A True Wonder Drug

[white avenger]

Here's a hypothetical question for you. the subject of a book I'm reading:

You have somehow discovered a universal cure all drug, something that will not only cure anything from headaches to cancer and AIDS, but will also make anyone who takes it immune to any disease and increase their lifespan by a minimum of 50%. The immediate benefits for the human race are obvious. Universal health, an end to suffering, and long healthy life. The long term affects, however, would be nothing short of catastrophic. Overpopulation, starvation, wars fought over the dwindling food and resources.

So, you face a quandary that would tax the wisdom of Salomon to its limits, and it is yours alone, no committees, no advisers. You choose the fate of the human race.

 

[Brandon]

I release it, eventually we would become cannibals.

 

[Blackloliita]

I don't wanna be attacking, but crossing on to "Destroy it for the good of all mankind", I don't know if I can believe the person(s) who would say that now... without being in the experience. In the end the human has this need to survive. Anyway, I think I'd go for the first.

 

[Aly Fan]

Well, I realise this probably wouldn't work in the long term, but i'd try to use it clinically. Not so that people use it to cure a minor head ache or what ever, but to cure a life threatening disease, something terminal. That way it would be a controlled drug and not used for making people live longer. I think if i had the choice that it would only be made available for use in hospitals, for extreme cases.

Thus potentially preventing the population over growth, as it's not used for curing everything and not used for means of extending how long you live.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I opted for 'destroy it for the good of all mankind'

It's survival of the fittest; we make it too easy for the weak and lame, the dregs of society to linger about as it is; this drug would only make that worse. We are meant to get sick and die- thats what makes life precious.

 

[Professor Walsh]

I would make it available. If I made money from making it available I would spend them on education. An educated population assuming that their children will not die in infancy/childhood generally has fewer children than a population who expect high death rates in their offspring.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

An educated population assuming that their children will not die in infancy/childhood generally has fewer children than a population who expect high death rates in their offspring.

But that is assuming that the vast majority of people that have multiple offspring are doing so to actually propagate; that may have been the case 50 years ago but I have trouble believing it to be valid in this day and age.

 

[InsaneMystic]

Burn the formula. If anything, we have way too many people on this planet already. Death is your friend. 😛

Like I said in the poll-less variant of this thread (which I noticed before this one, argh... can some mod close it??), I'd destroy it for the good of mankind. Death is your friend.

 

[TabulaRasa22]

I think I'd end up destroying it for the good of mankind.

Obtaining power like that would consume & eventually destroy us all, IMO.

 

[laianna]

I said destroy. As Scobro said, people are meant to live and die.

However, if discoveries like this "wonder drug" were ever made, I'd expect a lot of technology to advance, especially as we became immune to the worst things killing us. For all we know, we could be living in a Firefly universe, away from the overcrowded planets, living very differently from today.

On the other hand, look at "I Am Legend." Drugs evolve and the effects might not be pretty if they do. Worse diseases could pop up or the drug could mutate over time, making it not worth it for some people. I suppose though, people would risk it to save themselves now.

 

[Fredsicle]

I'd like to agree with InsaneMystic.
But I would keep the formula, and dish it out to my friends.
What book is it? I wanna read it

 

[white avenger]

Sorry, folks, for the confusion about the double threads. I didn't even know that it happened until it was pointed out to me. Also, for those interested, the name of the book that was the source of the question is "Medusa" by Clive Cussler. Details here:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Medusa-Clive-Cussler/dp/0399155651/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250536194&sr=1-1"]Amazon.com: Medusa (9780399155659): Clive Cussler, Paul Kemprecos: Books[/ame]

 

[Professor Walsh]

But that is assuming that the vast majority of people that have multiple offspring are doing so to actually propagate; that may have been the case 50 years ago but I have trouble believing it to be valid in this day and age.

If you look at the total global population I believe that this still holds true. In several European countries, at least, the population is in fact decreasing due to falling birth rates.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

If you look at the total global population I believe that this still holds true. In several European countries, at least, the population is in fact decreasing due to falling birth rates.

But low birthrate is not the same as "children dying in infancy/childhood". I think there may have been miscomunderstanding.

 

[Tasha]

mmm that is a tricky one. I don't know if i would Destroy it, i mean come on You've found the bloody cure to Cancer, it must have been hard bloody work!

I think i would only cure Friends/Family.

i mean , if someone were to discover a miraculous cure, would they be like "mmmm' Tell the world, and be rich, or stay poor and just keep it a secret?


hahaha i really don't know what i would do in that situation.

 

[Grey Ghost]

I opted for 'destroy it'. At the end of the day itwould fall into the hands multiconglomerated drug companies who would sell it at extortinate prices. The poor would not get a look in and only the rich and powerful would get it.

 

[JCC]

Grey Ghost's reason is pretty good. The 'natural selection' brigade are just plain wrong though, have you really ever gone into a hospital and said "No, I refuse treatment. This just isn't Darwinian enough for me"? Trying to avoid or delay death is just as natural as its eventuality.

 

[Professor Walsh]

But low birthrate is not the same as "children dying in infancy/childhood". I think there may have been miscomunderstanding.

What I meant is that a high birthrate often correlates statistically with a high rate of death in infancy/childhood. When the death rate of children in a population decreases and the parents gets the means (education, clean water, health care) to expect that their children will live into adulthood (and hopefully beyond) and access to birth control, they often choose to have fewer children. I believe that in a world where a wonder drug like this was universally available and we could therefore assume that both we and our children would live long, healthy lives, people would choose to have fewer children. The child-bearing 50% of the population definitely would. Much as I adore children in general and my own in particular, being pregnant, giving birth and breastfeeding isn't that much fun.