Berger you have the most twisted on this I have ever seen. So all these "incurable" diseases, as you call them, are here for a reason. Which apparently is a plan designed by god. So we should stop developing medicines and possible cures because of this plan. We are not in the dark ages anymore, get a clue. These medical advancements are improving quality of life for countless people.
I don't see why people starving equates to the stopping of the field of medicine. I guess what you are trying to get at with your crazy rambling is that our money and efforts from medicine should instead be focused on feeding people. While I agree that helping starving people is a great thing, but why in the world would you pick the medical research field to sacrifice. You can't be serious. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a long time. We spend much vaster quantities of money on many frivolous things. But you actually want to stop something that helps people. Why not stop the research on clothes, or TV's or, I don't know, weapons.
we don't need to save any more lives.
So people starving are more important than people who are sick? Who are you too decide who is more important. Oh that's right, YOU'RE NOT.
No one said AIDS or cancer is incurable. Just because we haven't found one, doesn't mean we won't.
Your logic is completely laughable. How you can possibly make sense of your own argument. On the one hand you are saying the world is overpopulated and "incurable" diseases are keeping it in check. But on the other hand you want to save people who are starving and dying from easily treatable diseases, which is a larger percentage than the other group. So your, so called, plan will save more lives for the already overpopulated earth? Or will they die and be kept in check by the "incurable" diseases? Think about what you are saying. Your argument is a cardboard cutout easily pushed over by elementary logic.
|