Diseases, are they necessary?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



The thinker
I'm not aware of any threads on this before so here I go.
Before I start, don't bite my head off, this is not what I think but just a thought that has been bothering me.

Diseases, many of them keep our population under control.

Do you think it is good for there to be a disease or two floating around?

I mean, there are some beneficial aspects of it, if there were not any, wouldn't our population be out of control?

On a personal level, it can be a very different situation.

Your views...........

docb77
How much do you appreciate your health if you've never been sick? Or at least seen someone sick?

Darth_Erebus
From a purly neutral point of view diseases are neither good or bad. Most diseases are simply a form of primitive organism, usually a virus, bacteria, or other single celled organism, adapting to the most favorable method of passing on it's DNA at the expense of other living things.

Deano
well they might wipe out the human race one day so yeh i think they can be necessary

Robtard
Diseases can also help and guide evolution besides destroy...

A very small percentage of people on the planet (mostly Caucasians) are naturally immune to the HIV-1 virus; this is due to a defective gene (CCR5) which became defective (some believe) by the bubonic plague that spread across Europe in the 1300's . Though this defective gene causes people who have it no serious harm, a side effect is they are immune to the HIV-1 virus along with small pox and maybe a few other plagues.

Yay for defective genes!

docb77
Originally posted by Robtard
Diseases can also help and guide evolution besides destroy...

A very small percentage of people on the planet (mostly Caucasians) are naturally immune to the HIV-1 virus; this is due to a defective gene (CCR5) which became defective (some believe) by the bubonic plague that spread across Europe in the 1300's . Though this defective gene causes people who have it no serious harm, a side effect is they are immune to the HIV-1 virus along with small pox and maybe a few other plagues.

Yay for defective genes!

I remember reading about that. The article said that the gene had the highest rate among ashkenazi jews, if I remember right about 23% of them have it. Ironically the lowest incidence of the gene was found among some tribe in africa (2% if I remember) where AIDS is a major problem.

I say Ironic because the HIV rate is pretty low in the areas where ashkenazi live regardless of who else lives there, but in africa, where the gene could do some good, HIV is rampant.

MURDEROUS RYU
i dont think disease is necessary although u all make good points,dude that shit hurts,BAD!!!if u had 1 which i hope u dont,u might think different,besides what really keeps population under controll is the flood of guns and drugs in unsuspecting neighborhoods and the fact that cigarettes and hard liquor are legal.and as far as evolution...i dont beleave in it,evolution is 1 of the biggest and most beleaved LIES ever told 2 human kind,in my oppinion.

Gregory
Yes yes, very nice. I'm sure we all value your opinion on evolution very highly.

I'd hate to think what the world would be like without disease. It's already overcrowded; can you immagine what India, for example, would be like if the only thing killing people off were "guns and drugs in unsuspecting neighborhoods and the fact that cigarettes and hard liquor are legal?" I shudder to think.

Great Vengeance
Thinking that diseases are 'necessary' wouldnt be in accordance with morality, though I agree that there is some practical use in limiting the population.

docb77
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Thinking that diseases are 'necessary' wouldnt be in accordance with morality, though I agree that there is some practical use in limiting the population.

I'm confused. What does disease have to do with morality?

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by docb77
I'm confused. What does disease have to do with morality?

Thinking that the mass slaughter of people(the result of disease) is necessary, wouldnt be in accordance with morality. That is what the topic is about... correct?

Gregory
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Thinking that the mass slaughter of people(the result of disease) is necessary, wouldnt be in accordance with morality.

Death is not "immoral."

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Gregory
Death is not "immoral."

That could be argued.... though nearly everyone would disagree with you, and would rather live than die of disease.

Gregory
They'd rather live then die of a disease because they perceive death as being bad for them, not as immoral.

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Gregory
They'd rather live then die of a disease because they perceive death as being bad for them, not as immoral.

The immoral part is you forcing death upon them, because you believe disease is necessary.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by docb77
How much do you appreciate your health if you've never been sick? Or at least seen someone sick?

Being sick and dying are two different things.

After recovering from being sick, I could value my health more.

After dying, my health don't mean shit. wink

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Being sick and dying from disease are two different things.

After recovering from being sick, I could value my health more.

After dying, my health don't mean shit. wink

Gregory
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
The immoral part is you forcing death upon them, because you believe disease is necessary.

My belief that disease is necessary is "forcing death upon them," is it? There are people lying dead who I "forced death upon" with my beliefs?

Name them.

Robtard
Originally posted by Gregory
My belief that disease is necessary is "forcing death upon them," is it? There are people lying dead who I "forced death upon" with my beliefs?

Name them.

If you're able to do that; you're one serious badass.

docb77
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Being sick and dying are two different things.

After recovering from being sick, I could value my health more.

After dying, my health don't mean shit. wink

You could be right, but only if existence ends after death. If it doesn't dying could make you appreciate life even more stick out tongue

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Gregory
My belief that disease is necessary is "forcing death upon them," is it? There are people lying dead who I "forced death upon" with my beliefs?

Name them.

*You* didnt kill anyone(that I know of), but the diseases you believe are 'necessary' have killed countless innocents. The belief itself is immoral, not you in paticular.

docb77
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
*You* didnt kill anyone(that I know of), but the diseases you believe are 'necessary' have killed countless innocents. The belief itself is immoral, not you in paticular.

A belief that death is necessary is immoral? That doesn't make sense to me.

If no one had ever died 1 of 2 things would be true,

- We wouldn't be here right now because our ancestors would have eventually stopped having kids to prevent overpopulation.

- We would be hear along with all our ancestors and about 40 Billion other people (Based on a conservative estimate of only the last 6 thousand years since adam and eve, the number would be even higher using evolution figures, but if we used those without death we'd still be some sort of less evolved primate)

Great Vengeance
Thats if people never died at all. Im just taking into account death from disease, which shortens otherwise 'full' lives. I already acknowledged that there is some practical use in disease, and Im not going to pretend I know the absolute code for morality. Im just going by the common opinion... nearly everyone would rather get to live a full life then have it cut short by some disease.

Gregory
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
*You* didnt kill anyone(that I know of), but the diseases you believe are 'necessary' have killed countless innocents. The belief itself is immoral, not you in paticular.

Something that does absolutely no harm to anyone, and doesn't even have the potential to harm anyone--like my thoughts on disease--can't be immoral.

Take it another way: What if there was no disease? There are already too many people in the world. What happense when nobody dies except through violence, and the numbers start to grow? Ten billion people? Twenty billion? Just wait. And what happens then? Mass famine, of course. Countless innocents die horribly (they'll be cremated, of course--the graveyards having been torn out to make room for public housing, and even so, there are billions of people without homes--no room.) Is it immoral not to want billions of people out on the street, starving to death in a world that can't possibly sustain them? You can come to your own conclussion; I've already made mine.

allofyousuckkk
^^^^exactly


disease is natural. It is in the system of checks and balances. Many people who are diseased got it because somehting stupid they did.

Great Vengeance
Originally posted by Gregory
Something that does absolutely no harm to anyone, and doesn't even have the potential to harm anyone--like my thoughts on disease--can't be immoral.

Take it another way: What if there was no disease? There are already too many people in the world. What happense when nobody dies except through violence, and the numbers start to grow? Ten billion people? Twenty billion? Just wait. And what happens then? Mass famine, of course. Countless innocents die horribly (they'll be cremated, of course--the graveyards having been torn out to make room for public housing, and even so, there are billions of people without homes--no room.) Is it immoral not to want billions of people out on the street, starving to death in a world that can't possibly sustain them? You can come to your own conclussion; I've already made mine.

1. Beliefs are immoral by what they imply in the real world. Immorality isnt just restricted to actions.

2. Well first of all...people would die of old age, accidents etc. etc. not just violence. And the rest of your argument consists of *your* interpretation of why disease would not be immoral. Unfortunately your opinion counts no more than anyone else. Your vastly overruled by the majority, who would believe that disease is a bad thing and is a cause for a great deal of the worlds suffering. Not to mention you exaggerate how bad the population problem would be. Sure the world would be less 'comfortable' but depopulation would just be slower, it wouldnt stop and so the problem would never be 'critically' important or atleast not for a long time(which by then we would of invented a solution to the problem, ever heard of 'necessity is the mother of invention'?)

Also I would have to ask you....would you be prepared to give up your *own* life right now to disease, just to support your conclusion that disease is *necessary* for humanity? So other people could enjoy a few more comforts?

docb77
Originally posted by Great Vengeance

Also I would have to ask you....would you be prepared to give up your *own* life right now to disease, just to support your conclusion that disease is *necessary* for humanity? So other people could enjoy a few more comforts?

Just because disease might be necessary doesn't mean that the fight against disease couldn't be necessary as well.

I suppose what it comes down to is the eternal question:

What is the meaning of life?

If life has meaning, then disease might be one of the tools to help us understand it. If life has no meaning, disease is unnecessary, but then again, without meaning everything is unnecessary.

Pandemoniac
Eventually, diseases have increased mankind's ability to survive. Especially the epidemic kinds. They were the cause of bacterial and viral research and have led to great medical discoveries, giving us a better insight on how diseases are caused, spread and how they can be cured. This made us more more prepared to deal with new ones.
Off course all that means jack shit if diseases never existed, but they do. And by being exposed to them humankind has armed itself against them far better than any other being.

Gregory
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
And the rest of your argument consists of *your* interpretation of why disease would not be immoral.

My post consists of my interpretations? Unheard of! Alert the media!



I do not care what the majority thinks about this. Or the minority, for that matter.



Oh don't worry, we already have a solution. China has already practiced it with
some success, as you might be aware.



How the hell did you get from "disease is necessary" to "I want to die of a disease right now"? Actually, no; don't tell me. I probably don't want to know.

To answer your question, no. If people could be counted on to selflessly end their lives for the good of civilization, we wouldn't need disease, now would we? It's because the world consists of selfish bastards, like me, and you, that a population control method is needed that doesn't rely on volunteers. Like, say .... disease.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.