Diseases, are they necessary?

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...........

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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."

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.

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

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.

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. 😉

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. 😉

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.

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.

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. 😉

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