1. Imagine you are a scientist....you have just created a drug that will cure cancer, aids and all the other major diseases. This miracle drug will also improve your vital organs as well making sure you live longer. The Government will approve of the distribution of this drug to nations around the world.....(no red tape or government B.S) No more suffering from disease and deaths....Would you release this drug to the populace?


Now for another scenario.....


2.Imagine you are a scientist....you have just created a virus that can be spread airborne that will render 60% of the men in the worlds sperm useless....60% will not be able to father any children. Sperm banks used for artificial incemination will be affected as well. To release this would ensure the worlds resources last longer and be plentiful, but take away a large amount of the worlds choice to have children....Would you release this?



My answer to 1 is no.....no I would not release this....I would probably destroy it....My reason is this would cause untold disaster to release this....IMHO We are already currently overpopulated due to the fact medicine has improved and people are living longer. To release something like this would ensure mankinds destruction through overpopulation and eating up all of our resources. Some would say "If your family or someone else you loved had this disease you would change your tune." No I would not....Because we have to die....That is why we have disease to curb overpopulation....Cause if we didn't we'd have eaten up resources and died out a long time ago....We don't have any preadators like animals do...we are at the top and disease and each other are the only things we have to kill us. Death is apart of the game I accept that.


My answer to 2 is no....I believe that is why diseases are formed....the earth has it's ways of dealing with the problems we face even though we are making them worse...Im not arrogant enough to release something like that in some hope of saving the world...

I cannot imagine myself being a scientist. Besides if there was a drug invented to stop death, then the earth would be overpopulated. Eeeeesh!!

luv4u said:

Maybe but people wouldn't suffer from disease....Wouldn't it be worth it then to get rid of suffering?

Sinister said:

I know a bit too much personally the effects of diseases like cancer...often, the only thing loved ones wish is for the one suffering from the disease to be comfortable...and to be able to live whatever time they have left without the worry of physical and emotional pain. So I'd say "yes" to the first one...because overpopulation can be controlled with means other than disease...

And I'd say "no" to the second scenario...creation in all its forms is sacred and to be valued...

I would end the suffering. That one is easy. Trust me, folks will find away to get rid of folks real quick. Laws would get changed and all kinds of things would automatically take over as far as the population.

And the second scenario, I would dump that shit all over my ex's sorry ass! He does not need to repopulate the Miami-Dade county as he is doing.


Works for me!

So you guys would trust people to not have unprotected sex therefore making babies? Despite all the sexual diseases we have now and no cures for most of the people still do it with little regard....With the exception of some kind of killing off of the masses how would anybody regulate procreation? So if you choose yes to number 1 how can you ensure overpopulation would not be a problem?
[Edited 4/20/05 22:20pm]

Yes to the first one. Your scenario may then very well become reality, which would really suck. But after that period, the (now healthy) survivors will have a lot of history lessons to learn from. Sort of a fresh start.
Number two: no for the same reasons as you presented.

Once poverty goes back up they will change their minds on executions and soon prolifers might get out voted.

Sinister said:

Choosing scenario 2 doesn't ensure the protection from overpopulation, either...all it means is that those males who can still produce active and healthy sperm will now have a monetary value added to that fact. People don't stop wanting or desiring children just because their husbands or boyfriends have fertility problems. Nothing happens in a vacuum...the ramifications of decreasing the fertile male population by 60% is far more than just a temporary decrease in the birthrate.

Byron said:

But by choosing yes for question 1 how can you ensure that there will not be overpopulation? When it comes to sex do you really think people will regulate themselves? Then what is left? Mandatory surgery after your first child or at a certain age? Then it becomes a human rights issue....

Sinister said:

That's just it...you can't ensure anything...you can only hope to change enough minds and viewpoints over a period of time so that something like sexual behavior is self-regulated in a responsible way. Allowing people to die in painful and horrible ways simply because you fear overpopulation doesn't seem a much better alternative.

Byron said:

Maybe you overlooked my earlier post: I agree with sinister that overpouplation would be the short-term effect, with all the mayhemm which will occur then. But after that period the now healthy survivors may start afresh. The occasional brink-of-extension is sometimes good for the species.

Byron said:

I choose no not for just fear of overpopulation but also to not affect the balance of what nature has already put here. Things are here in this world for a reason. I don't have all or even 2% of the reasons why things are as they are, so I choose no to simply leave things alone. I personally think saying yes to either would cause problems since you would be tampering with the current flow of things....

AlfofMelmak said:

I could agree with that, at least theoretically...lol...

I tend to go by the philosophy that the human race is still evolving intellectually, spirituallly and emotionally...we'll reach that point eventually where we're able to understand the so-called "negatives" of life for what they are...and we will no longer fear their presence. So I guess I agree with you more than theoretically..lol

i wholeheartedly agree with Byron in relation to the first scenario.

you deal with the problems you know you can deal with; not fail to deal with those problems on the basis that you may have further problems which you cannot quantify at the time.

Sinister said:

Done!

Because of this I couldn't possible imagine such an idealistic thing (as scenario 1) ever happening; I can't do hypothetical . It would also put me out of work .



Of course I would do it, the reduction in suffering alone is reason enough to. Depending on the drug (obviously) I would attenuate it slightly, once it's cancer curing abilities had taken effect it would no longer be effective in that individual. I would target the drug to only cure cancer then be excreted. The life expectancy of the world population would be affected but not as drastically as you suggest.

Scenario 2

Sinister said:

Done!

This is already possible, and i am sure there are certain countries where it has been implemented . Not hypothetical, very scarily real. Would I do it, nope. I am sure that we will all disappear up our own arseholes soon enough, more people just means we will get there a bit quicker.

Bring it on!

PS, I like Byrons and Frogs philosophy too

Good thread.

Cloudbuster said:

Well?

PREDOMINANT said:

Yes I am.

You?

Cloudbuster said:

Couldn't be better

And?

PREDOMINANT said:

And a partridge in a pear tree.

Cloudbuster said:

ohh, so?

So, I think that any advancement in extermination of disease is a good thing. Is what I think.

No ... to both questions

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1970

United States Senate Library

HEARINGS before a SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ninety-First Congress

First Session

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1969

UNITED STATES SENATE LIBRARY

129

TUESDAY, JULY 1, 1969

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICAL AGENTS



There are two things about the biological agent field I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. Molecular biology is a field that is advancing very rapidly and eminent biologists believe that within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired.

MR. SIKES. Are we doing any work in that field?

DR. MACARTHUR. We are not.

MR. SIKES. Why not? Lack of money or lack of interest?

DR. MACARTHUR. Certainly not lack of interest.

MR. SIKES. Would you provide for our records information on what would be required, what the advantages of such a program would be. The time and the cost involved?

DR. MACARTHUR. We will be very happy to. The information follows:

The dramatic progress being made in the field of molecular biology led us to investigate the relevance of this field of science to biological warfare. A small group of experts considered this matter and provided the following observations:

1. All biological agents up the the present time are representitives of naturally occurring disease, and are thus known by scientists throughout the world. They are easily available to qualified scientists for research, either for offensive or defensive purposes.

2. Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon when we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.

For those who choose yes to sending out the miracle drug none have yet told me how they would deal with the ramifications of curing all disease....There will be consequences....Have you seen Tokyo, Japan in rush hour? Could you imagine that rush hour being world wide and 24/7? And for those who don't believe it couldn't happen very fast (overpopulation that is) find out some numbers about how many people are here now compared to 30 years ago, and find out how many are born each day compared to dying each day.

So lets paint the picture....Garbage....It will be produced at an insanely high rate....what can you do about it? Pollution can do nothing but increase...more people, more waste and pollution. Lets say about 20 years of no disease pass...Humans have no preadators so all we do is live, breed and grow old....Eventually the resources will run out. Then what? We all know human nature....when famine and lack of resources set in then clan warfare begins...wars will bring death and destruction. Hell cannibalism may become the norm (if the food supply becomes low enough)

So if you say yes to question 1 I admire your wanting to stop suffering....but how would you prevent the effects of your decision? Don't you think you would plunge the world into something even worse with those good intentions? Alf has said we will go through all that and then rebuild being wiser for it....With no resources we will all die no rebuilding hopes then...Our technology is not advanced enough to sustain us without resources. So how do you prevent all this? Do you really think people will ACTUALLY police their own behavior in that scenario when they don't do it now?

Err, have you read what i posted? I completely agree with you that it will be a horrible period. Probably leading to war and mass-deaths. However, what do you think will happen after the survivors (now disease ridden) start society again?

AlfofMelmak said:

oh I know you agreed I was just saying I don't think we COULD start again I don't think any of us would make it....I mostly wrote that for the other people who haven't told me how they would stop the ramifications...

"IT'S GOT CHICKEN LEGS!!!!"