As in curing more cancers, extending peoples life spans by forcibly limiting the intake of toxins, saving the lives of babies who are born more and more prematurely...IVF.
Is world poverty and people dying by the millions actually a form of survival of the fittest?
2006-09-05 04:55:42 · 13 answers · asked by Chris M 3 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Yes, i think we are, humans are just too compassionate for our own good. Babies which are born severely premature all end up with certain learning/behavioural difficulties, what will those people do when their parents die? Is it up to their siblings to feel the burden? I'm just saying the trauma of a premature baby dying is horrific for a family, but isn't it still a greater difficulty to cope with that person who always needs help for the rest of your life?
2006-09-06 00:50:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think as science and technology develop and give us the opportunity to save the lives of people who would otherwise die, we have the obligation to use that information to help preserve peoples' lives for as long as we can.
Life is precious and doesn't last long enough as it is so why not try to extend it longer especially if the people involved wish to have it that way?
Obviously, people with terminal illnesses like cancer can refuse the treatments and speed up the dying process but that would only lead to increased pain and suffering for the patient.
On the other hand, there are people in third world countries who will not have access to our scientific advances and medications and they will be the ones who will not have the option to extend their lives if they should develop a terminal illness or if a baby is born prematurely.
In that sense, it is survival of the fittest because only those who have access to the appropriate health care will have the option of prolonging their lives....
I think as long as the medicine and the treatments are doing good and not harm, you can never do too much to help prolong someone's life as long as you are not causing them suffering in the process....
2006-09-05 12:10:19 · answer #2 · answered by Cute But Evil 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a shame that we long ago lost the survival of the fittest. That's one reason that our country is growing weaker all of the time. We have too much financial burden keeping a shell of a person alive.
If a baby just needs some temporary help to grow into a strong, intelligent adult, then we should help them. However, when we spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep a vegetative life going for decades, it's just sick. If the family wants to use their own money on it, fine. However, when the money is coming from taxes or insurance, it should really be given a second look.
2006-09-05 12:00:45 · answer #3 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a life can be saved then it should be. It's a bad spot this world is in. We can all see it to. We have to keep doing what is right because we are Humans that are good and fair. This is how it needs to be. It may not be that way But, it has to go on till something breaks one day. It does feel like we are in Survival of the Fittest But, then God our Lord knew it would be this way. He knows all. So I we have to have faith in Jesus and remember that he is coming back one day. Satan is mad right now. He is furious and he will do all he can to kill the people that love God and follow God. But God is stronger and God is watching. So we have to have faith even through times of hardship. So no of course not to give up and just let people die would be horrible! We would be like animals then.
2006-09-05 12:11:30 · answer #4 · answered by SecretUser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for curing more cancers, and I don't care a lot about survival of the fittest, in our societies that seem to be the greediest ones, who luckily don't have that much offspring, but if someone wants to smoke, drink, or addle their brains with whatever they fancy we should leave them to it.
What I'm totally opposed to is forcing old people who are sick and want to die, to be sujected to all kinds of treatment which only makes their last few weeks a misery, or keeping people for ages hooked to machinery when their brains have given up long ago.
2006-09-05 16:49:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if one believes that overcrowding is a problem---something I wholeheartedly reject as an unfortunate myth---life-extension adds very little to the "problem". For example, if EVERY human that has died over history (and prehistory) were to suddenly come back to life, then the human population would approximately only double. A small amount of life-extension for only some of the current population hardly is noticeable in terms of the total population. The "problem" is reproduction, not life-extension. That is true for any situation where there is exponential growth.
2006-09-05 15:41:39 · answer #6 · answered by A professor (thus usually wrong) 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer is yes if your young and wealthy.
But if your old you want to hang on to every breath.
It all comes down to quality of life x economics of keeping alive those who are not putting anything into the wealth of a country and are a drain.
2006-09-05 12:02:24 · answer #7 · answered by Todd 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think so, but I think we should be promoting birth control in poverty-stricken countries. Also providing birth control to people who can't support families in the US.
2006-09-05 12:08:31 · answer #8 · answered by shermynewstart 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we cant stop trying our best - to deny someone life saving treatment would be frowned upon, what right does society have to determine whethera person lives or dies, surely it's their choice?
we are able to survive longer and achieve more thanks to these conditions, admittedly its precarious and is not equally balanced but thats the way the cookie crumbled, i cant see people deciding not to attempt to save more lives.
2006-09-05 15:58:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask yourself that if you ever become seriously ill. I'm sure you will hope a cure is imminent.
2006-09-05 15:17:43 · answer #10 · answered by Princess415 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋