Ok very old question, if you were in the position where you could cure all the world's diseases but you had to take the life of one innocent child would you do it?

At the risk of sounding cold, I have to say that I would do it in a blink, without second thought.

Cure all diseases? I'm sure that would have all kinds of nasty side-effects.

Overpopulation? Crash of half the Health Care industry? Possible end of biological warfare? Almost no medical monopoly? Longer lifespans? Please point out the nasty side-effects.

I would.

I don't know, I'm not a medical specialist. But nature isn't meant to be messed with. Don't diseases have an important role in Human Evolution?

[ 12-28-2003, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Of course, 1 life of 1 innocent child will save the lives of a million lives of a million innocent children. Its a no brainer.

Dependant Dreamer. They most definately do involve evolution however, heres the thing. When people die from lets say... malaria, the survivors bred for generations eventually ending up with Sickle Cell Anemia, this prevents malaria because the malformed cells don't have the oxygen for the parasite. However, if malaria never existed, why would we ever need sickle cell anemia? The disease causes the evolution, without the disease the evolution isn't necessary.

Overpopulation would be the biggest concern IMO.

[ 12-28-2003, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Azimaith ]

Well, let's just hope that off-world habitats come active as soon as possible. :D

Well, how many people really die of disease in the first world? I think overpopulation in Africa is partially caused by disease. Because people feel they might no longer be able to work at a later age, they make sure they have plenty of kids to take care of them.

I would have to say yes What would make this more interesting would be if it was would you cure all the worlds diseases butyou had to die yourself

This is really the same question except it adds something personal to it which makes it totally different.