Is death and disease mankind's friend ?

Question

Considering the fact that an overpopulatd planet may spell doom for mankind ..... are death and disease really our friends ? Is curing disease and increasing mankind's lifespan really counterproductive ??

Answer 1

Certainly overpopulation is an important issue in the modern world, but a big part of the problem is not in the sheer number of people, but in the amount of resources that the most well-off consume. That's a key point.

Also, raising the quality of life throughout the world would not have trivial results. There are reasons why the birth rates in modernized countries are so much lower than those in the developing world. A key reason is education, and a foundation for education is a certain minimum quality of life. Improve people's lives and they will have fewer children.

Finally, to give up on the fight against disease would certainly do harm to us all. Ignoring, for the moment, the billions of people who would actually have to get the infectious diseases and die, would it really be worth implementing a world-wide program of apathy and risk infecting the entire human population, in which case we would all certainly die? Well, from nature's standpoint, yes. She doesn't care if we live or die. But from our standpoint, or from your standpoint, no. Disease outbreaks are hard to control, and as they grow they get even harder. Who knows if you would be one of the hapless victims of this depopulation.

Now, I'm not sure if that's what you were suggesting, but I think it best to always see disease as an enemy, and to fight overpopulation in other ways.

Answer 2

Theoretically, it is possible to eradicate diseases and increase mankind's lifespan. With more extensive research on telomeres, humans can even be immortal. However, in real life, things are not as perfect. Diseases will never be eradicated. As more diseases becomes curable, newer diseases will be born. It is because evolution takes place all the time. Virus and bacteria adapts to the new env very quickly given their simplicity in structure. Eg, Many different strains of influrenza, etc. Thus, it's very possible that even with the most advanced medical technology, humans would still not be able to catch up with the speed of evolution.

Advanced medical technology would also result in over-reliance of the people, leading to weaker immune system. Humans would be more susceptible to diseases, and when epidemic breaks out, it's impact on the world would be too large. The world would plunge into darkness, where not even the most advanced medical technology would save the people

However, I'm not saying to give up on curing diseases and prolonging lifespan. As humans, it's in our innate nature to care for others. Not only that, we are often being restricted by ethics and religion, where society has already decided long before that curing diseases is 'good', and killing is 'bad'.

Yes, we shouldn't give up curing diseases, but, it is very important for us to limit the use of drugs. Let nature take its course. Only then, would cures be truly beneficial for humankind.

Answer 3

An overpopulated planet does not spell doom for mankind. In fact, an overpopulated planet generally spells death and disease.

Regardless, humans are on the brink of taking control of their own evolution. Biological evolution will no longer apply to us; we will decide the fate of our own genetic code. Living forever is certainly possible with advanced genetic tinkering.

Answer 4

disease can be a densit dependant control on population. As we increase our population we become more crowded and susceptible to contagious diseases. They can act as a check on uncontrolled, exponential growth.