|
IamMe
|
 |
« on: October 08, 2007, 12:51:09 PM » |
|
I'm writing an essay for an essay competition about genetic engineering. My dad and I were discussing some ideas and he made the point that using genetic engineering to cure cancer and so forth will only increase population and cause use to use up the world's resources quicker. I replied that the same argument could be made against all of medical science.
(Don't worry, I'm not asking you to write my essay for me or anything.)
So my question is this: is medical science actually doing any good?
My view is that as a society we have decided that those who are alive are entitled to live as long as is possible for them. Doctors and scientists work to enable them to do that. Our focus is quality of life rather than quantity of lives. We want to be Galapagos tortoises not mayflies.
If there will be problems with overpopulation then we should all stop breeding so much rather than saying: "No! You must all die at 40. We know how to save you but we don't want to."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2007, 01:20:41 PM » |
|
Let me give you an Economist's interpretation...
To be a productive member of society, you increase the amount of output with the least amount of labor and capital. This is done by increasing your human capital or also known as education.
However, when looking at the productivity curve of a normal human life cycle from birth to death, we are most productive around the ages of 18 - 22. This curve has changed due to Medical Sciences causing many people to have shifted their curve or even expand them due to more focus on education. This makes the interval of their most productive years shift later in their life cycle and in some cases, expand. An important note however is that as we get older, the law of diminishing returns states that the amount of capital and labor we put forth into our productive processes diminishes in output. So, in a sense, we become less productive as we get older from the point we have maximized our productivity.
I hope I haven't lost you... (If you want, I can describe in math terms)
So what this means is that if Medical Science can prolong our human life cycle and/or increase the interval for which productivity is maximized, then Medical Sciences is good in that we are able to become more productive humans and have much more to contribute to society.
Which makes sense. Imagine if Einstein, Nietzsche, or Milton Friedman (any dead, but incrediably intelligent thinkers will do) were able to live longer? Imagine the new kinds of knowledge that could be contributed!
I am all for Medical Science. I feel that in order for us to handle the power that Medical Sciences offer, we must meet it's demands for human capital. Or basically, we have to be more educated to offset its unintended consequences, some of which your Dad has stated.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2007, 01:30:05 PM » |
|
I hope I haven't lost you... (If you want, I can describe in math terms)
No. I understand. Interesting points. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
Patton
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-139
Posts: 1,826
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2007, 01:37:33 PM » |
|
Is medical science actually doing any good?
Working in healthcare for a quarter of a century, the answer is absolutely.
Things that used to be lethal are now survivable thanks to antibiotics, immunizations, improved surgical techniques, pharmaceuticals, replacement of blood volume...the list can get quite extensive.
If the argument will be that too many people will populate the planet because of "genetic engineering"...I would counter that people still die unexpectedly...trauma...war...ethnic cleansing...etc.
Mankind has a nasty habit of "thinning the herd"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood
-George S. Patton
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2007, 01:47:02 PM » |
|
I figure it's bad form to sit back and let people die. Let me give you an Economist's interpretation... sure you increase production per worker but does that overcome the coast of providing the medical care to extend that production? I like your thoughts on geniuses. I'm not sure I buy that overpopulation and resource deletion are all that scary, with a little money (trillions at least) we could set up infrastructure to handle it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gojira
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2007, 01:52:07 PM » |
|
I figure it's bad form to sit back and let people die. Let me give you an Economist's interpretation... sure you increase production per worker but does that overcome the coast of providing the medical care to extend that production? I like your thoughts on geniuses. [/quote] That's sounds like a great idea for an essay in itself! Certainly requires a look at so give me a bit while I ponder that. I'm not sure I buy that overpopulation and resource deletion are all that scary, with a little money (trillions at least) we could set up infrastructure to handle it.
This is where we leave our faith to the wizards. (scientists) They are the ones that will save mankind. Everyone just expects great solutions to magically appear. Like it's guaranteed.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our democracy has created an environment of indecision at times of impending crisis.
If life is easy for you, then you aint livin.
|
|
|
Factinista
Full Member
Karma: +17/-35
Posts: 224
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2007, 02:07:27 PM » |
|
Heck no! Medical science has changed peoples lives more than almost any other science. However this change can be both good and bad. We (humankind) has an unprecedented ability to lessen the pain and suffering of those that recieve proper care, however this created a huge drain on our resources. We also have an umprecedented understanding of what creates human suffering and we can therefore commit it with greater force than ever before.
If applied properly medical science is one of the greatest benifits to humankind. The application and implimentation over the length and bredth of mankind is the key to whether it is good or bad. I believe it is vastly more good than bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2007, 11:16:05 AM » |
|
I'm not sure I buy that overpopulation and resource deletion are all that scary, with a little money (trillions at least) we could set up infrastructure to handle it.
But money is of no use in itself - only to buy resources. This is one problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2007, 01:17:04 PM » |
|
I'm not sure I buy that overpopulation and resource deletion are all that scary, with a little money (trillions at least) we could set up infrastructure to handle it.
But money is of no use in itself - only to buy resources. This is one problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it. I disagree. The earth (and to a greater degree the solar system at large) has unimaginable supplies of resources, most of which are very difficult to get at. But they can be got at if you're willing to do the work to get at them, it is currently uneconomical to pursue these resources because the (comparatively) easy to get resources still exist. Even oil isn't hopeless, with biofuels and all. The infrastructure to do this kinda thing on a large scale doesn't exist but that doesn't mean it can't. Certainly you need time and expertise as well as money, but I think it's a bit early to declare it imposable ask for a few billion deaths. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2007, 12:53:09 PM » |
|
I'm not sure I buy that overpopulation and resource deletion are all that scary, with a little money (trillions at least) we could set up infrastructure to handle it.
But money is of no use in itself - only to buy resources. This is one problem that cannot be solved by throwing money at it. I disagree. The earth (and to a greater degree the solar system at large) has unimaginable supplies of resources, most of which are very difficult to get at. But they can be got at if you're willing to do the work to get at them, it is currently uneconomical to pursue these resources because the (comparatively) easy to get resources still exist. Even oil isn't hopeless, with biofuels and all. The infrastructure to do this kinda thing on a large scale doesn't exist but that doesn't mean it can't. Certainly you need time and expertise as well as money, but I think it's a bit early to declare it imposable ask for a few billion deaths. Actually we're running out of lots of things. Not just oil. Platinum, I think, is one that is particularly scarce. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2007, 02:04:45 PM » |
|
Rare earths are rare, but at 5ppb through the whole crust thats still mountains of the the stuff. Prohibitively expensive to get at but there. And more as near as the moon.
May god preserve us from ever solving every problem. But I am confident that every problem has a solution or a workaround.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
