But seriously, you're 13 of 14 and you've been taking a couple of classes in high school and you think you know everything. It's all statistics and evolution until you get cancer. The ability to put ourselves in another person's shoes (or not considering how few people actually have shoes, but you get the metaphor) is an evolutionary trait, weather it's vestigial or not can be argued. I think you'll find your opinions change later on in your education, especially if you ever get any first hand experience with the people who are being affected by diseases.

If you've studied evolution and Darwinism then you must be familiar with the concept of diversity, and how diversity is essential (that can also be argued I know) to the advancement of a species. So if these diseases wipe out hundreds of cultures and millions of people aren't we at a disadvantage without those other people?

And actually the planet could easily support all 6 billion people. It's the lifestyle of the elite (the world powers) that drains world resources. I think after you've taken an economics class or to you might understand this.

As to who argued that we should allow the less fortunate to be killed and only let the wealthy and intelligent remain: Are you willing to do hard labor for the rest of your life? because the very people you want to kill are the ones that have made us wealthy and allowed us the opportunity to become intelligent.

That is all ;)

---

Someone has to do it:
ZOMG YOU MONSTER!!!

But seriously, you're 13 of 14 and you've been taking a couple of classes in high school and you think you know everything. It's all statistics and evolution until you get cancer. The ability to put ourselves in another person's shoes (or not considering how few people actually have shoes, but you get the metaphor) is an evolutionary trait, weather it's vestigial or not can be argued. I think you'll find your opinions change later on in your education, especially if you ever get any first hand experience with the people who are being affected by diseases.

If you've studied evolution and Darwinism then you must be familiar with the concept of diversity, and how diversity is essential (that can also be argued I know) to the advancement of a species. So if these diseases wipe out hundreds of cultures and millions of people aren't we at a disadvantage without those other people?

And actually the planet could easily support all 6 billion people. It's the lifestyle of the elite (the world powers) that drains world resources. I think after you've taken an economics class or to you might understand this.

As to who argued that we should allow the less fortunate to be killed and only let the wealthy and intelligent remain: Are you willing to do hard labor for the rest of your life? because the very people you want to kill are the ones that have made us wealthy and allowed us the opportunity to become intelligent.

That is all ;)

---

Dude, get over it; as I mentioned it was for discussion purposes. Besides that, who are you to determin that I am or learnt in high school. Instead of being a straw man, how about focusing more on the argument.

-------
You tried your best and you failed miserably.
The lesson is 'never try'- Homer Simpson - - BreakinTheHabit is my LW wifE!

Cancer isn't doing shit to help curb overpopulation. Our planet is overpopulated simply and ONLY because we are obsessed with reproduction - some more than others.

The only reasonable way of reducing global population is to put a limit on the amount of children per couple - all around the world - or to simply decrease our strong fascination with reproduction.

Reproduction is life's extended warranty. An insurance policy for a species to continue existence, even while death occurs. However, as we humans live longer and longer, the less we have an actual evolutionary need to reproduce. Reproduction will eventually become a product of our desires alone.

-------
Genetics is fate. Change our genes, achieve free will.

---

Quote: from ranman at 8:47 pm on Aug. 15, 2008

---

Someone has to do it:  
 ZOMG YOU MONSTER!!!  

 But seriously, you're 13 of 14 and you've been taking a couple of classes in high school and you think you know everything. It's all statistics and evolution until you get cancer. The ability to put ourselves in another person's shoes (or not considering how few people actually have shoes, but you get the metaphor) is an evolutionary trait, weather it's vestigial or not can be argued. I think you'll find your opinions change later on in your education, especially if you ever get any first hand experience with the people who are being affected by diseases.  

 If you've studied evolution and Darwinism then you must be familiar with the concept of diversity, and how diversity is essential (that can also be argued I know) to the advancement of a species. So if these diseases wipe out hundreds of cultures and millions of people aren't we at a disadvantage without those other people?  

 And actually the planet could easily support all 6 billion people. It's the lifestyle of the elite (the world powers) that drains world resources. I think after you've taken an economics class or to you might understand this.  

 As to who argued that we should allow the less fortunate to be killed and only let the wealthy and intelligent remain: Are you willing to do hard labor for the rest of your life? because the very people you want to kill are the ones that have made us wealthy and allowed us the opportunity to become intelligent.  

 That is all ;)

---

Dude, get over it; as I mentioned it was for discussion purposes. Besides that, who are you to determin that I am or learnt in high school. Instead of being a straw man, how about focusing more on the argument.

---

Your spelling might be a clue... sorry that was mean.

Anyway I presented you with arguable points, none of them overly aggressive and you can't be bothered to refute them? Why not continue the argument? I think I am the one focusing on the argument not you, let's have you refute my points or at least list the couple fallacies in them (I'm admitting they're there, I am looking at them so they should be easy to find).

---

Putting the heart aside *places it in a corner*, to a certain extent I agree with you on the matter. A majority of diseases and outbreaks are actually the cause and effect of the actions of humanity and its development.

AIDS is a disease that spreads purely through 'fools' as put, as AIDS is a result of you-know-what. While there are innocent victims to AIDS, they are the effect of a cause created by some perpetrator before them. Why work on a cure? Why care? Its a very illogical act isn't it? Especially when the disease is incurable, would'nt it be better to put them down instead of prolonging their life, which would only be temporary and end up in an untimely death?

To be honest, everything that is happening now is a reaction to what civilization has done to the planet. We are overpopulating the EArth, and overusing its reources, and as a result all the side effects begin to come in as greed, pride and bla bla bla come into play in an overpopulated world filled with selfish creatures. As a result, you have 'issues', right?

Cancer is probably nature's way of corrective action, a reaction to the processing of food, the change in environment, alteration of genes, whatever the cause.

To put this straight in a completely logical argument - A large portion of the population is dispensable, as we are straining the very planet we are living on beyond its capacity. Perhaps the numbers may not be the cause, but the more you have, the more the idiots who would appear in them as well to destroy the world. And guess what? were just so damn good at multiplying.

In a parallel universe, I might understand what Hitler was probably thinking ROFL. . .

Disclaimer: In no means do I support that cancer is good and should kill everyone it affects. It is only looking from a logical point of view geared towards the survival and evolution of civilization.

---

Many babies are born with AIDS.

Are you cunts pro-drunk driving as well?

-------
click and please click
^use head phones

The solution to population growth is to limit number of babies by law, not killing people.

-------
Check out this AWESOME GAME: http://www.unforgivenwar.com/register.php?REF=19838

That is to say, eliminating all disease and then dealing with overpopuation selectively and intentionally? Or is it that you're too much of a pussy to deal with moral qualms?

I don't agree with you at all, and I do not worry about overpopulation because it can be solved by means other than the extermination of lives, especially as technology advances, I'm just asking you if you understand how pussy it is to basically say

"I like disease cus it kills people and prevents overpopulation but allows me to remain morally clean in my views"

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.