what’s in line with nature and what isn’t? You can’t say “we have the potential to live in harmony with nature” without defining what harmony is. And that also implies that you know for a fact what harmony is.

heal (0) (@healdotme) 8 years, 10 months ago ago

What I know that when men and women reach 1:50 that is the end of the world or close to it -or said so. (Where now did I read that!)


So whatever would happen there are so many factors influencing population -wars, new deases… or even that outdated influenza.

Viewing 17 reply threads
load more