Let people with major illnesses die

[grindcore]

Today at work I shared something when they were talking about "how bad cancer is" and "we should of cured it by now"
I suddenly threw a couple of them off course by telling them there was infact a cure, let them die.
People who are more susceptible to getting major illnesses should be let to die and not reproduce, therefore it would cure the human species of those illnesses, survival of the fittest etc.
I explained of course that we don't do that simply because our emotions bind us to "we don't want our loved ones to die" and if we didn't know love our species would be a lot healthier. As well as we pride ourselves on advancements in technology and want to know how to beat it, WITH SCIENCE!
Then I said as well as letting those who have these illnesses die, people live way too long now anyway causing us to grossly overpopulate our planet and in effect, we are the cancer of our world.

They took me for a monster but all hypothetical.../cough, your thoughts?

[gutnbrg]

you are a monster

[alzoron]

Cancer is something people typically get later in life, after they've already passed on their genes. Letting people with cancer die is just mean and does nothing to further your eugenic aspirations.

[Independent voter]

There's been a lot of experts who say the same thing. Why spend a million dollars on someone who is 90 years old when even if you cure them they'll only get a few more months of life?

I've decided that if it requires heroic intervention or a ton of money, that I don't want to be saved, let me pass on.

[Einsz]

People like you grindcore are cancer to the world.

[Deleted]

I've heard explanations that say that there is no one cure for cancer. Because it varies so greatly from person to person, and sometimes even in one person, that the most effective way to help is to find and make effective medications for as many types as cancer as possible, for as many people as possible. But, idk.

It sounds more hopeful to ask for donations to help "cure" cancer, rather than finding many different medications that works for different people.

[Strangebrew]

You're an idiot.

Here comes the infraction

[Hooked]

I would divert every single penny of aids research money into cancer research.

[Dawnrage]

Besides the fact that conquering cancer would be a "FUCK YEAH" moment for humanity, and that alone is worth finding a cure for...

If you were the one with cancer, would you think the same way? I'm sure you could have that same resolve and be all, "yeah, let me die, luck wasn't on my side" and that would be very courageous of you...

but if there was a cure? Would you still pick death? Wouldn't you be damn glad that there was a cure for it, even as steeled as your resolve is?

This is what we are essentially aiming for. To give our future hope is something worth fighting for.

[Deleted]

There's been a lot of experts who say the same thing. Why spend a million dollars on someone who is 90 years old when even if you cure them they'll only get a few more months of life?

I've decided that if it requires heroic intervention or a ton of money, that I don't want to be saved, let me pass on.

EVEN if those millions belong to the 90 year old?

[Deleted]

Thats not how cancer works.

[Howard Moon]

People who are more susceptible to getting major illnesses should be let to die and not reproduce, therefore it would cure the human species of those illnesses, survival of the fittest etc.

That doesn't work with cancer since it usually appears after reaching adulthood.

[Deleted]

Wouldn't clearing the problematic genes require that everyone everywhere who has/had a relative at some point with cancer be killed as well? Might just wipe out the entire population, it's the only way to be sure.

And, you're a monster.

[George Costanza]

Thank heaven there is not 20 pages about this bait thread.

[Thrif]

Considering the level of thinking went into that post, I'd say you're more of a burden to humanity than cancer patients.

[cFortyfive]

Thank heaven there is not 20 pages about this bait thread.

Not yet.
The edgyness is quite high in this one.

[Deleted]

Today at work I shared something when they were talking about "how bad cancer is" and "we should of cured it by now"
I suddenly threw a couple of them off course by telling them there was infact a cure, let them die.
People who are more susceptible to getting major illnesses should be let to die and not reproduce, therefore it would cure the human species of those illnesses, survival of the fittest etc.
I explained of course that we don't do that simply because our emotions bind us to "we don't want our loved ones to die" and if we didn't know love our species would be a lot healthier. As well as we pride ourselves on advancements in technology and want to know how to beat it, WITH SCIENCE!
Then I said as well as letting those who have these illnesses die, people live way too long now anyway causing us to grossly overpopulate our planet and in effect, we are the cancer of our world.

They took me for a monster but all hypothetical.../cough, your thoughts?

Our next important step is being able to leave earth(or at least spread beyond earth). For that to have a chance of happening we need to be able to keep our einsteins, Turings, Bohr's, Newtons and so on alive from random illnesses like Cancer. We need them alive as long as possible

[Sole-Warrior]

Besides the fact that conquering cancer would be a "FUCK YEAH" moment for humanity, and that alone is worth finding a cure for...

If you were the one with cancer, would you think the same way? I'm sure you could have that same resolve and be all, "yeah, let me die, luck wasn't on my side" and that would be very courageous of you...

but if there was a cure? Would you still pick death? Wouldn't you be damn glad that there was a cure for it, even as steeled as your resolve is?

This is what we are essentially aiming for. To give our future hope is something worth fighting for.

From Onco
There is an interesting method on how we can effectively prevent cancer from killing us.

Pre-emptively remove the genes for the telomere-lengthening machinery altogether. Simply put, cancer can’t exploit telomerase and ALT to keep itself alive, if the genes that encode their machinery doesn’t exist! This would make it impossible for cancers to continue growing unless they manage to create a whole new telomerase or ALT gene out of thin air – a vanishingly unlikely possibility.


The telomere reserve of our stem cells appears to be enough to keep normal cells going for about a decade. So to support the ability of our tissues to renew themselves indefinitely, it would be enough to replace those failing stem cell reserves with new cells once a decade or so. And by engineering these fresh stem cells to have no telomerase or ALT genes of their own, but to have telomeres that are long enough when they are first transplanted into a person to last for a decade on the strength of those original telomeres, our tissues would always have the functional stem cells they need for maintenance, but the stem cells present in the tissue at any given time would be simply incapable of developing into life-threatening cancers.

Essentially cancers will no longer be allowed to multiply infinitely when that particular genetic machinery is gone. But we will still need periodic regeneration of fresh stemcells periodically. Cancer causes Horrific Suffering and is very costly economically. I'm glad there's people working on an effective cure.

[kyoloco]

depends on how sexy/funny they are

[grindcore]

I think people are getting a bit too specific to my reasoning, Point 1: The topic of cancer was just the spark of office conversation, I'm talking about an overall healthier species, and a grossly overpopulated world, it's my fault for specifically saying cure for cancer though so apologies. Point 2:
I'm also saying it's our emotions that hold us back from this so things like "if you had cancer you wouldn't think this" are irrelevant without them