Comments | inkstersco: The Daily Hate

inkstersco

The Daily Hate

Jan 12, 2009 11:53

I was passing a newspaper stall yesterday, when I noticed a headline on the front page of the Daily Mail, saying:

" As first British child designed to be cancer-free is born, critics ask: Where will the meddling end? ".

This exemplifies nicely the foulness of the Daily Mail. Cancer has been half-cured, and the first thing the Mail do is find ( Read more... )

daily mail cancer daily mail cancer dail

Comments 6

shady_heaven January 24 2009, 20:47:16 UTC

I have mixed feelings about curing devastating/largely fatal illnesses ( ... )

inkstersco January 25 2009, 22:12:40 UTC

I don't think cancer prevents any suffering. State-enforced childlessness(the likely reaction of mankind to a world without illness) is a case of affairs less barbaric than natural illness. What we have _now_ is the worst-case, apocalyptic scenario, that we've become desensensitised to because we've always had it.

>That way, as the older people died off, there would be fewer young adults to replace them, and we could cut back on our numbers intelligently without having to kill anyone.

Well ideally older people wouldn't die off either. I view aging and illness as morally identical, alongside earthquake and famine. These things benefit nobody, with some miscellaneous exceptions such as some people inherit stuff, some people don't like other people, etc.

--Iain

shady_heaven January 25 2009, 23:50:04 UTC

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with you here. The reason I see that cancer prevents suffering is because it cuts down on our numbers, which makes it easier for those of us that remain to live halfway decent lives because there is less competition for food/resources/space and we don't have to deforest more areas/kill more animals just to keep the supply fitting the demand. Just imagine if all the people who had ever died from cancer never met with that fate! There would be so many people wildland would be non-existent and everyone would die a slow and horrible death as they starved/succumbed to illnesses they couldn't afford to treat. Just look to the third-world countries as a guide: it would be like that all over, on a global scale. Worldwide suffering. So yes, cancer is bad, but I think it's a necessary evil. >.So what you're essentially saying is that it would be great if everyone were immortal and no-one ever had to die? You do realize this would cause BIG problems, right ( ... )

inkstersco January 26 2009, 13:59:10 UTC

Why is one hardship, illness, good, and another hardship, overcrowding, bad? You say that there ought to be some suffering, and yet your argument against curing all illness is that it would cause 'worldwide suffering', in the form of overcrowding. Why wouldn't this overcrowing also help heat the diamond ( ... )

Thread 6