-- Posted by dooby54 at 4:02 am on Aug. 5, 2008 The following is for discussion purposes only, please refrain from posting "omg you monster" "have you now heart" etc. Just stay silent, it's so much less annoying. As one who holds Darwin's Theory of Evolution in high regard, I am compelled to consider Cancer as some what of a good thing for humanity and the planet. It cuts down the numbers of humans daily; something which should be praised and nothing otherwise. As of July 2007, the world population exceeds 6,602,224,175. Just think of how many bloody people that is?!!! This planet and it's resources should not be exposed to such a stress. It is estimated the earth should support no more than 1 million homosapiens. Currently humanity exists at a number greater than 660 times that! It's just plain selfish. WE have decimated earths natural balance in environment and number of species of animals. Perhaps cancer is G-d's way (or the natural equilibriums way) of leveling the world to as it should be. If there weren't so many people, how could epidemics such as global warming (don't care whether you believe in it or not), a large number of rapid extinctions or global famine occur? The earth and its inhabitants would not be in the mess it's in!!! Existing in such great numbers, we are stripping other organisms the right to life! We have corrupted the balance! Billions is spent on a cure for the various cancers, which, is seemingly more and more impossible. As some might argue, there has been some improvement for some types of cancers, but how much and for how many? This money could be used to help raise third world countries or combat world hunger (as previously said) and give desperate nations clean drinking water. Let's face it, all those biotech companies who are out there trying to cure cancer are really only in existence to make money. It is what drives their industry and if you argue otherwise you are being naive. Conversely that money could be used to research painkillers specifically to combat cancer which is non addictive and have no known side effects. Wouldn't it be better to go out peacefully than waste time trying to cure an incurably painful and desperate condition. Discuss. I'm bored and want a good argument! Back up any responses please! P.S. I do not say I DO think cancer is a good thing. In fact I am quite opposed to it! I really think this will be a great argument though! :) -- Posted by blufindr at 4:07 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Thank god. you're getting rid of that other chick's lame posts. I honestly believe that leaving diseases such as AIDS or HIV uncured could make us better as a society. Yes, by all means, leave controls in place so that it does not spread like wildfire. But it killing a few million people means nothing,w hen you consider the rate that the world is still growing at. -- Posted by dooby54 at 4:11 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from blufindr at 4:07 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Thank god. you're getting rid of that other chick's lame posts. I honestly believe that leaving diseases such as AIDS or HIV uncured could make us better as a society. Yes, by all means, leave controls in place so that it does not spread like wildfire. But it killing a few million people means nothing,w hen you consider the rate that the world is still growing at. I completely agree with you in some respects. I think HIV/AIDS is a terrible epidemic, but I still wonder if not the world (as a whole, i.e. exclusive of humanity) would be better without it. So many species of organisms would be alive today, the air and world in general would be cleaner and perhaps humanity would prosper, albiet in a different manner. In addition the Thylacine (Tas. Devil) would still be alive!   Had to draw attention to the fact we are both Aussies! -- Posted by blufindr at 4:16 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from dooby54 at 9:11 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 I completely agree with you in some respects. I think HIV/AIDS is a terrible epidemic, but I still wonder if not the world (as a whole, i.e. exclusive of humanity) would be better without it. So many species of organisms would be alive today, the air and world in general would be cleaner and perhaps humanity would prosper, albiet in a different manner.   In addition the Thylacine (Tas. Devil) would still be alive! Had to draw attention to the fact we are both Aussies! Woot. I actually hate disease, because I just hate seeing children suffer But at the same time, being awfully pragmatic about it, it IS cutting down the population and culling them, in a sense, to the healthy ones with the good genes. And while I agree that some moderation is in order, so the entire world doesn't explode or run out of the moronic substance that is humanity, the world would definitely be better off with a few less people. -- Posted by dooby54 at 4:34 am on Aug. 5, 2008 I would love Antichrist's perspective on this :P He would bring a greta angle to this debate!!! -- Posted by blufindr at 4:36 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Rofl. Yes, he would. Darn. We need more "ZOMG U 2 R SOOOOOOOOO MEAN!!!!!!!11!11!!!1!!" people. It's so much more fun. -- Posted by Blackadder at 8:33 am on Aug. 5, 2008 where does this figure: "It is estimated the earth should support no more than 1 million homosapiens" originate? -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 10:41 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from dooby54 at 7:02 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Billions is spent on a cure for the various cancers, which, is seemingly more and more impossible. As some might argue, there has been some improvement for some types of cancers, but how much and for how many? This money could be used to help raise third world countries or combat world hunger (as previously said) and give desperate nations clean drinking water. But why? Impoverished conditions, world hunger, and dirty drinking water are a good thing for humanity and the planet. It cuts down the numbers of humans daily; something which should be praised and nothing otherwise. As of July 2007, the world population exceeds 6,602,224,175. Just think of how many bloody people that is?!!! This planet and it's resources should not be exposed to such a stress. It is estimated the earth should support no more than 1 million homosapiens. Currently humanity exists at a number greater than 660 times that! It's just plain selfish. -- Posted by Feminawesome at 10:47 am on Aug. 5, 2008 I really don't support killing, and I think we should do everything in our power to stop unnecessary death and to ease our fellow humans' pain. I do, however, think a lot about sterilization. Think about it-- there are so many unwanted children up for adoption that just spend the first 18 years of their lives draining the system. If more people were sterile, those kids would get adopted, and it would cut down on overpopulation. -- Posted by sophos at 11:12 am on Aug. 5, 2008 There are intelligent discussions, and there's yours. Probably long-term effects of hanging down-under. -- Posted by Uruz 7 at 7:53 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 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. -- Posted by Starborn at 10:27 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 I somewhat like thinking that these diseases cut down the world population for the better; and then I think of exactly who they're killing. Such as the poor, uneducated, underprivileged masses of the world (because you know the richer ones can keep living, since they can pay for life-prolonging health care). And besides, in these still developing and third-world nations the poor people really do die of these naturally-occurring diseases, compared to the developed countries they can still get loans to coast by in life, or they die of preventable disease like heart disease). IMO, it's like, would rather let the people who don't know better die, or the people who do ::middle-class America and the like::. That's why I'd rather have heart disease than HIV/AIDS or cancer as the main cause of death, which it is in some places. Sterilization though (and that one-child thing China had going), that's appealing. -- Posted by Alabamarama at 10:44 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:41 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from dooby54 at 7:02 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Billions is spent on a cure for the various cancers, which, is seemingly more and more impossible. As some might argue, there has been some improvement for some types of cancers, but how much and for how many? This money could be used to help raise third world countries or combat world hunger (as previously said) and give desperate nations clean drinking water. But why? Impoverished conditions, world hunger, and dirty drinking water are a good thing for humanity and the planet. It cuts down the numbers of humans daily; something which should be praised and nothing otherwise. As of July 2007, the world population exceeds 6,602,224,175. Just think of how many bloody people that is?!!! This planet and it's resources should not be exposed to such a stress. It is estimated the earth should support no more than 1 million homosapiens. Currently humanity exists at a number greater than 660 times that! It's just plain selfish. This is exactly what I was thinking. If you want the human population of the earth reduced AND believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, why would you help keep uneducated, unwealthy people alive with money that could be spent saving the lives of those who could actually help society? Or better yet, that could be spent helping to reverse the effects that humanity has had upon the world? -- Posted by dooby54 at 2:28 am on Aug. 6, 2008 Quote: from Alabamarama at 10:44 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:41 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 Quote: from dooby54 at 7:02 am on Aug. 5, 2008 Billions is spent on a cure for the various cancers, which, is seemingly more and more impossible. As some might argue, there has been some improvement for some types of cancers, but how much and for how many? This money could be used to help raise third world countries or combat world hunger (as previously said) and give desperate nations clean drinking water.    But why? Impoverished conditions, world hunger, and dirty drinking water are a good thing for humanity and the planet. It cuts down the numbers of humans daily; something which should be praised and nothing otherwise. As of July 2007, the world population exceeds 6,602,224,175. Just think of how many bloody people that is?!!! This planet and it's resources should not be exposed to such a stress. It is estimated the earth should support no more than 1 million homosapiens. Currently humanity exists at a number greater than 660 times that! It's just plain selfish. This is exactly what I was thinking. If you want the human population of the earth reduced AND believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, why would you help keep uneducated, unwealthy people alive with money that could be spent saving the lives of those who could actually help society? Or better yet, that could be spent helping to reverse the effects that humanity has had upon the world? Lets face it, the world is doomed. There IS no going back and so no sense spending time contemplating how we could go back as more and more people are born and more and more other species perish. However I find your first proposal interesting :P Didn't think of that last night. -- Posted by Silence of Thought at 8:31 am on Aug. 6, 2008 Interesting theory, however I see a couple of flaws in it: -1 million people on this earth?! I find that "recommended" number a bit ridiculous, considering we can adapt to almost any land area of this planet! -The aforementioned flaw of using cancer money to help others contradicts your own argument. -As such an avid Darwinist, I assume you're aware of the "survival of the fittest" principle. Well humans seem to be the fittest species around, so according to Darwin, we have a natural right to expand, reproduce, and even drive other species to extinction. Being able to partly control nature has put us at the peak of evolution, why not eliminate the less efficient species for the progress of evolution? -- Posted by person11988 at 8:48 am on Aug. 6, 2008 I don't think cancer kills enough people to be an efficient way to keep population in check. Plus, we all know that, however much we need our numbers reduced, none of us could purposely give someone cancer if it was in our power to do so. -- Posted by 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 ;) -- Posted by dooby54 at 5:00 am on Aug. 23, 2008 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. -- Posted by Bacon at 6:52 am on Aug. 23, 2008 See, if you want to use that logic to say that cancer is good for humanity in that it cuts down population, you have to remember.. Cancer is not a new thing. Our global population has been rising massively over the past few decades and cancer is still as strong as ever. 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. -- Posted by Ryan Potter at 12:53 pm on Aug. 23, 2008 If you put everybody in the world into the state of Texas, everybody would have more than 1000 square feet to themselves.  I've argued this in debate before, and we're very far from overpopulation.  Malthus' ideas were wrong at the time, are wrong now, and won't be right for a very long time.  By then, we may have even colonized space, who knows? -- Posted by ranman at 11:40 pm on Aug. 26, 2008 Quote: from dooby54 at 2:00 am on Aug. 23, 2008 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). -- Posted by Bearsy at 8:57 am on Aug. 27, 2008 Quote: from Uruz 7 at 7:53 pm on Aug. 5, 2008 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? -- Posted by ranman at 9:27 pm on Sep. 2, 2008 No they've just never left there home town and watch fox news for their information. -- Posted by Assaultrifle at 11:45 pm on Sep. 5, 2008 I think that people who strongly believe in killing people or letting people die for population control should go die in the name of their cause. The solution to population growth is to limit number of babies by law, not killing people. -- Posted by medjai at 12:10 am on Sep. 8, 2008 If you praise disease which kills without consideration or prejudice, do you not also praise the idea of selective and prejudiced population reduction? 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" -- Posted by medjai at 12:10 am on Sep. 8, 2008 Also tell us your views when you get cancer, 48% of Americans grab it. -- Posted by the real anti christ at 9:17 pm on Sep. 9, 2008 Selective population reduction FTW. Go Germany.