Because the elimination of disease, and their treatments would cause economic downturn?
2007-03-23 07:11:07 · 3 answers · asked by Diesel Weasel 7 in Social Science ➔ Economics
It is tru that diseases are natures way of keeping the population in check. However, many diseases today are probably man made ie AIDS and Ebola. The drug companies have a monopoly on cures for most diseases. Thus it is lucrative to not cure a disease but rather create treatments for them.
2007-03-23 08:35:07 · answer #1 · answered by stunna3m 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually, in a strange way yes, disease and pestilence are part of the great plan.
Nature (God?) has designed this plan to create a "balance of nature" that ensures that the Earth is not too quickly over-populated and therefore can survive the future.
Although this is counter-acted by man's ability to discover vaccine immunity to certain diseases allowing him to live even longer.
Other arguments against this theorem of course would be the starvation that is taking place in Africa but, the world is slowly coming around to relieving Earth of this malady also.
To surmise, it could be theorized that while the number of births on this Earth are enormous in numbers, there also must be a balance with the number of deaths...whether they be by simple old-age or on the darker side, by accidents and disease.
2007-03-23 14:18:43 · answer #2 · answered by GeneL 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why stop with the question? Why don't you just go ahead and name me some specific doctors who are creating and promoting diseases just to make sure that they keep making money? After all, that's why people go to med school in the first place -- to learn how to make other people sick.
I think you should be a hero and hold them to account.
2007-03-23 15:44:31 · answer #3 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋