Samus Aran said:
highwaystar101 said:
Samus Aran said:
It wouldn't be a disaster for the human race as a whole in the sense that there would still be plenty of us alive and that we wouldn't be endangered- at all.
And also the fact that diseases have always been the number one killer of humanity since agriculture. Yes, we can replace them. That's the whole freaking point here.
Diseases are the cost we paid for agriculture. Of course there were diseases as well before we "invented" agriculture, but nowhere near as the diseases that came after it. The life expectancy actually went DOWN at first for a LONG time when people became farmers. Even though the life expectancy went down a lot, the birth rate was so high that it could easily buffer against the increased mortality rate. Yes, the population grew to astonishing heights even though we died a lot faster/sooner.
I'm glad we paid that cost, it's worth it :)
Diseases are a necessary evil(or were if we manage to wipe out all diseases one day, which I doubt).
Perhaps you should discuss the real treat to humanity for once?
|
100 million people dead would be the population of my country. Nearly twice. I would call that a disaster.
Also, I understand disease has been the number one killer since civilisation began. However, we have always tried to look after the sick, either that or exiled/quarantine them. Why? Because we know that if we don't heal the sick, then what is infecting them will infect us too, and we don't want that.
It is vital for the survival of the human race to battle sickness, if we look at disease as "just a natural thing, we can replace the dead", then we are not going to last very long.
|
Actually, they did very little to heal the sick until the 1800s. People only went to a doctor when it was too late already most of the time. Most people trusted in their faith(Christianity in Europe). In the early modern age only half of the people managed to become adults(which is when you did your Holy Communion in that age, usually at the age of 13-15). Life expectancy was around 25-35 years old. Not really high :)
Yes, some people with diseases got exiled because I don't know a lot of people that went to stay close to someone with a disease like lepra. They also exiled Jews and Gypsies back then you know.
|
People have always attempted to heal the sick, just because they haven't been going to doctors thousands of years doesn't mean that it's not part of human nature. You even said that before the 1800's people used to visit faith healers, why? Because that was one of the ways we tried to treat the sick.
The point is that we've always tried to heal the sick, regardless of the method, whether it is a church or a doctor.
If we don't acknowledge disease as something that effects a whole community, then humans don't stand any chance of survival. The old methods (churches etc) didn't do well and life expectancy was low due to disease. But now we have better methods, so we can stop things like the black death from being so rampant.
Our take on it hasn't changed, just our methods of dealing with it.
