![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 7th, 2005 02:44 amSo.. there's this thing that Rev. Jake mentioned last Friday while Barbara, Amy, and I were having lunch with him. I asked Jessyka about it today too, but I still can't really figure out how I feel about it, so I'm going to write my thoughts and hopefully reach a (pseudo) conclusion by the end.
In 5th grade, I learned about a certain genetic disease. Of course, it figures that I can't for the life of me remember what that disease is, but back then, it was the most exciting and important thing ever. It's what got me interested in cells and physiology and, I guess more generally, the entirety of biology. I remember thinking, on multiple occasions, that my new life goal would be to solve the mystery of this genetic disease and find a cure for it.
So basically, it turns out that my life dreams have no net change since 5th grade. I still want to research diseases, and hey, it would be awesome if the work I did got us closer to a cure for any of them. But then.. there's this thing that bothers me.
Disease is partially nature's way of controlling population. It sucks a lot, depending on the particular disease someone (or some people) might have, but there will always be disease, and there will always be a need for disease to keep the population in check. As it is, we are having trouble with overpopulation. Millions of people starve because we don't have the resources to feed or shelter them.
If I work towards finding cures for disease, I could potentially lower human suffering.. at least from a pathologist's point of view. But then those people would live longer, and they would require more resources.. and if there's already a shortage of them, who's to say that they wouldn't be suffering? What if, even if this hypothetical person is cured from some disease, they still suffer (or die from) the effects of starvation? Is that any better than suffering and dying from illness?
I know that you might think I'm a morbid or terrible person for thinking this, but.. I've just been wondering about it for awhile now. I know that it would be elitist, narrow-minded, and cruel of me to not curb suffering if I could. Just because I'm not suffering and am really quite comfortable in my life doesn't mean that I can ignore anyone who is disadvantaged. Besides, they didn't ask to be sick. And if I got sick with something terrible, I damn sure would want someone helping me out.
Of course, I have to remember that diseases are far from rigid. They change all the time. Even if I worked to cure one, another would soon present itself, and many more people would suffer and/or die from it. So maybe humanity and pathogens have worked out an equilibrium, and as much as humans have the need to cure their ailments, pathogens have the need to change (and probably would change with or without the aid of humans), so the system works out quite nicely.
Maybe what I just need to remember is that eliminating human suffering is impossible. I'm fortunate for the position I'm in, and I've been blessed thus far in life, even though I complain about a lot of things all the time. But I know they're usually stupid things, and sometimes I feel bad for whining about them. Anyway. Even if we may never get rid of a net amount of diseases, we can get rid of some.. and those we have already found cures or vaccinations for are/were pretty awful (though, of course, others have popped up, e.g. AIDS). Besides, cures give people hope, and that's always a good thing.
Well. That was easier than I expected.
In 5th grade, I learned about a certain genetic disease. Of course, it figures that I can't for the life of me remember what that disease is, but back then, it was the most exciting and important thing ever. It's what got me interested in cells and physiology and, I guess more generally, the entirety of biology. I remember thinking, on multiple occasions, that my new life goal would be to solve the mystery of this genetic disease and find a cure for it.
So basically, it turns out that my life dreams have no net change since 5th grade. I still want to research diseases, and hey, it would be awesome if the work I did got us closer to a cure for any of them. But then.. there's this thing that bothers me.
Disease is partially nature's way of controlling population. It sucks a lot, depending on the particular disease someone (or some people) might have, but there will always be disease, and there will always be a need for disease to keep the population in check. As it is, we are having trouble with overpopulation. Millions of people starve because we don't have the resources to feed or shelter them.
If I work towards finding cures for disease, I could potentially lower human suffering.. at least from a pathologist's point of view. But then those people would live longer, and they would require more resources.. and if there's already a shortage of them, who's to say that they wouldn't be suffering? What if, even if this hypothetical person is cured from some disease, they still suffer (or die from) the effects of starvation? Is that any better than suffering and dying from illness?
I know that you might think I'm a morbid or terrible person for thinking this, but.. I've just been wondering about it for awhile now. I know that it would be elitist, narrow-minded, and cruel of me to not curb suffering if I could. Just because I'm not suffering and am really quite comfortable in my life doesn't mean that I can ignore anyone who is disadvantaged. Besides, they didn't ask to be sick. And if I got sick with something terrible, I damn sure would want someone helping me out.
Of course, I have to remember that diseases are far from rigid. They change all the time. Even if I worked to cure one, another would soon present itself, and many more people would suffer and/or die from it. So maybe humanity and pathogens have worked out an equilibrium, and as much as humans have the need to cure their ailments, pathogens have the need to change (and probably would change with or without the aid of humans), so the system works out quite nicely.
Maybe what I just need to remember is that eliminating human suffering is impossible. I'm fortunate for the position I'm in, and I've been blessed thus far in life, even though I complain about a lot of things all the time. But I know they're usually stupid things, and sometimes I feel bad for whining about them. Anyway. Even if we may never get rid of a net amount of diseases, we can get rid of some.. and those we have already found cures or vaccinations for are/were pretty awful (though, of course, others have popped up, e.g. AIDS). Besides, cures give people hope, and that's always a good thing.
Well. That was easier than I expected.
