5 ms·

Huge news. This will save tons of people as the cost comes down. We are truly living in the future.

by janalsncm 4y ago

nullish_signal 4y ago
- hughes 4y ago
  Are you saying Alyssa's rare form of leukemia should not have a cure because she and her friends in oncology might quadruple the planet's population?
- subroutine 4y ago
  Would you trade (a) total cure for all cancer for (b) the human population to go from 8 to 16 billion? Yes, absolutely. Surely population growth can be dealt with more humanely than killing people off with cancer.
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    I disagree with the notion of benevolent DOCTORS "Killing people off with cancer". Was the patient body full of DOW Chemical or DDT or Big Gulps or Pharmaceuticals[0]? industrial Society and Old Age are what "kill people by means of cancer" [0] USA being the only country I know of to allow public Advertisement of Controlled medicines
    - subroutine 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about. Choosing to not cure cancer is killing people off with cancer. The little girl in the article had leukemia. It sounds like you would prefer to let children die of cancer because of your weariness of population growth.
- ryanwaggoner 4y ago
  I believe the world population is expected to peak this century, not because of people dying or starving at higher rates, but because when countries become more developed, their birth rates plummet. I don’t think there’s any reason to think curing all diseases and ensuring no one ever starved again would change that.
- tsujamin 4y ago
  Echoing a response to a nearly invisible comment above, why did make this comment? These sorts of articles are a weird attractor on this site…
- unlikelymordant 4y ago
  You arent anti-natalist, so your view is that people should be born and die from preventable disease or starvation ("medicine and agriculture saved them")? Isnt anti-natalism preferable to that?
- SapporoChris 4y ago
  The idea that we should not progress because we might have more populace is repulsive. A simple reversal of the idea is insightful. Should we minimalize the human population? Seems absurd.
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    Homeostasis. I propose the DEFAULT be no growth or no decay. Of course it's natural for animals to spread and be fertile. Of course. But we already conquered and inhabited everywhere with land and water. Obviously Technology will advance or stall (or collapse) regardless of my small whims -\o/-
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"What happens when there are 16 or 32 Billion people?" Not sure about other part but in the western world birth rate is gong down and is not enough to offset decrease of the population. Having people leave longer will not change it in any way. If we ever grow to this number it will not be because of curing cancer. >"Even the idea that "GDP should rise 2% every year" makes me nauseous." You think anybody responsible for GDP growth gives a hoot about what "makes you nauseous"?
- Tade0 4y ago
  Past projections of human population growth were generally overblown, because nobody expected e.g. China's population to (officially) peak this year. Meanwhile world population growth peaked in the late 60s and has been in decline ever since. The 21st century will likely see the global population reaching its limit at less than 11bln. That's still a lot, but not nearly as much as 16bln.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Still, it could be like saying "Falling from the 8th floor is nothing like falling from the 20th", despite the fact that both of them are fatal.
    - nullish_signal 4y ago
      If 8 or more story-falls are fatal... 8-Town limits hi-rises to 8-Stories 20-Town limits hi-rises to 20-Stories Which Town and what Height of Buildings would you rather be a tenant of? ...I don't know about Human Population, but I know that "more code" is certainly not "better code", just as "more sub-systems" does not mean "more quality of code"
      - d_tr 4y ago
        Stop embarrassing yourself. You started by talking about population growth in a post about a kid's cancer, and now you are continuing with making stupid analogies that barely make sense. Getting rid of cancer will alleviate a huge source of suffering and despair and it will do nothing of consequence to the population. Even if it did we should not care.
- dools 4y ago
  There will only be 11b people
- zamfi 4y ago
  Don't worry, there's no shortage of ways to prevent getting to 16 or 32 billion people. First among those is that very few countries have birth rates that exceed replacement rates! And the others are on a very strong trend to follow over the next 10-20 years.
- gizmo686 4y ago
  A) We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally. Societies seem to adapt over time by decreasing birthrates to compensate [0]. In fact, in most of the developed world, birth rates are below replacement rate. B) Despite all of the medical advances we have made, we have hardly put a dent in old age. Medical science has made great progress in stopping people from dieing young, which has pushed up the average lifespan. But a 100 year old today is still likely to die within a few years even with the most advanced medical treatment. Having said that, at some point, we are likely to start making breakthroughs in maximum lifespan, which could very quickly put us back into rapid population growth. Eventually, we would probably see society adjust to the point that having any children is no longer expected of a typical human, but that could be a painful transition depending on how quickly we we go from a lifespan of ~100 to unbounded. [0] Although it is not clear if this is directly related to infant mortality, or a response to broader economic changes,
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    The guesses at what culture might look like in a fully-populated planet, beyond the reduction of birth rates, is a very interesting consideration.
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    I must add, a reply to my moaning about limitless exponential human growth that starts off with "We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally." ...certainly makes me feel feelings about population growth!!
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The immediate feelings you had before you read the second sentence are not good conversational material.
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      You have a lot of feelings about stuff that is. As I get older, that seems incredibly unproductive and I stopped doing that.
- bglazer 4y ago
  You first
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Better to have more people than to be on the down slope of demography where the world world ages faster and faster
- mmsc 4y ago
  I thought the same thing initially, then I realized that rare forms of cancer are... rare. Not that many people die from them to cause a significant increase (or lack of decrease) in the population.
- tptacek 4y ago
  You can't simultaneously be pro-natalist and anti-exponentialist, at least not without being a Bond villain.

Huge news. This will save tons of people as the cost comes down. We are truly living in the future.

nullish_signal 4y ago

hughes 4y ago
Are you saying Alyssa's rare form of leukemia should not have a cure because she and her friends in oncology might quadruple the planet's population?
subroutine 4y ago
Would you trade (a) total cure for all cancer for (b) the human population to go from 8 to 16 billion? Yes, absolutely. Surely population growth can be dealt with more humanely than killing people off with cancer.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  I disagree with the notion of benevolent DOCTORS "Killing people off with cancer". Was the patient body full of DOW Chemical or DDT or Big Gulps or Pharmaceuticals[0]? industrial Society and Old Age are what "kill people by means of cancer" [0] USA being the only country I know of to allow public Advertisement of Controlled medicines
  - subroutine 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you're talking about. Choosing to not cure cancer is killing people off with cancer. The little girl in the article had leukemia. It sounds like you would prefer to let children die of cancer because of your weariness of population growth.
ryanwaggoner 4y ago
I believe the world population is expected to peak this century, not because of people dying or starving at higher rates, but because when countries become more developed, their birth rates plummet. I don’t think there’s any reason to think curing all diseases and ensuring no one ever starved again would change that.
tsujamin 4y ago
Echoing a response to a nearly invisible comment above, why did make this comment? These sorts of articles are a weird attractor on this site…
unlikelymordant 4y ago
You arent anti-natalist, so your view is that people should be born and die from preventable disease or starvation ("medicine and agriculture saved them")? Isnt anti-natalism preferable to that?
SapporoChris 4y ago
The idea that we should not progress because we might have more populace is repulsive. A simple reversal of the idea is insightful. Should we minimalize the human population? Seems absurd.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  Homeostasis. I propose the DEFAULT be no growth or no decay. Of course it's natural for animals to spread and be fertile. Of course. But we already conquered and inhabited everywhere with land and water. Obviously Technology will advance or stall (or collapse) regardless of my small whims -\o/-
FpUser 4y ago
>"What happens when there are 16 or 32 Billion people?" Not sure about other part but in the western world birth rate is gong down and is not enough to offset decrease of the population. Having people leave longer will not change it in any way. If we ever grow to this number it will not be because of curing cancer. >"Even the idea that "GDP should rise 2% every year" makes me nauseous." You think anybody responsible for GDP growth gives a hoot about what "makes you nauseous"?
Tade0 4y ago
Past projections of human population growth were generally overblown, because nobody expected e.g. China's population to (officially) peak this year. Meanwhile world population growth peaked in the late 60s and has been in decline ever since. The 21st century will likely see the global population reaching its limit at less than 11bln. That's still a lot, but not nearly as much as 16bln.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Still, it could be like saying "Falling from the 8th floor is nothing like falling from the 20th", despite the fact that both of them are fatal.
  - nullish_signal 4y ago
    If 8 or more story-falls are fatal... 8-Town limits hi-rises to 8-Stories 20-Town limits hi-rises to 20-Stories Which Town and what Height of Buildings would you rather be a tenant of? ...I don't know about Human Population, but I know that "more code" is certainly not "better code", just as "more sub-systems" does not mean "more quality of code"
    - d_tr 4y ago
      Stop embarrassing yourself. You started by talking about population growth in a post about a kid's cancer, and now you are continuing with making stupid analogies that barely make sense. Getting rid of cancer will alleviate a huge source of suffering and despair and it will do nothing of consequence to the population. Even if it did we should not care.
dools 4y ago
There will only be 11b people
zamfi 4y ago
Don't worry, there's no shortage of ways to prevent getting to 16 or 32 billion people. First among those is that very few countries have birth rates that exceed replacement rates! And the others are on a very strong trend to follow over the next 10-20 years.
gizmo686 4y ago
A) We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally. Societies seem to adapt over time by decreasing birthrates to compensate [0]. In fact, in most of the developed world, birth rates are below replacement rate. B) Despite all of the medical advances we have made, we have hardly put a dent in old age. Medical science has made great progress in stopping people from dieing young, which has pushed up the average lifespan. But a 100 year old today is still likely to die within a few years even with the most advanced medical treatment. Having said that, at some point, we are likely to start making breakthroughs in maximum lifespan, which could very quickly put us back into rapid population growth. Eventually, we would probably see society adjust to the point that having any children is no longer expected of a typical human, but that could be a painful transition depending on how quickly we we go from a lifespan of ~100 to unbounded. [0] Although it is not clear if this is directly related to infant mortality, or a response to broader economic changes,
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  The guesses at what culture might look like in a fully-populated planet, beyond the reduction of birth rates, is a very interesting consideration.
- nullish_signal 4y ago
  I must add, a reply to my moaning about limitless exponential human growth that starts off with "We have already largely solved infant mortality in the developed world, and are making progress on the issue globally." ...certainly makes me feel feelings about population growth!!
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    The immediate feelings you had before you read the second sentence are not good conversational material.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    You have a lot of feelings about stuff that is. As I get older, that seems incredibly unproductive and I stopped doing that.
bglazer 4y ago
You first
ekianjo 4y ago
Better to have more people than to be on the down slope of demography where the world world ages faster and faster
mmsc 4y ago
I thought the same thing initially, then I realized that rare forms of cancer are... rare. Not that many people die from them to cause a significant increase (or lack of decrease) in the population.
tptacek 4y ago
You can't simultaneously be pro-natalist and anti-exponentialist, at least not without being a Bond villain.