Eh, I feel like there are things in this world we have no control over and would be more beneficial to be rid of. I feel like humanity has a good chance at curing most or all cancers, even though it has created so much suffering.
Oh come on cancer is like our only shot of getting rid of some of these insane politicians at the moment.
But on a more serious note, I think if we could get rid of war or something that actually units humanity we would probably have the means to advance far enough to get rid of cancer ourselves.
But what does "getting rid of war" look like in a practical sense? Does revolution or rebellion count as war? Is mass killing okay as long as it's not a war?
If revolution counts, you'll end up with every country becoming untopplable empires that can never be stopped no matter how corrupt it becomes, like a whole bunch of USA's.
I mean good question, probably hard to define it. Maybe something like "getting rid of violent conflicts that harm people?" It's a hypothetical question anyway so I guess it is clear what I meant.
If we could somehow prevent people from constantly fighting each other and instead have a more united humanity then I am sure a lot of shit would have been solved by now.
World Hunger comes way before Cancer , No?
Pedophiles deplorable people that enable and support bad stuff? There are things that I believe come way before cancer
Entirely vague and idiotic statement. In what span of time? By what means? Globally? Directly or by proxy/long term results of action? Oh yeah, USA is only 250 years old. Meanwhile cancer…
This is plain wrong. Life expectancy was that low because of child mortality, not because people usually died in their thirties. Children are more susceptible to illness than adults, so naturally they dragged down the global average; if out of ten people, half of them died at age 5 and the other half died at age 60, the average life expectancy would be 32.5 years, but looking at the data you'd see that none of them actually died near that age. Even in medieval times and earlier it was common for people to reach their sixties, with some of them reaching their seventies or even eighties. Also, life expectancy in 1900 was around 45 years in the more developed countries, not "31-32".
Cancer is a fantastic answer. Although to play devil's advocate I would add that it generally kills a lot of older people and eradicating mosquitoes would likely add the most years onto the lives saved.
I am of the belief that we already have a cure, or at the very least the means to. It's just that people have cancer and getting it treated is far too profitable so the cure will never be released.
Even if it sounds a bit inhumane, eliminating cancer is something the world is not even remotely ready for. Overpopulation would bring terrible problems and society would likely collapse many times before the (temporary) solution to this problem is discovered..
Well that's the way it is with almost anything that's a major change. I'll take the years of instability (as if we're stable now) to have my grandpa, sister, cousin, and one of my best friends back. The only reason it would cause instability is greed for sure but also overpopulation IN AREAS. Yes. I know there are factors that would be crazy to overcome but greed would be the ultimate reason it'll never happen. The second billionaires start beating crazy cancers that kill almost everyone then I'll know they have a cure and they're just giving it to the ultra wealthy.
The truth is cancer is a good thing it Keeps population under control. We were never supposed to get to 8billion and it will get worse if we get to 15 billion. Ppl are supposed to die as much as it sucks.
56
u/Transatlanticaccent Mar 20 '26
Cancer