The debate "Even if there's a cure for all cancers it shouldn't be given to anyone. Population is a problem" was started by
August 6, 2015, 10:56 pm.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 79 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
ototoxic posted 12 arguments, sabrina posted 1 argument, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
sloanstar1000 posted 4 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 2 arguments, ari_pooya posted 1 argument, Alex posted 2 arguments, NaggingNut posted 1 argument, PoliticsAsUsual posted 3 arguments, R_o_h_i_t posted 1 argument, Voidiq posted 1 argument, RyanWakefield posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
ototoxic, sabrina, Benjamin, Otabek, Gandalf and 16 visitors agree.
sloanstar1000, historybuff, PsychDave, wayneSPEC, ari_pooya, theQueenofdebate, toughgamerjerry, nicalow, gouthamabi, jadesenia, I_Voyager, dixie18, PranavArora, invincible_01, Skeetc15, ibrahim, Sumerian, Tristanzee, Yuki_Amayane, BookBunny, Musstta, Zinluu, HRPufnStuf, Alex, scotthansonMC, Peypey, NaggingNut, PoliticsAsUsual, ReadyToBegin, barman, R_o_h_i_t, Freyja, Voidiq, zariva129, RyanWakefield, xaveragexjoesx, Cato, cancer_wins, neveralone and 40 visitors disagree.
the best way to decrease the population is birth control
the point has already been made I'm pretty sure, but withholding medicine is not an effective population control. especially since rich people would likely buy the cure anyway. it would only kill the poor.
You think I haven't thought of it like that? I wouldn't be happy but there wouldn't be much I could do.
Imagine if you were dying of cancer, and you weren't allowed the cure due to overpopulation. Would you still have the same opinion?
And btw American is full of immigrants and these immigrants f***ed the natives who were the real Americans
IF you think population is a problem then I agree. but what if population is shrinking? would you support immigration then?
a liberal told me on this app that without immigration then america will become decreasing in population. so if you think population is a problem, don't let immigrants in. put americans before outsiders.
Instead u can kill criminals after giving them one chance to change
I used to think the same but imagine about the hardship their dear ones have to go through.
i disagree this is madness if you have a cure for cancer then give it to people to save their lives consider every man to be your father and every woman to be your mother would you say the same thing if a member of your family got cancer ?
I disagree. we have an abundance of food. the only issue is moving it around to the places that need it, and that is limited because that requires fuel, which is expensive.
especially as GMOs are increasing, our crops will be resistant to all pests and able to withstand more different climate conditions.
our problem with food consumption is health based, not scarcity based. but your right, throwing food away while people starve is disgusting. we really need to work on that.
Every species of animal has a carrying capacity for it's ecosystem. That carrying capacity for humans is based on food supply. So yes, if we manage our food better then population won't be much of a problem; but we are terrible at controling food consumption. Unless strict laws are put in place. Humans (according to our food) are on the cusp of our carrying capacity. Us humans seam to always find a way around a problem, I'm sure we will for this too. But eventually our way of life is going to bite us in the ass.
Dude, I'm past that. My main view is that population needs to be controlled in some way or another, but not straight killing. Like I said, if we could terraform another planet then that'd be great. But I just don't see us being able to slow reproduction by talking to people. Maybe go the route that China went and limit how many children a family can have. Or limit the number of children (if any) that someone can have that's determined by their income and ability to provide.
I think this is a non issue. There is no global population problem, only small regional ones in a handful of nations. I can guarantee that 100 years ago our current population would also be unsustainable, yet we are doing fine today. People project population figures decades into the future, while considering technology that may already be outdated.
there is abundant food, the current problem is not to grow more but the get people to stop throwing it out in developed nations, while production efficiency is constantly improving.
there is abundant room to live, so much land is undeveloped and we can always increase density (NYC).
and when we switch over to renewable energy, energy will be practically unlimited.
Rather than solving this by letting people die, don't you think there may be better solution for this non problem?
dude, seriously... denying people a cure for cancer isn't any way to "slow reproduction rates". Most people who have cancer are old enough to be past their reproductive prime so to speak, and have kids already.
all you're proposing is that people suffer. it's stupid.
I know denying a cure is just indirect murder, and I don't want to kill anybody. But I just don't think we'll be able to slow reproduction rates.
I think there should be a bigger focus on how to ensure people don't over reproduce rather than killing people that are already alive. If a disease is curable, then a person suffering from it should most certainly be given the treatment. We have no right to deny a healthy life to anybody.
In fact I like all creatures great and small much more than humans, but that doesn't mean I won't vouch for my own species.
When there is a population problem in nature, nature handles it. Humans have gotten too inventive for nature to control our population, though it's tried.
I agree that withholding a cure wouldn't do much concerning developed countries, I hadn't thought of that before. Though, I still think that all life on Earth deserves a much greater chance than humans. Now if humans could terraform another planet, that'd be a great solution. Though there would still be a huge population problem on Earth.
I weigh all life on Earth (other than humans) over humanity. I'd rather all humans die than all humans eventually die slowly along with most life on Earth.
what!!!! how could you agree. this is the same as saying "to control overpopulation let's shoot 10000 random people"
what happened to life liberty and the persut of happiness? equal protection for all? Wow, just wow.
we should treat both matters differently... govts should do population control programs.. and cancer is deadly, children and adults get effected from that.. they have the right to live their life as we have.
population has always been a problem. but then again, there has been multiple population problems with animals as well. for example, think about deers. in some places the population is so large people have closed off areas just to hunt deers. if humans have such a large population, why are we not being hunted down? why arent you dead right now? if you want to reduce the population in humans by stopping canxer patients from getting cured, then why not let anyone get better? if you get a cold, should we just let you get worse? i mean then we can reduce the human population of you. which would be a blessing.
you also missed PsychdDave's point that your "solution" would have basically no effect on third countries who already have minimal healthcare. Thousands of people are already dying from starvation and disease in these countries, that's not keeping them from procreating. so we wouldn't have less mouths to feed.
You say you don't support suffering, but maybe you might change your mind if you get pancreatic cancer.
All your proposition would do is affect people in countries where population rise isn't a problem, it wouldn't affect world population at all. It would just make people suffer where they might otherwise be cured.
I agree population is a problem, but keeping the cure to cancer from the public wouldn't put a dent in that problem.
I don't want people to suffer, I don't want to meep people from being healthy. But do you want us to continue destroying the Earth and slowly killing the other species? Honestly I don't understand how you could weigh the value of the human population over that of all other living organisms.
Yes I get that not giving them treatment would be homicide, I never said it wouldn't. No I'd rather not have people die but if the population keeps rising then other species of animals will start dying along with us and the ecosystem. "Discouraging procreation" hasn't done much if you didn't notice.
I'll tell you what curing and saving everyone would do.
First: The no-longer-starving children in Africa (and other places) would grow to be healthy adults and have more children.
Second: That first chain would keep going and accelerating. The countries and economies of Africa would eventually blossom. The population would continue to rise and our resources would continue to deplete. More species of animals would go extinct not just because of climate change but because of climate loss because humans need more space.
Third: As we begin to fill the habitable land on this planet we begin to become desperate. And the population begins to slow.
All of those people mean a lot of extra mouths to feed, more strain on water supplies, a lot more trash and human waste to put somewhere and an increased threat of a major deadly global pandemic, among other problems.
No matter what, we will destroy ourselves. Might as well go out and try and save the majority of life on Earth.
You completely avoided my point that it would be negligent homicide. So I'll just extrapolate your point even further. since you're OK with letting people die, why not just put people in concentration camps and go ahead and gas them?
Every bit of your argument is absurd. The population should be controlled through contraception and discouraging procreation.
I think there are too many people on this planet, and most people annoy me, but I'm not going to condemn them to death because I'm not a psychopath.
What you are advocating is withholding health care until the global population is lower. What you seem to have overlooked is that no population anywhere in the world would be willing to let their government remove their health care system "for the greater good." The news would be filled with stories of children dying of preventable diseases and there would be riots.
Beyond that simple flaw, as has been previously mentioned, the population growth is not coming from Europe or North America. It is coming from nations that already do not have effective health care systems, and would therefore be unaffected. Look into population growth by nation and Africa has by far the largest growth rate followed by the Middle East. How would condemning children in developed nations make that any better?
Could you provide evidence to back up that statement?
Yes but they die from disease a lot of the time anyway, as horrible as that sounds. We are the developed world, we don't have to worry (too much) about our children dying from disease or famine. We reproduce just as carelessly as the developing countries.
You are missing some of the bigger picture. The only countries that would be able to afford such cures would wealthy modern countries. population growth in those countries is negligible. sometimes even negative. The large majority of population growth comes from developing nations that couldn't afford that kind of health care in the first place. I don't think there is any need to withhold treatment from our children.
Exactly, thank you Sabrina. I also don't mean just the elderly, anyone no matter the age. If ONLY the elderly died (which is starting to be the case) then the population problem wouldn't be solved at all. The elderly are done having children so them dying only temporarily, if some of the younger generation childern and adults die off then that will help the population for years to come. Would I feel bad for not saving children when I easily could? Yes but it's the bigger picture that you need to focus on. Us as a species and all the other species in the world.
I agree death is a natural thing and should not be defeated completely.
Not long ago scientists claimed in 2050 there will be an estimate of 10 billion people living on Earth, 10 billion! That's with how we are right now. Getting a cure for everything is just one of few ways that estimated number will go up and there's something to be said about that.
not saving someone's life when you easily could is not only obviously punishing someone, but is considered negligent homicide. why just cancer patients? let's not cure anything... that's crazy
It's not punishing them, it's letting nature do it's thing. punushing would ve keeping it from the poor and only yhe rich can be cured. It's not punishment because NOBODY would get the cure.
Population should be controlled by discouraging procreation, not punishing people who are already alive.