3 ms·
> They don't even want to cure cancer Spread this fud somewhere else, please! Yes, the "cure for cancer" will most likely come in the form of treatments that w
by nnq 14y ago
> They don't even want to cure cancer
Spread this fud somewhere else, please! Yes, the "cure for cancer" will most likely come in the form of treatments that will more or less "tame" it and manage it like a chronical disease, so you will be able to live decades with it just like you could live with heart disease - and yeas, this will mean shitloads of money for pharmaceutical companies that will sell tons of expensive drugs, but they work better and better and they will keep you alive some day.
And trust me, everyone wants a cure for cancer (I mean a "real" cure, not just something that for 70% of cancers will prolong your life enough so you can still die at 70).
That's because solving the cancer problem is not only about cancer itself! It's actually a door, that once we open we'll be able to stare at the road to "the fountain of life" itself - yeah, it might take a few generations after opening the door to actually reach there, but it will be within reach. Le me explain you: cancer is one big thing, the biggest imho, that prevents advances in areas like genetic therapies and lots of areas of what we call regenerative medicine (because, to put it in simpler terms, nobody will research a therapy that will make you live longer but has 10% chances of giving you a killer cancer - that will mean that statistically, the therapy will not make you live longer). At the same time, understanding cellular regulation at the level needed to actually solve cancer is the same type of understanding needed to slow aging, regenerate organs etc.. Imagine cancer as the dragon guarding the "fountain of youth": once you kill it, sooner or later someone will figure out a way to get to it and use it's water. Everyone wants it killed! After solving cancer, with heart disease remaining the main killer in the developing world, all resources could be dedicated to "growing hearts" for example, or "repairing clogged vessels" and these problems will be solved sooner or later because, at a level, they are actually engineering problems, they don't really require that much new science to solve, just tons of data about cellular regulatory pathways and such - and we'll already have lots of it from the cancer research.
Yeah, the medical professionals or researchers like to keep their feet on the ground and not talk about such "lofty" scify-like ideas - but everybody with some understanding of science and medicine knows things are along these lines...
TL;DR "Solving cancer" is not only about cancer - it's about immor-fucking-tality! (and everyone wants this!)
- tomjen3 14y agoIf it is about immortalitiy then it is even more important that the pharmacutical companies start getting their asses together and start to produce things.
- gazrogers 14y agoI don't want immortality. And I'd suggest that anyone that does has not properly considered the consequences.
- nnq 14y agoThat's a pretty "square headed" way to put it :) Ok, some do, some don't. The "has not properly considered the consequences" is a bad argument for anything. You can say that people shouldn't have developed the atom bomb or chemical or bio warfare agents because "they haven't properly considered the consequences". I for one am glad that the atom bomb and other "horrible things" have been invented, weird as this may seem. Your perspective on life and everything really changes when you stop thinking in terms of "right" or "wrong" or of there being a difference between them, and just think in terms of "going further, no matter where this takes you" - I think that even the darkest corners of whatever "hell" you imagine are worth exploring. Just try thinking like this and see what you can see from this pov. - you'll never be the same again, trust me :) Death just limits the possibility of what one can explore and I believe all limits should be destroyed - but if you want the limit, you can have it for yourself, nobody will force you to live forever. The argument would be that one should have a choice of when it happens. I like Nitzsche's take on immortality: "One has to pay dearly for immortality; one has to die several times while one is still alive." - I would actually love to be able to have this experience, no matter how terrible it seems to some (think about it: your self now is no longer your self from 20 years ago, this older self of you has, in a way, already died... If I'd live to be 1000 years old, an infinity of my older selfs would be already dead and maybe I won't really have any "real memory" of them anymore, except in an "archive" stored somewhere, that I could choose to "browse" if I ever wished to do so. In a way it would be like dying forever, but I would choose this over anything else, at least over "anything" that I've thought of so far.) ...I can't believe I've bothered to answer to this ...no back to work, back to trying to blow up some other "limits" :)