natural selection
Thread Starter
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by TeggerLS
of course not, just the word from a doctor. Do you really think the greedy politicians and pharmeceautical companies are going to cure diseases if they can keep you alive and profit from the treatment? If you actually do then you're very optimistic and naive, the global market is about profit margins, not health...sure the wealthy/elite might be able to buy the cure, but for a pretty penny. I believe the same will go with aids, they can keep ppl alive for 20+ years on expensive treatments, why cure someone and lose all that capital? Because it's the right thing to do? Gone are the comanpy's that do what's right cuz it feels good, billions in cash flow seems to bring them the same warm fuzzy feeling.
I don't really want to get deep into discussion, but if you really believe these companies are out for the better interest you should climb back in your fantasy world it's much better there.
When was the last cure for something major released, that can't be treated as well?
I don't really want to get deep into discussion, but if you really believe these companies are out for the better interest you should climb back in your fantasy world it's much better there.
When was the last cure for something major released, that can't be treated as well?
Thread Starter
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally Posted by clickwir
It's in the same place where the cure for cancer and AIDs is.... in the imagination of us people that find it easier to believe that we are being lied to and smarter than we actually are, than to realize that maybe we aren't as smart as we think we are and maybe mother nature has made something just a little more complex than we, at least at this time, can over come.
Schiggity
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
From: Calgary, Canada
Might I suggest the book "Politics in Healing" by Daniel Haley. I agree with TeggerLS that companies are doing what is most profitable, not what is best for society.
I'd also like to add that even if we don't put down handicapped, retarded, mentally challenged people when they are born, natural selection does take place. What are the chances that these poor people are going to have a boyfriend, girlfriend, marry and live a regular life? Sure we pay to keep them alive, but in the end they will not reproduce (as often) anyway.
I'd also like to add that even if we don't put down handicapped, retarded, mentally challenged people when they are born, natural selection does take place. What are the chances that these poor people are going to have a boyfriend, girlfriend, marry and live a regular life? Sure we pay to keep them alive, but in the end they will not reproduce (as often) anyway.
VX Hatch with 431,500!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
From: Missouri
My girlfreind is 26 but would have died at 9 with her diabetes. She probably would have died again at 22 from a car crash without a lifeflight. Maybe another time without other meds she needs everyday of her life after that crash.
I often think about the people that would've died off that are still here. I think it's un-natural but I wouldn't be ready to die if I didn't have to. I kinda think people should be limited to the number of kids they can have for environmental reasons like in China even though that's un-natural. People should be on government birth control after puberty and not allowed off until they pass standards for IQ, parenting skills, anger management, drug use and other things.
I often think about the people that would've died off that are still here. I think it's un-natural but I wouldn't be ready to die if I didn't have to. I kinda think people should be limited to the number of kids they can have for environmental reasons like in China even though that's un-natural. People should be on government birth control after puberty and not allowed off until they pass standards for IQ, parenting skills, anger management, drug use and other things.
x pǝɹ
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,246
Likes: 1
From: Upstate
My opinion on the matter is.. With the way our society is structured, Darwinism has slowed considerably.
Back in the day, one of the founders of Intel suggested that the government pay incentives to people with IQ's less than 80 to not reproduce. You know he got in alot of trouble for saying that, but.. I think its a good idea..
They aren't being penalized for being retarded, in fact they are benefitting.. If they were to have children, it wouldn't affect them negatively, because they'd be in the same position without the reward. I think that the good solid way to progress is to encourage intellectual growth, but still save lives through medicine. Humans have way too many emotions otherwise.
Back in the day, one of the founders of Intel suggested that the government pay incentives to people with IQ's less than 80 to not reproduce. You know he got in alot of trouble for saying that, but.. I think its a good idea..
They aren't being penalized for being retarded, in fact they are benefitting.. If they were to have children, it wouldn't affect them negatively, because they'd be in the same position without the reward. I think that the good solid way to progress is to encourage intellectual growth, but still save lives through medicine. Humans have way too many emotions otherwise.
h:
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 30,331
Likes: 0
From: Montréal, Canada
Originally Posted by Lsos
I agree that natural selection doesn't exist in the human species. However, I'm not going to be the first to not vaccinate my kid. I'm not going to refuse a pill that can save my life. If my loved one refused to see a doctor for a broken bone, I would not be happy about that.
Fortunately, we have technology that can perhaps save us from genetic doom: genetic engineering. Instead of relying on nature and the death of million of people to cure nearsightness, for example, we will eventually simply change their genes so they are perfectly healthy. In fact, we'll probably be able to improve ourselves beyond the present scope of our species.
Some might say that this is playing God, but ultimately we will have no choice. Play God or become a species of genetic freaks.
Fortunately, we have technology that can perhaps save us from genetic doom: genetic engineering. Instead of relying on nature and the death of million of people to cure nearsightness, for example, we will eventually simply change their genes so they are perfectly healthy. In fact, we'll probably be able to improve ourselves beyond the present scope of our species.
Some might say that this is playing God, but ultimately we will have no choice. Play God or become a species of genetic freaks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post