If I knew how, I would've shared the information with the medical community already, and it wouldn't be an issue at all. I'm not a doctor, just a random person with unpopular ideas. (Unpopular meaning not shared by the populace)
However, I don't. I'm also not about to start protesting against people being cruel to animals in order to cure diseases. Just because it's my opinion doesn't mean it's necessarily the best opinion.:P
Of course your 'quality' isn't the same as my 'quality'. And I'm not saying everyone should agree with me, either. After all, it's just my opinion. When it comes down to it, I'm just one person in a world of billions, and a particularly quiet one at that. I tell people my opinions if it comes up, but I don't force them on other people. The majority of people don't want to die or suffer at all, or have their loved-ones die or suffer at all, and will often condone all sorts of things that they wouldn't in other situations. That's just what humans are like, and background oddities like myself aren't going to change that, whatever we might think.
In short, what I think doesn't matter in the long run. No one is affected by it but myself.:)
Well seing as how you already said it was treatable, why would I reject something that currently exists? It's there already. However, ultimately it would be up to aforementioned loved one. I wouldn't make the decision for him, unless he was incapable of deciding it for himself entirely and hadn't made any sort of previous statements on the subject.
For myself, on the other hand, it really would depend on how invasive the treatment is. Minor surgery, probably. Major surgery, probably not. Medication, unlikely to be an option for a fatal heart problem, but I might if it wasn't going to be for the rest of my life.
Would I condone the experimentation on living creatures in order to develop a cure for the heart disease that was killing my loved one or myself? No.
Ah yes, I forget, science is natural population control. How silly of me!
In addition, experimenting on people's parents (who don't have the requirements to be test subjects for most things such as cancer, diabetes, or arthritis anyways) to create cures for these things would still result in the gradual annihilation of natural population controls, which means I'm obviously not going to support that anymore than I would experimenting on mice.
Finding a 'cure' for every incurable disease, defect, or negative genetic trait is eventually going to shoot us all in the foot. Finding ways to make such things painless and bearable is not.
People should stop worrying about the quantity of life that they have, and focus more about the quality.
Not to conduct such research on mice and let hundreds of thousands of people die of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
And yet it's perfectly alright to eliminate all natural population controls of homo sapiens - resulting in overpopulation to the point of using up our resources, so all the billions of humans can suffer miserable lives before they inevitably die of dehydration or starvation?
I thought the last book was quite poor, and not just because of the ending.
You know, actually... I'm pretty sure he did that on purpose because he was sick of writing the series. Also hence the ending. Can't have any sequels if there's no main character, after all.
How is this a good thing? It says that if they turn off your ability to learn the signs that a situation is potentially dangerous, you won't develop "social avoidance behaviour" due to bullying. That's nice, but wouldn't that mean you have to give the treatment BEFORE the subject is bullied? What does that due to being able to cope in real life? Would the subject end up being more prone to being mugged, raped, or caught in various violent situations due to his/her inability to recognize threatening behaviour and respond appropriately?
This doesn't seem at all useful or even particularly enlightening. People know extensive bullying as a child often causes those social issues, and it'd be nice to get rid of them, but the only real solution is to get rid of the bullies - NOT to cripple the poor kids' ability to learn on the suspicion that they might be bullied later on.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, relevance is a noun too, and means close to the same thing as relevancy. :)
If I knew how, I would've shared the information with the medical community already, and it wouldn't be an issue at all. I'm not a doctor, just a random person with unpopular ideas. (Unpopular meaning not shared by the populace)
:P
However, I don't. I'm also not about to start protesting against people being cruel to animals in order to cure diseases. Just because it's my opinion doesn't mean it's necessarily the best opinion.
Of course your 'quality' isn't the same as my 'quality'. And I'm not saying everyone should agree with me, either. After all, it's just my opinion. When it comes down to it, I'm just one person in a world of billions, and a particularly quiet one at that. I tell people my opinions if it comes up, but I don't force them on other people. The majority of people don't want to die or suffer at all, or have their loved-ones die or suffer at all, and will often condone all sorts of things that they wouldn't in other situations. That's just what humans are like, and background oddities like myself aren't going to change that, whatever we might think.
:)
In short, what I think doesn't matter in the long run. No one is affected by it but myself.
Well seing as how you already said it was treatable, why would I reject something that currently exists? It's there already. However, ultimately it would be up to aforementioned loved one. I wouldn't make the decision for him, unless he was incapable of deciding it for himself entirely and hadn't made any sort of previous statements on the subject.
For myself, on the other hand, it really would depend on how invasive the treatment is. Minor surgery, probably. Major surgery, probably not. Medication, unlikely to be an option for a fatal heart problem, but I might if it wasn't going to be for the rest of my life.
Would I condone the experimentation on living creatures in order to develop a cure for the heart disease that was killing my loved one or myself? No.
Ah yes, I forget, science is natural population control. How silly of me!
In addition, experimenting on people's parents (who don't have the requirements to be test subjects for most things such as cancer, diabetes, or arthritis anyways) to create cures for these things would still result in the gradual annihilation of natural population controls, which means I'm obviously not going to support that anymore than I would experimenting on mice.
Finding a 'cure' for every incurable disease, defect, or negative genetic trait is eventually going to shoot us all in the foot. Finding ways to make such things painless and bearable is not.
People should stop worrying about the quantity of life that they have, and focus more about the quality.
Not to conduct such research on mice and let hundreds of thousands of people die of heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
And yet it's perfectly alright to eliminate all natural population controls of homo sapiens - resulting in overpopulation to the point of using up our resources, so all the billions of humans can suffer miserable lives before they inevitably die of dehydration or starvation?
I thought the last book was quite poor, and not just because of the ending.
You know, actually... I'm pretty sure he did that on purpose because he was sick of writing the series. Also hence the ending. Can't have any sequels if there's no main character, after all.
Wait, I thought it already did? It killed my Windows when I used it...
How is this a good thing? It says that if they turn off your ability to learn the signs that a situation is potentially dangerous, you won't develop "social avoidance behaviour" due to bullying. That's nice, but wouldn't that mean you have to give the treatment BEFORE the subject is bullied? What does that due to being able to cope in real life? Would the subject end up being more prone to being mugged, raped, or caught in various violent situations due to his/her inability to recognize threatening behaviour and respond appropriately? This doesn't seem at all useful or even particularly enlightening. People know extensive bullying as a child often causes those social issues, and it'd be nice to get rid of them, but the only real solution is to get rid of the bullies - NOT to cripple the poor kids' ability to learn on the suspicion that they might be bullied later on.
It means private as in non-commercial, not as in kept hidden from the rest of the world.
English has two "blue" colours as well - what we call blue, and indigo.