cancer is our friend (781 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.51 on 38 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by iddqd (View user info) at 2003-06-24 23:18:27 EDT
i was having an argument about this with a friend, and wondered what others thought...
people need to die. this is about as simple as facts get. people NEED to die. we need to make room for all the people being born. every. damn. second. we need death to try and slow down the runaway freight train that is human population. various forms of cancer kill millions every year. if there were a cure for cancer these millions that should have died will not only be alive, but also, in many cases be reproducing. while this would be great for them, it wouldnt be great for humanity as a whole. why? people use resouces, particularly westerners (even more particularly in the US). there are only so many resources on this planet, and the strain placed on the planet by people who should have died would grow, exponentially, as they have children, and their children have children etc. etc. etc.
our level of technology is so shit that we still have to burn bits of the planet up to produce enough energy move around our big, inefficient, vehicles; keep our food from going stale; hell, power the computer that im writing this rant on.
this planet could not handle a cure for cancer; curing mankind of cancer would probably kill this planet (earlier than expected). i think that this is pretty clear. so why do we spend billions on this line of research? ill tell you why: because for pharmaceutical companies the cure for cancer is like the holy grail, christmas, finding out rubbing your dick feels good, hannikah (i dont know how to spell it), winning the lottery, finding out that having someone else rub your dick feels even better, and the muslim equivalent of christmas (if any), all wrapped up into one giant, happy ball of profits in the 'illions (add your own prefix).
there shouldnt be ANY research into curing cancer, YET. we should take the money spent on it, and put it into curing debilitative diseases and conditions, that arent necessarily lethal, like dementia, down syndrome, multiple sclerosis, you get the idea. aside from the fact that the unfortunate people afflicted by these conditions use far more resources than those of us that had the ridiculous fortune to swim, largley unharmed, through the gene pool, on our way to birth. more importantly, they are consigned to a life as social outcasts for no other reason than their central nervous system prevents them from expressing the perfectly lucid thoughts that their perfectly fuctioning brain may be having; or for being born with an extra chromosome, etc.
we are being hoodwinked into believing that the cure for cancer will be the panacaea for all our woes.
it would be the beginning of the end.
User Reviews
Submitted by cellar_door (user info) at 2003-06-25 23:18:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"Everyone dies alone."
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 23:08:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
also, id like to apologise to drink_ddt for calling you a fuckhead, etc.
i still think youre wrong, but i was out of line to write shit like that
and give me my damn +8 back
Submitted by Alabama (user info) at 2003-06-25 23:02:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Even though I know Ddqd was being sarcastic, I'll still be a dickhole and point out that although more people died in the 20th century from war, mass murder, famine, and disease than in Buddha-knows-how-many other centuries put together, the population still rose by billions of people.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 22:42:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
those number didnt come out the way i meant:
these are the top ten populations. from left to right the numbers are: population growth, population estimate 2002-07-01, population today
1. China (0.87%) (1,284,303,705) (1,295,324,087)
2. India (1.51%) [1,045,845,226] [1,061,421,157]
3. United States [0.89%] [280,562,489] [283,025,290]
4. Indonesia [1.54%] [231,328,092] [234,841,744]
5. Brazil [0.87%] [176,029,560] [177,540,039]
6. Pakistan [2.06%] [147,663,429] [150,663,627]
7. Russia [-0.33%] [144,978,573] [144,506,698]
8. Bangladesh [1.59%] [133,376,684] [135,468,323]
9. Nigeria [2.54%] [129,934,911] [133,190,048]
10. Japan [0.15%] [126,974,628] [127,162,481]
the number on the far right of each column is estimated DAILY growth
China [1,295,293,475] [1,295,324,087] [30,612]
India [1,061,377,891] [1,061,421,157] [43,266]
United States [283,018,449] [283,025,290] [6,841]
Indonesia [234,831,984] [234,841,744] [9,760]
Brazil [177,535,843] [177,540,039] [4,196]
Pakistan [150,655,293] [150,663,627] [8,334]
also, when i said zero population growth, i meant it to mean "replacement level" birth rate - approx 2.1 children per reproducive female india alone is at just over 3 per woman, and they have the oldest population control method - they started around 1950 (estimate)
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 22:41:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
those number didnt come out the way i meant:
these are the top ten populations. from left to right the numbers are: population growth, population estimate 2002-07-01, population today
1. China (0.87%) (1,284,303,705) (1,295,324,087)
2. India (1.51%) [1,045,845,226] [1,061,421,157]
3. United States [0.89%] [280,562,489] [283,025,290]
4. Indonesia [1.54%] [231,328,092] [234,841,744]
5. Brazil [0.87%] [176,029,560] [177,540,039]
6. Pakistan [2.06%] [147,663,429] [150,663,627]
7. Russia [-0.33%] [144,978,573] [144,506,698]
8. Bangladesh [1.59%] [133,376,684] [135,468,323]
9. Nigeria [2.54%] [129,934,911] [133,190,048]
10. Japan [0.15%] [126,974,628] [127,162,481]
DAILY growth
China [1,295,293,475] [1,295,324,087] [30,612]
India [1,061,377,891] [1,061,421,157] [43,266]
United States [283,018,449] [283,025,290] [6,841]
Indonesia [234,831,984] [234,841,744] [9,760]
Brazil [177,535,843] [177,540,039] [4,196]
Pakistan [150,655,293] [150,663,627] [8,334]
also, when i said zero population growth, i meant it to mean "replacement level" birth rate - approx 2.1 children per reproducive female india alone is at just over 3 per woman, and they have the oldest population control method - they started around 1950 (estimate)
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 22:30:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
so what youre saying with those numbers is that mexicos birth rate is DOUBLE that of canada and almost double that of the US.
and as for statistics, how about i go find my own that back up what I happen to say a about a given subject, because statics are funny like that, you can have them say pretty much whatever the hell you want, if fact ill think ill even include a quote:
"This development is particularly noteworthy in light of the Expert Group Meeting on Completing the Fertility Transition, held March 11 to 14 by the United Nations Population Division. The conference focused on the prospects for fertility decline in countries with intermediate levels of birth rates — those where couples have an average of fewer than five children but more than the 2.1 level required to "replace" themselves in the population. Such countries include India, Indonesia, and Brazil."
population refence bureau
www.prb.org
interesting quote, kinda backs up what i say, doesnt it. actually fuck it, heres another:
"However, the highest rates of growth are taking place in the poorest countries, those least prepared to provide basic services and jobs for growing numbers of young people. The people and countries most affected are concentrated in Africa and South Asia, but there are some in every developing region. In 62 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, over 40 per cent of the population is under age 15. Africa, the world's most rapidly growing region, is also the youngest, with a median age of only 18. Worldwide, over a billion people are between ages 15 and 24, the parents of the next generation."
www.unfpa.org/swp/1999/newsfeature1.htm
interesting list of countries in that quote, almost the EXACT same as the ones i used as examples - co-incidence?
also according to the UN publication on population growth india accounts for 21 PERCENT of global pop growth
heres the all-important numbers:
yearly growth population est. population today
top ten populations 2002-07-01
1. China 0.87% 1,284,303,705 1,295,324,087
2. India 1.51% 1,045,845,226 1,061,421,157
3. United States 0.89% 280,562,489 283,025,290
4. Indonesia 1.54% 231,328,092 234,841,744
5. Brazil 0.87% 176,029,560 177,540,039
6. Pakistan 2.06% 147,663,429 150,663,627
7. Russia -0.33% 144,978,573 144,506,698
8. Bangladesh 1.59% 133,376,684 135,468,323
9. Nigeria 2.54% 129,934,911 133,190,048
10. Japan 0.15% 126,974,628 127,162,481
look at the nations that have 1.5 - 2.5% growth - double, and in some cases almost TRIPLE that of the US - and the US is a bad example as they are one of the major contributors to global population - adding around 4% per - ranks around equal fourth
DAILY growth
China 1,295,293,475 1,295,324,087 30,612
India 1,061,377,891 1,061,421,157 43,266
United States 283,018,449 283,025,290 6,841
Indonesia 234,831,984 234,841,744 9,760
Brazil 177,535,843 177,540,039 4,196
Pakistan 150,655,293 150,663,627 8,334
look at the number of children being born DAILY in china and india (actually chinas doing pretty well)
if i wanted to write a fucking thesis idve gone tho the trouble of finding the sources to back me up; but i was writing about an opinion, an opinion, mind you, that no-one has disproven yet - youve just said "heres some random numbers - youre a fuckhead"
as for the constant rant about birth control - enough - i agree. i mean, for fuck sake, if im writing a post on how cancer is our friend, dont you think that im right alongside the idea of birth control?
and razor, cancer affects people of ALL ages - i had a close childhood friend die of leukemia at age 11. as for someone say we CAN cure cancer - we can only sometimes trick one into going into remission, by blasting it with radiation, wich completley fucks the recipient at the same time.
could someone please reply with a coherent post on why we shouldnt be focussing the money that goes to cancer research into more pressing concerns.
Submitted by Fleury75 (user info) at 2003-06-25 19:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok ,
whoever says that the birth count in most western countries is almost at, or already at zero. seriously needs to stop making facts up on the spot. it doesnt make you look any smarter.
Canada 11.09 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
United States 14.1 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Mexico 22.36 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Brazil 18.08 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Peru 23.36 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
etc etc etc
dude it took me like 20 seconds to find this on google.
thx for coming out
exit stage left pls
Submitted by drink_DDT (user info) at 2003-06-25 19:08:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I used the U.S. as an example. You said "western countries", so I chose the western country I know best. -8 and counting, reject.
Submitted by dakota (user info) at 2003-06-25 14:17:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Why keep trying to extend how long people live? Who wants to live past 60 anyways, you can't do shit and you will end up going crazy or being unable to take care of yourself. Of course there are some people who are still active at 90 but there are thousands more who need to be spoon fed.
Thats the thing, all this technology is making people live longer and making life fun and interesting. But maybe we are'nt supposed to be screwing with some of this stuff, maybe we aren't supposed to know. The population is gonna get so large that soon some disease will come along and be able to wipe out everyone just like that
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 14:12:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Population control will be manifesting itself whether we like it or not in the not too distant future by means of mass starvation.
China's got the idea in limiting the amoung of children per family.
Submitted by Jo at 2003-06-25 13:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Cancer stinks.
Submitted by hendrixjrr (user info) at 2003-06-25 13:35:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The problem is birth control in already poor countries.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2003-06-25 13:27:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
It's an interesting idea, but I think that you're off point about the direction we need to take it.
DDT is right, the place to control population is at birth, not at old age.
Submitted by BerZerK (user info) at 2003-06-25 12:55:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I agree with DDT.
If more people wrapped thier pythons before frolicking in the
vagina jungle then over population wouldn't be an issue.
Thats where the problem is. Not diseases that kill the people who
should rightfully live until natural death takes them.
-BerZ
Submitted by Jimmy23 (user info) at 2003-06-25 12:46:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why don't we just put all the money we fund from cancer into creating soldiers? Then these super or uber-soldiers would go around shooting random people. Each soldier would have some sort of "hunting" limit and once that was done, they would wait around for next "hunting" season. Well, cancer can be cured you nitwit. It just has to be caught in the early stages. But your talking about anytime huh? No. Find the cure for cancer, why the hell not? If it isn't cancer, its going to be something else. Hell, when is the earth going to die again? Better yet, take all the money from the cancer research and pump it into space research. By nasa's orginal time tables, we were supposed to be at mars by now.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 12:44:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I you are talking of energy in the macroscopic sense, then you must learn to obey the laws of thermodynamics. If you understand thermodynamics then you will also understand that there will never be a renwable energy source in the manner of which you are thinking.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 12:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
everything we do requires energy. everything. let me reiterate that: EVERYTHING WE DO REQUIRES ENERGY.
are you just standing in a field watching birds fly around, doing absolutely nothing?
are you wearing clothes while doing this? - energy
how did you get there? did you drive, ride a bike, catch a bus? - energy
in fact the most over-rated resource on this planet is people.
oh, the sanctity, and special, unique, specialness that is the universal miracle of human life - bullshit.
youre thinking that energy = electricity and only electricity. energy surrounds us and binds us - wait, no, thats the force...
anyway, this is way off base, my post was about the necessity of people to die, so that the rest of have a chance at living, and creating a reality where this is not so. which means that things like cancer are our friends. for the meantime.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 12:01:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So fucking what? Renewable energy won't keep the earth's ecosystem supporting our neccesity for agriculture. Renewable energy won't produce water to quence every person's thirst.
Renewable energy will do one thing: Ensure that I can play my gamecube.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 11:51:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
making the world a better place for our offspring and renewable energy/resources are two completely linked ideas. weve fucked this palnet because of our consumptive nature. we need energy.
WE FUCKING NEEEED IT. its our dope, our smack, our tub of chocolate ice-cream after a breakup.
its a simple equation:
people need energy
more people = higher requirement for energy
no cancer = more people
more people = higher requirement for energy
as for less human minds there are 6 BILLION people on the planet - we need quality not quantity.
of those 6 billion maybe 1 of those billions are able to enjoy the comforts that you and i take completely for granted. the planet barely supports us and our reckless hedonism.
and you know what the scary thing is?
the rest of the world is catching up.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 11:49:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Time to get on the short bus because you sir are a moron.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 11:47:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are NOT your fucking pocket calculator.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 11:47:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake: you are the same decaying organic matter as everything else.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 11:47:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If you fucktards would take a couple seconds and look at the core facts the statistics provide, you would not be arguing over this. Misconstruing statistics pisses the ever loving shit out of me.
The United States of America is not the center of the universe.
Submitted by turveytopsy (user info) at 2003-06-25 11:01:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
First off I don't think a cure for cancer will ever be considered a panacaea for our woes as much a testament to human achievement. Secondly human life is a resource whether you view it as such or not. Less human beigns = less human minds ~ less potential for innovation and the 'ability to save the world.' Renewable energy is yet another over-tauted achievement that the global community is striving for. Much like a cure for cancer, renewable energy sources won't save us from our date with global catastrophy. We've fucked ourselves long enough to the point in which trying to save the world is pointless. It will invariably end. Now, making the world a better place for our offspring... That's a totally different subject.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 10:59:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well, fuck me, DDT. i completely FORGOT that the united states of the centere of the fucking UNIVERSE was the only nation worth mentioning. 14.3 kids per THOUSAND? how about you get you calculator out and divide that. now lets say that only 400 of that 1000 are (hetero)adults able to reproduce that works out to about 0.03575 kids per adult. pretty damn close to zero id say.
forget that for a second. you wanna compare those numers with many african nations? some south american nations? have you seen the population of fucking india lately, motherfucker? now compare the growth of those nations to western europe, britain, australia AND the centre of the fucking universe ( the US for the slower ones out there)
so just over half a million died of cancer in the US alone in 1999. seeing as how the US has a population of about 280mil; fuck it, lets call it 300 million that leaves about 5.7 BILLION others on the planet so lets just extroplate the same percentage of population... works out to around 10000000 people.
in one fucking year alone. so iguess my claims are right on the fucking money.
believe it or not you are right about one thing!
well, almost.
birth control and abortion and AN answer, but like everythings else in life not THE answer
give me back my +6, fuckhead
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-06-25 10:57:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I agree with drink. Abortion and birth control. I don't want to die of cancer at the age of 32. If I get cancer at that point, I want you to feel sorry for me and keep your motuh shut about the circle of life. I couldn't give a fuck less at that point.
Peace,
STREETPUNK
Submitted by drink_DDT (user info) at 2003-06-25 09:26:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
make it -6.
In 1999 the U.S. had a 14.3 birth rate (thats 14.3 births for every 1,000 people). So, since the population of the U.S. was 272,639,608 in 1999, that means there were 3,898,737 births (I should research how many of these births were teenagers or otherwise unwanted, but I'm lazy). Only 549,829 people died of cancer in 1999(including all cancers).
Birth control and abortion. The answers.
Submitted by drink_DDT (user info) at 2003-06-25 09:03:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Well you deserve a -4 for saying most western countries have a zero birth rate.
Are you smokin' pole?
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 08:52:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
replying to drink_ddt:
most western countries already have very close to, if not already zero birth rate.
"The people who make it out of the womb should live as long as they can"
i dont necessarily disagree with this statement, but there are better things to be spending our research dollars on than, millions of people we really cant afford to have living, at this stage of our development.
those dollars could go into finding newer, better, and most importantly RENEWABLE resources, or into making sure those that "make it out of the womb" live productive lives, free from the shadow of debilitative diseases.
and what the fuck is with the -2? that was a quality bit of writing!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2003-06-25 08:33:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
agree, fucked up but agree.
Submitted by drink_DDT (user info) at 2003-06-25 08:07:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
What we need is more abortions, less cancer. The people who make it out of the womb should live as long as they can.
Cure cancer. Try birth control.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2003-06-25 03:33:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
so we should exacerbate overpopulation before we try to solve it?
im trying to think of an equally short-sighted comparison, but am at a loss, can someone help me out here?
Submitted by helios123 (user info) at 2003-06-25 02:46:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Yet this is a valid point I dont think it's right. After solving this "holy grail", maybe we can finally invest time and money into finding new energy, or solving the problem of overpopulation.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2003-06-25 01:23:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Who cares about the world and it's resources? I don't give a shit. Fuck the world, fuck all the people that live in it, I don't know them. If there was a cure for cancer, I would feel just a bit more comfortable, a bit safer. And it's all about me. Me, me, me. Me and my comfort, that's my main concern, not some unlucky bitch in the year 2100 who has to suffer from less oil, trees, and all that gay shit. I know, I'm a greedy bastard. Oh well.
I'll give you a +2 though, because it was a very interesting read. And to keep your +2 streak going.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-06-25 00:34:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i only read a little bit of this, but i agree. without shit like Cancer and AIDS and SARS and shit, we'd overpopulate and die.
GODDAMN POP-UPS!!!! FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!
anyway, this world can't support the amount of people that would be around without war and famine and disease. i'm not saying if you have Cancer, i hope you die right now, but seriously, people need to face the facts- everyone dies. some just do it sooner. that's life.
i'm getting tired of people using my computer when i'm not around and getting fucking spyware installed unknowingly. goddamnit. i'm changing my fucking password.
Submitted by Cymensen (user info) at 2003-06-25 00:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree with you. It's also why I support abortion. Personally though, I believe there is only one way to solve overpopulation - colonization of space. I know that sounds like SciFi crap, but the fact is that the human race will have to eventually or we will fail and die. We could do that or we could leave. Hey, if the planet is overcrowded a lot of people will be willing to leave anyway since it would suck so much.
Submitted by settle (user info) at 2003-06-24 23:49:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
karma is a bitch. you're pracitcally begging for cancer.
Submitted by SorryAboutThat (user info) at 2003-06-24 23:43:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment