{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by shell:
9/21/2016 11:43:48 PM
24
Our pathetic human bodies need medicine. We aren't quite as hardy as our ancestors, so without medicine we would likely have a lower life expectancy than them.
[spoiler]Haven't seen you in a while.[/spoiler]
English
-
No they dont. This is why we have an immune system, the weak immune systems die and cannot replicate and make us weaker. But with medicine, we have stopped this natural selection for our comfort and wants. It's too late to turn back, too many would die, in the millions, to things as simple as a cold. But if it were to happen, it would be the best thing for humanity and for the continual well being of our civilization. But that'll never happen.
-
I'm curious as to why you think a drastically smaller population would be benef6to humanity. I do believe that we would be better off (and the planet as well), but to an extent.
-
A stronger line of humanity would be more resistant to deadly disease. Over time, we obtain natural immunity from disease. If we are able to gain enough resistance without the help of medicines, it will create a stronger immune society better fit to face disease. Sadly though, medicine will always exist and always intervene with natural immunity.
-
Sorry. Another addition: I still need to completely read that source. Some of it does not really pertain to our discussion; you can just skip ahead to the parts where economic, social, and political issues are mentioned. I also want to mention that while this is one of my beliefs (as stated in a previous comment), the effects of the Black Plague (and therefore other diseases) are not conclusive and are still a source of debate among scholars. There. Disclaimer over. Ha ha.
-
Edited by xNyasha: 9/22/2016 12:48:46 AMThis may be a good article relating to my previous comment: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/.
-
What you're saying is true, but you're ignoring the drastic costs of letting nature take its toll. Every disease that devastates the human population in that circumstance similarly devastates whatever human institutions may be in place; economically, a disease left to take its toll would greatly reduce the supply of goods and services in many markets. Depending on the market, other negative conditions may then rise and damage the human population (i.e. starvation and famine for a period of time). It's reasonable to assume that the threat of these destructive illnesses would loom over society in such a way that they would indirectly restrict specialization and therefore technological advancement. Dor example, innovation in multiple fields is the result of extensive differentiation in terms of learning, skills, and careers. With the threat of disease, I believe that humans would generally be wary of specializing and branching out into many fields, fearing the loss of certain branches due to illness. This would no doubt lead to a less innovative and progressive society. Of course, I don't believe that is the [i]only[/i] possibility, but I do think it is a viable one.
-
Well, natural immunity is passed from mother to fetus, so eventually humans do become more resistant to disease. I can see its effect on us, but the overall outcome would be better. Although now, if we were to take away medicine it would destroy civilizations. But civilizations were already growing without advanced medicines. Infact, they grew more when running water and hygiene was introduced. I just think that nature has a perfect way of protecting the human race through the immune system, it's able to adapt and combat every challenge it faces, even if it fails, there is another immune system that may be able to build immunity, that immunity is passed on for generations. And medicine disrupts that immunity. Honestly though, let's move away from this topic, boring really.
-
Edited by xNyasha: 9/22/2016 12:59:34 AMOh, okay. Hope we meet on another post to to talk about something else. Ha ha.
-
Ha, cya man
-
So your argument is eugenics > medicine. Brilliant.
-
And yes, a stronger humanity means a weaker disease. This happens naturally over thousands of years and has led to the decrease in disease, even without vaccinations..
-
So you liked being friends with high ranking members of the NSDAP?
-
Read my further comments and you will get your answer. I support natural eugenics. Eugenics happens over time it's called adaptation and evolving. I support natural adaptation
-
Congratulations for supporting evolution and adaptation, I'm proud of you. If it's natural, it will occur in time there is no need to force it
-
That's my point
-
But your missing the point that drugs help people live
-
Then why is there vaccinations?
-
If you are sincere about what you just said, then I have nothing more to say to you.
-
And no, I'm not into the nasis(z) way of eugenics. More like natural eugenics over thousands of years. The weak die the strong live. It's natural.
-
Eugenics is still Eugenics. I refer you to my previous statement.
-
Whatever man, eugenics that is naturally occurring is called evolving and adapting. That's what I believe humanity is best at without the help of man made drugs.
-
Agree to disagree.
-
Wait, wrong guy. My bad, hard to remember who I'm responding to.
-
Yes. At this time, hygiene and running water was an important element of the eradication of disease. If you would like, I can show you death states that prove vaccines did not help the eradication of diseases. Infact, they are creating more super viruses and bacteria that are immune to anti biotics.
