boredom + green stuff = hmmz

[cb1202]

Ok so I have been thinking about this one for a while, and I have talked to a few friends just to see what they think, and so far it has offended a lot of people. Therefore I decided to get some other view points on this.

Disclaimer: If you do not believe in evolution do not post, thanks and please don't be offended.

My basic idea is that modern medicine is actually hurting the human race. With a vast amount of previously untreatable illnesses now being treated those people are living and reproducing. So take for example cancer: many scientists agree that many types of cancer are genetic, and if the people who got cancer did not have modern medicine to help them then they would never have been able to reproduce. The same can be said about Diabetes and other illness. With all of these diseases no longer being *as* life threatening as they were in the past the rate at which they are passed on is greatly increased. In evolution the strongest survive long enough to reproduce, and now with medicine the "weakest" can survive and reproduce. So instead of the natural evolutionary process I feel we are continuing to pass on bad genes and treating the side effects.

While I think it is great that modern western medicine can treat almost every illness I am mainly thinking about things in the long term for the human race. If everyone has an equal chance of surviving and reproducing then how is the human race improving? What traits mean someone will be able to reproduce? I mean you can't even decide if someone is healthy by looks because they probably have a fake nose and teeth. I just think there is no sort of challenge for modern man to face in order to improve itself. If we continue to pass on bad genes then I think we are doomed to fail.

everyone lives = everyone reproduces = everyone fails

 

[timtadams]

So take for example cancer: many scientists agree that many types of cancer are genetic, and if the people who got cancer did not have modern medicine to help them then they would never have been able to reproduce.

not quite. People usually reproduce before certain cancers are developed and fatal. without the help of modern medicine. right? thats what i thought...

But really, you are saving lives, as you say. The child may get sick as they grow up, but if it werent for the medicine/whatever that person would never had even had a chance of a life. And not all of the children will get sick.

So you save a heap of lives. Only a proportion of those pass on bad genes. And then only a proportion of those get sick from the genes. And then only a proportion of those cant be saved (as we know they can be since their parents were). So really, you save more lives than end up dying. In fact you are giving more people a chance of living at all

 

[Garrett]

well you talk about evolution... medicine has evolved too... hence 'modern' medicine.

So when someone falls ill what do you do? You generally try to make them feel comfortable (lets say it's someone you care about for argument sake, I didn't mean that you'd automatically out of the kindnes so of your heart just start taking care of random sick people)....

So over time our methods to make a person more relaxed *evolved* and then we started finding out what made a person sick and started treating them for that until things are where they are today.

So we're evolving as a species and so our tools and methods evolve. 1 of 2 things is going to happen a) we just keep refining our methods of making people comfortable while they are ill and that gets better and may be one day we are able to cure/stamp out/reverse the illness or b) the illness gets bred out anyway. as we didn't stop any illness we just improved the peoples quality of life that would have been sick anyway.

To let poeple just decay without helping them doesn't define us very well as a species. Not treating disease doesn't help our evolutionary cause. Also, Mother Nature will always be there to throw curve balls and come up with new ways to make us sick as she attempts to find balance.

Even if you don't understand, when you fall sick, I will attempt to make you comfortable until you pass on or evolve enough to beat the sickness back.


/thread

 

[DarkSider]

I had a similar thought about this a good while ago.
The thing is it's not all about survival of the fittest, compare say lions where it applies that rule and we're no match against a lion in a 1:1 fight however we could decimate their entire species in a very short time if we wanted.
Medicine also helps people "below standards" survive and they might get to reproduce, tho you have to also considerate they are less likely to succesfuly reproduce like a healthy & sane pearson.
Without medicine an epidemy could destroy entire cities making no discrimination between victims how fit or weak they are (plague). Without medicine a small infection that can easly be treated now could leave health marks that would affect your entire life.
Not only it helps the health of a person but it also makes ppl know what compassion is, feel the pain of others, make us better persons since we're ready to help those in need instead beeing ruthless orcs and leaving behind anybody who can't keep up with the standards.
Without medicine, human race would probably be a small specie made of pretty strong individuals sort of neanderthals with alot of emphasis of body strength and health but i imagine larger comunities would be a rarity due to the need to break up from diseases or just staying together and all supporting the consequences witch might be fatal. It's not always true what doesn't kill you makes you stronger btw

 

[Garrett]

what doesn't kill you makes you weak enough for others to overtake you

 

[harriergirl]

I don't think it's a question of medicine, rather a question of reproduction rights. Ie should we let people with known genetic illnesses reproduce. Do we let a mom have 8 babies that are all going to be sickly.

The truth is. I don't want to be the one to make that decision, but as a human I have an obligation to help the offspring do the best that they can and comfort them in life.

 

[cb1202]

So take for example cancer: many scientists agree that many types of cancer are genetic, and if the people who got cancer did not have modern medicine to help them then they would never have been able to reproduce.

not quite. People usually reproduce before certain cancers are developed and fatal. without the help of modern medicine. right? thats what i thought...

But really, you are saving lives, as you say. The child may get sick as they grow up, but if it werent for the medicine/whatever that person would never had even had a chance of a life. And not all of the children will get sick.

So you save a heap of lives. Only a proportion of those pass on bad genes. And then only a proportion of those get sick from the genes. And then only a proportion of those cant be saved (as we know they can be since their parents were). So really, you save more lives than end up dying. In fact you are giving more people a chance of living at all

Well if humans were anything like most animals in the wild any kind of injury or sickness would lead to death. While taking care of each other has helped us completely dominate the entire plane, I think that if we keep treating illnesses without finding a cure then cancer/genetic illness rates will just keep going up. If the child was not strong enough to make it to the age of reproduction then it should not be able to reproduce. I will say that most illnesses that would cause a child to die at a young age such as the flu/small pox are not genetic and do not fit my argument. Those are caused by living so close to other people. I wonder what could be done to stop those who have known genetic illnesses from reproducing. That is probably one of the most controversial parts about this discussion. Who is going to tell a person they can't have a baby?

A possible solution to the problem would be to get healthy donors to donate sperm and eggs and then artificially impregnate all those who have been deemed unfit to reproduce. They would still be able to raise children, it just would not be their own child. Their are so many moral issues with this however that I doubt it would ever get anywhere

 

[TheNamelessWonder]

TLDR version: Eugenics for the win!

 

[timthetyrant]

Well if humans were anything like most animals in the wild any kind of injury or sickness would lead to death.

Firstly we are not animals, secondly thenamelesswonder is right, this thread is pushing towards eugenics, which is a crime against humanity (its a kind of genocide i think) Hitler's Final Solution ring any bells? just because he decided to kill people off instead of removing thier reproductive rights doesnt make it any different.

Our ability to think and solve problems is a big part of what we are as a species, so what we achieve with our thoughts developes us as a species, so medicine is a part of who we are, removing that is like saying that ants shouldnt have ants nests, because a single disease has the ability to wipe it out due to all the ants (in that nest) being closely related. Ants have a strong sense of community and that is part of what defines their species.

im not really worried about our evolutionary processes, i think it would be better if a virus came and wiped humanity out, the world would be a better place then, but i am more worried about our impact on the evolutionary processes of other species. human society has become a factor in the environment that many species have to adapt with, if they dont adapt we tend to put a rifle in its face, survival of the fittest? my ass. more like survival of what can adapt to humanity. We are the top of the food chain, no doubt about it, and we are outcompeting all of the apex predators in the world and driving them to extinction, let alone killing one every time we see them, shark numbers are decreasing because we are out fishing them and killing them, they have been around for millions of years and dominating the ocean for a lot of that, and now in the last thousand years their number have been SEVERELY reduced due to their inability to adapt with humanity. Humanity in itself is a major extinction event. why cant we make ourselves extinct?

Ummm. i seem to have gone off topic.. but i'll leave that their for you to think about or let the mods delete it or sumthn.

 

[BlackWolf]

I think this thread is hilarious. Based on pure misunderstanding and misbelieves and then followed by uhh so gentle and wise writings of other bush players, whom actually surprised me that they can write such way. rofl.

cb1202: Your basic understanding of medicines is false. You compare this to cancer which you say that many doctors believe to be genetic. Ofc its genetic because it is miswork of your cells. It also mean that your childs have certain percentages higher possibility to get same cancer aka. it is possible that those same cells will miswork the same way.

It does not mean that they will get that cancer. It is only higher possibility. As most of the cancers on humans are caused by some outside element which then triggers that misbehaviour. Theres some basics of cancers to you. For example too much sun and you get Melanoma, but it doesnt mean your child would be so stupid to spend that much time in sun.

So actually the kind of illnesses there really are that cause problems to possible offsprings and then carry on in the family is very small amount. We are talking now of under 1% of whole population of earth and even in this case usually those illnesses are only numbers of percentages for those childs to get em. On top of it all bigest problems actually in whole genepool are concerning whole countries and huge groups of people together. You really want that lets say Finland shouldnt reproduce because we have higher amount of Diabetes B cases than some other country?

How bout trying to realize what might cause it, our current culthure where you eat and dring sugar from morning to evening, instead of mainly eating vegetables and meat without any addons etc.

 

[timtadams]

lol, you say gentle and wise

firstly, maybe we seem gentle as we are not jumping down each others throats and flaming, which is what usually happens So gentle is just an illusion formed by comparison

And on wise. I didnt think that. Is it because we think we know what we are talking about? Because that is always the case. In every thread. We always think we are right. I think that this same attitude looks 'wise' as it is not in its usual context described in my first point.

Anyway, the example of cancer was bad. I see the point but think its stupid anyway

 

[timthetyrant]

perhaps a better example would be an STD. perhaps AIDS, it gets transferred to offspring, with modern medicine we can reduce thier effects do one such offspring may continue to breed and with modern trends of promiscuity its a lot easier for STDs to be spread. Protection is always available, but what about the poorer countries where AIDS is more prevalent or in religous groups that dont believe in contraceptive methods. These groups will become weaker or die out, as thier generations continue to spread the disease to other groups and societies, wouldn't it be better if said infected were to be cleansed by holy fire? and this would prevent the spread of coontagions?

i think i have down sum sorta backflip or frontflip into a twist with a handstand landing, maybe i should stop trying to talk smart and become a gymnist

 

[lavadog]

Timthetyrant, we are animals, whether you like it or not. We're just the most sophisticated animals on this planet.

 

[timtadams]

Timthetyrant, we are animals, whether you like it or not. We're just the most sophisticated animals on this planet.

yes yes, if you choose to interpret it that way. But i think timthetyrant was just using it in the way he did as we are not subject to the same environmental pressures as every other animal on the planet. So while we may be animals, we are different to all of them in the way we live and are affected by the environment, which is ultimately what this thread is based on.

The meaning of animal can change depending on context:

an·i·mal (n-ml)
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

So while we are humans by the first definition we are not by the second. So it can also be down to a matter of interpretation. So while you may disagree with timthetyrant, it does not make him wrong

 

[lavadog]

well played sir

well tbf, we ARE the biggest environmental pressure for 99% of the other animals around.

But anywho, I see what you mean, didn't read the entire thread, just picked that up from his post

 

[Azzer]

Brushing aside the belief that diseases can only hit you if your parents had the disease, and that this is always the case (ie the belief that it's impossible for somebody with a condition to have a child without a condition, and vice-versa)... [yes there are some things that will almost always be passed down if a parent/both parents/a grandparent had it, but not everything, and random chance always has a big say too, as well as the way a child's raised and the environment they were raised in, how much their immune system gets to build up during youth their diet their fitness etc. ec.]

I have often thought about this from a global population side - the population of earth is too big. Humans wise. There are too many humans. And the amount of humans is rising incredibly. You hear ecologists talking about carbon footprints and how everybody should only be using up "1 earth worth of energy each" - how westerners are usually using anything from "2-10 earths each" etc... but what use is everybody in the world using "1 earth worth" if we double the population of earth down the line. We do just plain and simple have too many people, in many countries, and it causes problems beyond mere ecological ones - society problems, law/crime problems, etc. etc... I even wonder about economy issues, I don't know how world economy works so this might be complete rubbish, but is it possible that the more people we have, the more "Money" each country has to create, reducing the value of that money - as in... if a country only ever had the same global-value worth of money, but it's population increased by 20%... doesn't that mean that the money everyone has is going to be spread a bit more thinly, meaning you either have to create more money (which still has a net effect of reducing it's value), or something else. I don't know, random rambling there typing as neurons fired away in my brain

Anyway, the point was... something. What was it? Ah yes, the point was - if we keep desperately trying to cure every illness that can kill people, help lower mis-carriages, have better healthcare around the world, prevent plagues and diseases and viruses, increase the average life-span of everyone (which in itself increases the birth-rate as well as the 'current population')... are we taking away Earth/Nature's natural "balancing act" - one such balancing act being something like "too many people in one area = more chance for a disease to hit = more chance of those people dying and the numbers reducing again to a more balanced and sustainable number". We're preventing nature from doing any natural balancing act on the human population, but we're not increasing the size or capabilities of Earth.

Eugenics is such a horrible world, and China's "1 baby per person" is full of flaws (for example everyone wants a boy there because girls don't have much rights/success there... so if you have a girl you dump it and try again for a boy...) and it's such a hideous thought... but perhaps we do need something - perhaps self-enforced if we're removing nature's ability to enforce it - to help reduce and balance the global population?

 

[Garrett]

what if we jusut got rid of china? we could produce melamine ourselves and poison from the source rather than overseas!

 

[Azzer]

what if we jusut got rid of china? we could produce melamine ourselves and poison from the source rather than overseas!

Quick way to knock out 20% of the population at least, might buy us some breathing room, and you can knock out another 17% if we take out India too Hell we've almost halved the population in two countries!

Random side-note - According to Wiki at least (pffft) - Europe is the only area/continent in the world to have reduced it's population between 2000 and 2005 - I didn't bother checking if it's since gone up. I wonder if that's because of the stringent Eugenics laws we have in place, because of social happiness factors which tends to naturally reduce birth-rates, or just because Europe's so rubbish everybody's moving away.

 

[Garrett]

nameless legalized your drugs

 

[timthetyrant]

a good example is this "swine flu" thats turning into a "pandemic". I understand its a virus and spread easily (coughing, sneezing) and if it is let loose it could make the ferry man very busy. Now when they say the numbers i just laugh at it, 100 ppl killed in mexico?... Mexico City has 22m ppl (o_0)
But anyways, the ppl in mexico will die and die unless some goodquarintines and hygeine is implemented because of thier lack of medication and facilities, but eventually som1 out there will have an immunity to it and will be unaffected, said person will then probably breed and his/her offspring will carry this immunity. Now the ppl in the developed world who rely on medicine to treat thier illnesses will probably survive, thumbs up for them, but what will happen when all the medicine runs out? or if it mutates with another deadly bug in a person on meds (who wouldve died from the previous bug) and then it becomes a superbug?
Modern medicine is unnatural, mother nature seems to trying to put things back into balance but we keep fighting because we are on the wrong end of the pointy stick. developing a natural immunity would be the natural way to survive this disease but we are too sentimental with fellow humans to allow their death, if only we had equal sentiments towards the natural environment, unlike the brazilians cutting down 10 football fields of the amazon forest/day just so they can play soccer.
Mankind is probably the worst mistake the gods have ever made, we seem to have smeged the smeg outa this planet, and its only gunna get worse. and apparently we are trying to slow down on the damage we have done, but how do we slow down when our population keeps expanding=more power needed=more mouths to feed=more spaces cleared for homes and pastures, and the third world will be the ones to smeg it all up (no offence) as they have the greatest birth rates, when you look at the developed countries birth rates they are all around zero. but the third worlds birth rate is high cause of so many reasons.
This discussion can go so much deeper and the answer probably isnt a good one for humanity,
*do animals have an equal right to life as us?(not according to the bible)
-if a shark kills a human, we kill the shark (even if they are an endargered species, we kill destroy habitats, but ours aren't destroyed) obviously we arent equal.
-does this mean individuals or their speices?
*where do we fit into the grand scales of life?(cause we know we are special, because of our ability to know)
*can we survive without nature?