tell 10 to tell 10
i came across an interesting discussion today that's made me rather pensive. someone asked the question "why cure cancer?" or any other disease since disease seems to be the "natural" way that the earth balances births with deaths. and that disease may be the one way that the earth is naturally "fixing" the problem of overpopulation. at least i think that was the gist of the argument... that we shouldn't try to cure disease because it will fix the overpopulation issue. other arguments included the fact that we're preventing natural selection, by prolonging the lives of people who would, if left to themselves, die, and that since everyone is going to die, why not let a disease take its course, rather than preventing that inevitable end?
so obviously, this is an issue which is near my heart, since i sort of have the goal of contributing something of value to the fight against cancer, so that people won't suffer from it anymore. and there were many people who pointed out that cancer is a painful disease, and no one should have to suffer that. but apart from the obvious emotional arguments.. why should we cure cancer?
well.. as regards overpopulation... i don't really know that the number of people who would die from cancer or other diseases would be able to offset the number of babies that are born everyday. that's not a statistic that i really know. but to say that disease is nature's way of balancing out the earth's population... i don't know that you can really say that. i mean... i know only little bits about biology and nature, but from what i understand, nature is very cause-effect. if something happens in nature, the effects are immediate or local, not far removed. therefore, overpopulation would cause problems only in areas that are overpopulated. the immediate problems that i see with there being too many people in one place are 1) not having enough food, and 2) not having enough space. what is not an immediate problem? cancer. so to say that we shouldn't cure cancer because it will solve the earth's overpopulation (and the problems associated with it) is not a sound argument. if everyone that was ever treated for cancer died, would it make a difference to the family of 13 living in a 2-room hut in Africa? probably not.
on to "the prevention of natural selection." cancer is a disease of old age. which means that most people get cancer after they've passed the child-bearing years. which means that whether or not they die of cancer, they've already passed on their genetic data. basically, cancer doesn't factor into natural selection unless it's a hereditary cancer (which have earlier onset... though depending on the cancer, these people may also have had children before diagnosis and therefore passed on their hereditary cancer). the point... curing cancer won't prevent natural selection, because the disease occurs after selection has taken place.
argument 3... people are going to die anyway, why not let them meet their end? the thought is that maybe it's that person's "time." and maybe they're meant to succomb to the disease, but you're erroneously prolonging their life, and you're "playing God" by manipulating life. i have no real rational argument for this (although i do have religious ones), other than to say that not treating someone with cancer would be like not treating someone with a gunshot wound. both can be fatal, but both can be treated. not treating someone because it might be their time presumes that an individual can know or decide when someone else is meant to die. and i don't think anyone has that right over anyone else.
i guess that doesn't really answer the question of why we should cure cancer more than it addresses the reasons people have given about why we shouldn't cure cancer. but so it goes. if you facebookies are interested, the discussion can be found in the group "tell 10 to tell 10" ... thus the subject of the post... it's a group to promote breast cancer awareness, oddly enough. but the question remains... why cure cancer? for me, it's simple. my grandfather died from complications of lung cancer in january of my senior year in high school. if he'd survived about 6 more months, i would have been able to dance with him at my debut. but as it was, he was the the person i missed most that night, and i'll always wish he could have been there. so for him and all those girls who want that dance with their grandpas, i'm going to keep truckin'. =)
so obviously, this is an issue which is near my heart, since i sort of have the goal of contributing something of value to the fight against cancer, so that people won't suffer from it anymore. and there were many people who pointed out that cancer is a painful disease, and no one should have to suffer that. but apart from the obvious emotional arguments.. why should we cure cancer?
well.. as regards overpopulation... i don't really know that the number of people who would die from cancer or other diseases would be able to offset the number of babies that are born everyday. that's not a statistic that i really know. but to say that disease is nature's way of balancing out the earth's population... i don't know that you can really say that. i mean... i know only little bits about biology and nature, but from what i understand, nature is very cause-effect. if something happens in nature, the effects are immediate or local, not far removed. therefore, overpopulation would cause problems only in areas that are overpopulated. the immediate problems that i see with there being too many people in one place are 1) not having enough food, and 2) not having enough space. what is not an immediate problem? cancer. so to say that we shouldn't cure cancer because it will solve the earth's overpopulation (and the problems associated with it) is not a sound argument. if everyone that was ever treated for cancer died, would it make a difference to the family of 13 living in a 2-room hut in Africa? probably not.
on to "the prevention of natural selection." cancer is a disease of old age. which means that most people get cancer after they've passed the child-bearing years. which means that whether or not they die of cancer, they've already passed on their genetic data. basically, cancer doesn't factor into natural selection unless it's a hereditary cancer (which have earlier onset... though depending on the cancer, these people may also have had children before diagnosis and therefore passed on their hereditary cancer). the point... curing cancer won't prevent natural selection, because the disease occurs after selection has taken place.
argument 3... people are going to die anyway, why not let them meet their end? the thought is that maybe it's that person's "time." and maybe they're meant to succomb to the disease, but you're erroneously prolonging their life, and you're "playing God" by manipulating life. i have no real rational argument for this (although i do have religious ones), other than to say that not treating someone with cancer would be like not treating someone with a gunshot wound. both can be fatal, but both can be treated. not treating someone because it might be their time presumes that an individual can know or decide when someone else is meant to die. and i don't think anyone has that right over anyone else.
i guess that doesn't really answer the question of why we should cure cancer more than it addresses the reasons people have given about why we shouldn't cure cancer. but so it goes. if you facebookies are interested, the discussion can be found in the group "tell 10 to tell 10" ... thus the subject of the post... it's a group to promote breast cancer awareness, oddly enough. but the question remains... why cure cancer? for me, it's simple. my grandfather died from complications of lung cancer in january of my senior year in high school. if he'd survived about 6 more months, i would have been able to dance with him at my debut. but as it was, he was the the person i missed most that night, and i'll always wish he could have been there. so for him and all those girls who want that dance with their grandpas, i'm going to keep truckin'. =)