In the last decade, we have seen major diseases that used to plague our world become curable and survivable with the advent of new drugs and treatments. The diseases we cannot currently treat are most likely within our grasp to cure, given a directed investment and a few years. You may very well see cancer and Alzheimers be cured before 2010.
In developing nations, through a system of treatment and prevention of transmission, malaria and yellow fever could be wiped off the face of the earth. Its not a question of "can it happen?", its more 'how soon will it happen?"
This is obviously a good thing, right?
But think about the long term effect of curing all the diseases on this planet. Aside from the obvious "my god, the population will skyrocket" phenomenon, you also have to consider how it would effect developed nations where these diseases no longer appear. Think how the status quo would be disrupted. Drug companies and pharmaceuticals would no longer receive the funding for research and assume a much reduced role of mass production. Prescription drugs would nearly vanish. Physicians would lose prestige, as they no longer would be relied upon to extend life. The billions spent of medical research grants would also drop, and leave many a scientist out of a job.
So think about it - if we developed a cure for every disease and affliction on earth suffered by humanity, would we choose to give it to everyone and suffer the effects in the developed world? Or would we try to preserve our institutions and status quo, even at the cost of millions of lives we could save by giving it up?
A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
