BlackCapedManX on 5/5/2006 at 09:24
Thread Summary:
"Frogs Cure AIDS!"
"Also they're endagered!"
"Also, they aren't! Don't lie!"
"Hay people are dying don't care about lies!"
"Hay other people are dying more!"
"HAY KOMAG HATES ON AIDS PPLZ!"
"Hay STFU! My perspective!"
"LOL SHUT UP"
"Cancer>AIDS"
"Everything is bad! We're all going die!"
"GDRZES!"
Also,
Quote Posted by David
A million people a year equates to approximately 2 people every minute of everyday since 1980.
And for each one of those minutes, 160 more than have died in that minute are born. So after AIDS and car crashes and cancer and school shootings and all sorts of fun bullshit, we're still 160 in the green, but fuck if we can keep more people on this earth to eat the food and add to the polution, then it's our good given right to kill and/or lie about frogs.
Honestly, people die, and if you're going to look at numbers, we really should start killing off more, rather than trying to save them, because we're gettin' more anyway. Or, we can strive for morals, like saving people, and curing suffering, and *gasp* NOT LYING or even LETTING PEOPLE HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND WHAT ISN'T! If Komag isn't excited because (on the global per minute population equalized scale for everyone who give a shit) a relatively small amount of people can be saved becaue of a frog, WHAT'S IT MATTER TO THE REST OF YOU?!?!?!
Yay for the frogs. And should I (or anyone I care about) get HIV, I'm happy that there's the possibility for a cure. In the meantime, I'm going to worry about things that pertain to my life and my wellbeing, neither of which include having aids, or finding a cure for it.
On the otherhand attempting to "cure" cancer would be a wholely hopeless task, as while it is treatable to varying degrees, eliminating it would include preventing cell division... which would kind of, like, suck. So get excited about what's relevant to you, and be open-minded enough to consider when someone else may not feel it necessary to devout time and energy to being concerned about the lives of people you'll never meet and never know (and get excited latter when it is relevant to you.)
Or, whatever. God I hate the internet sometimes.
Jakeyboy on 5/5/2006 at 09:36
John Titor
Dr. Dumb_lunatic on 5/5/2006 at 09:43
Also, remember: this frog gunk isn't an AIDS cure, it's an HIV preventative measure. So it'll reduce the chances of you getting HIV if you're exposed to it.
If you've already got HIV/AIDS: you're still fucked.
It just might be more "Catholic-Church-friendly" than condoms, which'd be good for Africa, especially..
And off-topic (or is it?): comparing cancer and AIDS is impossible. AIDS is a condition caused by essentially one kind of viral infection.
"Cancer" on the other hand, is WAAAAAY too loosely defined a term for any comparisons to be made: is it virally mediated? Yes, in some cases. In many others it's random, or chemically induced, or genetically predisposed, or any other host of causes.
Is it lung cancer? Bone cancer? Mouth cancer? Skin cancer? Leukaemia? Liver Cancer? Colon cancer? Cervical cancer? Testicular cancer? Brain cancer?
There are as many, if not more types of cancer as there are cell-types, and there are fucking tons of those. There are hundreds, if not thousands of genes directly implicated in different cancers, and many more that can contribute in different circumstances. "A cure for cancer" is a largely irrelevant term, it's like saying "A cure for disease": there won't be just one big uber-cancer cure, there will be many. Many, many.
So: a) this isn't an AIDS cure, and thus b) you can't make any comparisons to cancer cures whatsoever, you'd have to compare to cancer preventatives.
But if we DID have an HIV/AIDS cure, it would probably be of more benefit to mankind in terms of "lives saved" than any individual cancer cure.
Shayde on 5/5/2006 at 10:16
It only bothers you less Komag 'cause it's less of a problem in your neighbourhood, but where I come from it's a big fat hairy deal. Thus I reserve the right to see your initial comment as tactless.
Still don't think it was worth the whole "my disease is badder than your disease" spat, but hey whatever rocks everyones socks.
descenterace on 5/5/2006 at 10:57
[I think this has run its course. We hereby invoke Godwin's Law. --Cynical]
OMG KOMAG IZ HITLER !OLOLOL!
:p
Para?noid on 5/5/2006 at 11:45
Unfortunately, humans are too kind for their own good. Diseases like cancer and AIDS have developed as a reaction to populations swelling dramatically. For every new mouth to feed, clothe and educate, another tree is chopped down, another can of oil is sent across the world, et cetera. Stopping one disease will only introduce another, and the only way to stop the madness is to let it go or try and keep ahead of it.
Keeping ahead of it will become increasingly difficult if the population growth rate is exponential, which it is. What happens when we can't feed ourselves because supply and demand is grossly out of balance? Death from famine and conflict will knock populations back down to a balanced level anyway. It's an ultimately futile struggle, whichever way you look at it, and it's unfortunate that advances in health care and technology means that selective areas of the world take all the brunt- namely the people who aren't draining natural resources at an alarming rate.
The struggle will continue, and I support it, but don't kid yourselves
Rogue Keeper on 5/5/2006 at 12:08
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Diseases like cancer and AIDS have developed as a reaction to populations swelling dramatically.
Development of most forms of cancer is primarily a consequence of continuous intoxication of organism and alterations of genotype, which is in turn a consequence of living in an industrial society.
AIDS though... I don't know.
I'm afraid this theory (which tempts me also) can't be proven anyhow, because it would mean that nature has some kind of intelligent awareness. Mother Gaia? Hammer of Gods? I didn't know you believe in divine power, noid?
Morte on 5/5/2006 at 12:12
Quote Posted by Para?noid
Unfortunately, humans are too kind for their own good. Diseases like cancer and AIDS have developed as a reaction to populations swelling dramatically. For every new mouth to feed, clothe and educate, another tree is chopped down, another can of oil is sent across the world, et cetera. Stopping one disease will only introduce another, and the only way to stop the madness is to let it go or try and keep ahead of it.
Keeping ahead of it will become increasingly difficult if the population growth rate is exponential, which it is. What happens when we can't feed ourselves because supply and demand is grossly out of balance? Death from famine and conflict will knock populations back down to a balanced level anyway. It's an ultimately futile struggle, whichever way you look at it, and it's unfortunate that advances in health care and technology means that selective areas of the world take all the brunt- namely the people who aren't draining natural resources at an alarming rate.
The struggle will continue, and I support it, but don't kid yourselves
It's not like you aren't right, but goddammit I just want to fuck without fear of horrible genital death while waiting for the inevitable hellish apocalypse.
Dr. Dumb_lunatic on 5/5/2006 at 12:46
Quote Posted by BR796164
Development of most forms of cancer is primarily a consequence of continuous intoxication of organism and alterations of genotype, which is in turn a consequence of living in an industrial society.
Most cancers (and a whole ton of other conditions) are primarily a consequence of the fact that we simply live longer nowadays: we're not, as a species, evolved/adapted to live to be 70-80+ years of age. The older you are, the more errors you accumulate, the greater your risk of cancer. This hasn't changed much with industrialisation, it's just in the modern world we usually live long enough to actually SEE this phenomenon, rather than dying of something else, earlier. Like cholera, or something.
Rogue Keeper on 5/5/2006 at 13:02
You can't deny that we have more toxic carcinogens around today.
And again, there are many types of cancer, launched by different causes. Yes, an older organism's immunity is weakened and has absorbed more carcinogenic stuff during lifetime, that's logical. But kids can have cancer too.
