Is finding a cure for cancer *really* a good idea?
But is curing cancer really a good idea? Sure, fewer people will have to suffer - but their fate will then rest in the hands of another ailment or disease that will not necessarily bring a better end.
Cancer also serves the purpose of population control, in a sense. If one of the top killers is removed, I could only foresee the population absolutely exploding. Given our planet is overcrowded already - a large increase in population would not be the rest result.
So, do the pros outweigh the cons? Are the benefits of another eliminated disease really worth the consequences?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$4 Answers
Philosophically, I believe that all things, whether "good or evil," serve a purpose in our world. Whether the purpose for cancer is simply population control, as you mentioned, or something else entirely that may vary by individual, I do not know. However, I do believe that if cancer were meant to be "cured," it would already have been done. That being said, I do think there are still advancements and discoveries yet to be made regarding cancer that will, hopefully, end some of the suffering and ill-effects associated with the disease. I fully support any research and moves toward advancements in fighting cancers, but it's unlikely that all cancers will ever be completely "cured" because this one disease encompasses SO much.
This brings me to the "scientific side" of the question. As someone who is relatively knowledgeable in the sciences, it seems like a misnomer to use the phrase "cure for cancer." And, in fact, some cancers have been essentially cured already, such as testicular cancer, but only if it is detected early enough. Unlike some other diseases, there are many different types and variations, and there are more than 200 diseases that fall under the category of "cancer." Plus, many cancers reoccur even after responding to initial treatments, so how would we know if it was truly cured or not?
To sum it up: It's unlikely that CANCER will ever be eradicated, at least not in our lifetimes. But scientists and doctors should most definitely continue working toward advancements and research in this field so that some human suffering can be spared.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
If we redirected all the money that goes currently into cancer research:
Would anyone have to go hungry ever again?
Would anyone lack clean water?
Would anyone be homeless?
Would anyone be unemployed?
Would there be any lack of law enforcement or fire response?
Would the PTA have to have a bake sale just so that each child could have his or her own textbook?
I think we have to pick our battles, and that we are picking wrong. What good is a world where a few people live to be 120 years old, and millions go hungry and thirsty? Why are we creating jobs for highly trained researchers and paying farmers NOT to grow food?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Even if we were to eradicate all currently known diseases, that very disease-free environment can create the perfect ambient for a presently unknown killer virus or bacteria to emerge, eradicating vast portions of that once "disease-free" population. That is part of nature, all creatures, humans included, have an inert need to reproduce and to prolong their existence, for at any moment, the truly unforeseen could happen, and out of a population that was once measured in billions, only the most adept and the most fortunate would remain and they would be numbered in the thousands.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
If you want population control the idea of allowing these people to suffer is pointless. As cancer is often a death sentence these people should then be put to death not allowed to both suffer slowly and to use up valuable resources. This is not a stance many people would openly support because well, it just sounds inhumane, I personally support it in some instances. An easily and quickly treated cancer should be treated, a low chance survival with a lengthy and painful treatment is cheaper and more mercifully cured with a bullet.
Now if you want to be merciful you cannot think about population, naturally a cure for cancer would be good thing to someone who sees human death as a horrible, horrible thing rather than a fact of life and nature.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
That's "it's not ALWAYS legal". Silly conundrumland won't let me edit today, I guess :)
With the laws today - there are MANY people I've heard of that would prefer doctor-assisted suicide in cases like this - but it's legal. I wouldn't go as far as to say kill off all terminal patients, but allowing them the choice would not only save money, but make a lot of people happy.
