Cure for viruses claimed

[auroraglacialis]

New drug could cure nearly any viral infection

They claim to have found a cure for almost all viruses in the world. Kind of like penecillin for viral infections. Bold claim. Lets see how it plays out.

[Pa'li Makto]

I'm unsure as to whether the potential benefits of this new drug outweigh any potential costs or problems.

[Mother of the Forest]

I'm not so sure that this is a good thing. Also, it makes me think of zombies X_X

[Moco Loco]

Whatever, I'm all for it thus far. Are there any good viruses we wouldn't want to kill?

[iron_jones]

Obviously they haven't watched "I Am Legend"

[Raiden]

Bwahahaha. How adorably naive.

Virii are the most mutable pathogens on the planet. A cure for all of them will only make them stronger.

Also, despite death being sad, it's an important part of balance in any ecosystem. Viruses are one of the last potent controls on the human population, and eradicating them would actually cause more problems than leaving them be.

[iron_jones]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Also, despite death being sad, it's an important part of balance in any ecosystem.

I agree.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Bwahahaha. How adorably naive.

Virii are the most mutable pathogens on the planet. A cure for all of them will only make them stronger.

Also, despite death being sad, it's an important part of balance in any ecosystem. Viruses are one of the last potent controls on the human population, and eradicating them would actually cause more problems than leaving them be.

True.

And yet I can't see you walking up to, say, a research facility, and tell them to stop trying to save people's lives. Or walk up to anyone currently saving life-saving treatment that for the good of humanity, they need to die.

Call it a human failing, this desire to save people.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

True.

And yet I can't see you walking up to, say, a research facility, and tell them to stop trying to save people's lives. Or walk up to anyone currently saving life-saving treatment that for the good of humanity, they need to die.

Call it a human failing, this desire to save people.

I bring up this point to people all the time.

Which would you prefer?

1) A small percentage of people fall each year to disease, as per the laws of nature

or

2) The Earth's ecosystem collapses due to overpopulation, and then everybody suffers and/or dies

Unless there is a way to ensure that there is a proper and consistent death rate, we'll never be able to sustain our existence on Earth.

It doesn't matter if it's sad; the cycle of life and death is one of the most basic laws of nature. Escaping it would be cheating in the best game the universe ever gave us to play.

[Banefull]

I think it is a great discovery with lots of potential.

In regards to the death discussion: Well death is nature's way of making room for the next generation. Not all organisms die of old age, death by old age was an evolved trait. Our senescence is biologically programmed. But regardless, I think people should be able to live full lives. Disease does not just take away people's lives, it takes away people chances to live fully. The latter case is what justifies medicine.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Banefull

I think it is a great discovery with lots of potential.

In regards to the death discussion: Well death is nature's way of making room for the next generation. Not all organisms die of old age, death by old age was an evolved trait. Our senescence is biologically programmed. But regardless, I think people should be able to live full lives. Disease does not just take away people's lives, it takes away people chances to live fully. The latter case is what justifies medicine.

Nope.

If medicine was really able to allow every human born a full life, you wind up with the overpopulation scenario.

Unless there is a way to enforce a certain population size, there is no way that would ever work. I'm not talking about old age, I'm talking about disease. If Malaria is cured for instance, which is a very real possibility, that would be something to the tune of thousands of people who wouldn't die.

Sounds great, doesn't it? All those people, living, going to school, falling in love...and having babies.

What doesn't sound so great is when the planet collapses on itself from being overloaded with too many humans. According to statistics, it would take dozens of Earths to sustain humanity, if every person lived at the quality and length of most American and European residents.

Again, I ask, what would be "fair"? Giving those sickly people a chance, or robbing the people of the future of a good planet to live on?

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Nope.

If medicine was really able to allow every human born a full life, you wind up with the overpopulation scenario.

Unless there is a way to enforce a certain population size, there is no way that would ever work. I'm not talking about old age, I'm talking about disease. If Malaria is cured for instance, which is a very real possibility, that would be something to the tune of thousands of people who wouldn't die.

Sounds great, doesn't it? All those people, living, going to school, falling in love...and having babies.

What doesn't sound so great is when the planet collapses on itself from being overloaded with too many humans. According to statistics, it would take dozens of Earths to sustain humanity, if every person lived at the quality and length of most American and European residents.

Again, I ask, what would be "fair"? Giving those sickly people a chance, or robbing the people of the future of a good planet to live on?

Most developed countries have negative population growth rates by birth. The vast majority of the world's population growth occurs in developing countries.



In places where people need children to ensure financial security in old age (but many are needed because many die in young age), don't you think modernization to a small degree is the way to ensure that population remains stable? (can we please not diverge into a discussion about whether modernization itself is deontologically good or evil) It need not necessarily be to the degree of the North America/Western Europe. If people could be certain that the children they have would not die and live healthy lives, they would not need to produce so many.

[Marvellous Chester]

Hmm I'm not sure about this. Nature's already given us the cures for virii, they are in our own bodies If it really works then great, but I don't think I'd ever use it.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by Raiden

I bring up this point to people all the time.

Which would you prefer?

1) A small percentage of people fall each year to disease, as per the laws of nature

or

2) The Earth's ecosystem collapses due to overpopulation, and then everybody suffers and/or dies

Unless there is a way to ensure that there is a proper and consistent death rate, we'll never be able to sustain our existence on Earth.

It doesn't matter if it's sad; the cycle of life and death is one of the most basic laws of nature. Escaping it would be cheating in the best game the universe ever gave us to play.

I've got another, entirely awesome suggestion: it's called education for women, sex-education, birth control, the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, euthanasia. None of these are consistently applied across the globe, and you've got issues of religion and culture to deal with. One of the most populated states of India has the most stable population, because due to the exceedingly high level of education, women marry late and only have one or two children.

Death isn't sad, it's devastating. And the prospect of it can be terrifying, and to save our children and our family and friends is instinctual - to curb that would be to deny what makes us human.

And I admit, I'm biased. As a woman, should I become pregnant, without modern medicine, I'm actively risking my life. Actually, with modern medicine I'm still risking my life, but the chances of my dying through complications are significantly less. And most ways of dying through pregnancy and childbirth-related things? Not pleasant ways to go.

To me, I guess, letting people die without trying to save them (if that's what they wish, I'm all for sick people deciding to end their life on their own terms) is inhumane. There are other things we can do to help the planet that do not involving letting people who might otherwise live die.

Originally Posted by Banefull

In places where people need children to ensure financial security in old age (but many are needed because many die in young age), don't you think modernization to a small degree is the way to ensure that population remains stable? (can we please not diverge into a discussion about whether modernization itself is deontologically good or evil) It need not necessarily be to the degree of the North America/Western Europe. If people could be certain that the children they have would not die and live healthy lives, they would not need to produce so many.

And yes, this. In a lot of places, the culture just hasn't caught up to modern medicine yet - and/or where they live is still too awful and the child mortality rate is sickeningly high.

That all said, I don't think cures for viruses are going to work, they adapt too much. And possibly the cure will cause zombies.

[Advent]

Funny how sympathy often tends to be the antithesis of logic.

On the medicine though, like Raiden, I find it pretty hard to believe that a 21st century 'miracle cure' could destroy every virus on the planet. I mean, come on. As far as death goes, viruses have been our sworn enemies since we first came into this world. And with talk of all these 'superbugs' going around, I don't think we'll kill them off anytime soon.