Is finding a cure for cancer *really* a good idea?

Very interesting question! I am going to answer it from two different perspectives: a philosophical side and a scientific side, to try to explain my viewpoint best. Philosophically, I believe that all things, whether "good or evil," serve a purpose in our world.

Whether the purpose for cancer is simply population control, as you mentioned, or something else entirely that may vary by individual, I do not know. However, I do believe that if cancer were meant to be "cured," it would already have been done. That being said, I do think there are still advancements and discoveries yet to be made regarding cancer that will, hopefully, end some of the suffering and ill-effects associated with the disease.

I fully support any research and moves toward advancements in fighting cancers, but it's unlikely that all cancers will ever be completely "cured" because this one disease encompasses SO much. This brings me to the "scientific side" of the question. As someone who is relatively knowledgeable in the sciences, it seems like a misnomer to use the phrase "cure for cancer."

And, in fact, some cancers have been essentially cured already, such as testicular cancer, but only if it is detected early enough. Unlike some other diseases, there are many different types and variations, and there are more than 200 diseases that fall under the category of "cancer. " Plus, many cancers reoccur even after responding to initial treatments, so how would we know if it was truly cured or not?

To sum it up: It's unlikely that CANCER will ever be eradicated, at least not in our lifetimes. But scientists and doctors should most definitely continue working toward advancements and research in this field so that some human suffering can be spared.

It isn't the consequences that give me pause; it is the expense! If we redirected all the money that goes currently into cancer research: Would anyone have to go hungry ever again? Would anyone lack clean water?

Would anyone be homeless? Would anyone be unemployed? Would there be any lack of law enforcement or fire response?

Would the PTA have to have a bake sale just so that each child could have his or her own textbook? I think we have to pick our battles, and that we are picking wrong. What good is a world where a few people live to be 120 years old, and millions go hungry and thirsty?

Why are we creating jobs for highly trained researchers and paying farmers NOT to grow food?

The instinct for survival, be it on the communal or individual level, is part of being human. Wanting to extend our lifespan is natural and is something which we have achieved generation over generation. It is a continuous process, we have already made the eradication of certain cancers almost a given with early detection and the survival rates of others have increased.

Advances in medical genetics seem to occur with huge leaps forward. One day, there will likely be a "cure" for cancer. Should we fear this moment?

Will this moment swing open the doors towards overpopulation? No. Even if we were to eradicate all currently known diseases, that very disease-free environment can create the perfect ambient for a presently unknown killer virus or bacteria to emerge, eradicating vast portions of that once "disease-free" population.

That is part of nature, all creatures, humans included, have an inert need to reproduce and to prolong their existence, for at any moment, the truly unforeseen could happen, and out of a population that was once measured in billions, only the most adept and the most fortunate would remain and they would be numbered in the thousands.

Well, you have to look at this from a black and white perspective in my opinion, you can go one way or the other. If you want population control the idea of allowing these people to suffer is pointless. As cancer is often a death sentence these people should then be put to death not allowed to both suffer slowly and to use up valuable resources.

This is not a stance many people would openly support because well, it just sounds inhumane, I personally support it in some instances. An easily and quickly treated cancer should be treated, a low chance survival with a lengthy and painful treatment is cheaper and more mercifully cured with a bullet. Now if you want to be merciful you cannot think about population, naturally a cure for cancer would be good thing to someone who sees human death as a horrible, horrible thing rather than a fact of life and nature.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.