Which of these diseases would you like to see cured first?

[azzaman333]

But everyone being smart would make an already overpopulated Earth waaay to overpopulated

Or, we would end up with a better number of people on the earth because we would realise we have too many people living here before its a significant problem.

 

[Truronian]

HIV/AIDS, as it ignores age.

 

[bhsup]

I voted HIV. I'm probably wrong and being way too simplistic in thinking of it, but I figure if they can actually tackle and figure out how to cure one virus, that may make all the rest of the viruses out there a snap to take out.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

'Cancer' is a nonstarter, because the label really covers a thousand diseases. 'Diarrhea'? Id love to meet the guy who'd pick that one. Id have to pick cardiovascular.

 

[RubricousMidget]

I picked neurological diseases, because of what it can do to a person.
Second to that, I can't quite decide between HIV/AIDS and cancer.

So now you want to get ride of the cure?

Fine. You may go over there and pray, I'll go over here and take the medicine.

 

[History_Buff]

Stupidity. Solving one would make the world a far less annoying place, and probably help cure the others too.

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Neurological. Cancer is in many cases treatable and can also to some degree be prevented by a healthy lifestyle. HIV/AIDS is not an issue where I live.

 

[Red Door]

Liberalism.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The compulsion to make stupid pollls.

 

[LuckyAC]

I couldn't give a **** about AIDS, since it is preventable. Heart disease is to a large degree avoidable or delayable, so cancer is the obvious choice, even though it is only the second greatest killer.

 

[WillJ]

AIDS. It not only kills more people than cancer (if cancer can be considered a single disease in the first place), but it is so concentrated in one continent that it destroys entire economies, destroying the livelihoods of many more people than just the individuals with the disease.

 

[greekguy]

I would choose cancer, with neurological diseases being a close 2nd. IMO, to decide this, you've got to consider 2 factors:

1) how many people worldwide are affected by it and can be affected by it?

2) is increasing life span (quantity) or making life better, but not longer more important (quality)?

#1 eliminates AIDS and malaria, since malaria only affects 3rd world, thus less people, and AIDS is about 90% preventable. most people get AIDS through sex or reused needles, so that limits the number of people who can potentially get the disease (although I'm aware a number of people are born with it from infected mothers, blood transfusions, and accidents resulting in open wounds touching, but AFAIK these are in the minority of AIDS cases). #1 also eliminates diarrhea, since supplying people drinking water will solve that, and #1 gets rid of diabetes since the majority cases of diabetes are caused by lifestyle choices, and thus preventable.

now, i'm no doctor, but i think strokes and cardiovascular diseases kinda go together, and some cases are preventable, while others aren't. still, these things can be at least healed better than the remaining 2 choices (cancer and neurological diseases).

thus, its between cancer and neurological diseases, to be decided by point #2. this is really a tossup, and part of me does think neurological diseases are most important to eliminate, but my instinct reaction is cancer, because it can kill anyone from infants to people 100+, while neurological diseases are completely reliant on age. thus, i vote cancer.

(that was a bit long winded, wasn't it? )

 

[Xanikk999]

AIDS. It not only kills more people than cancer (if cancer can be considered a single disease in the first place), but it is so concentrated in one continent that it destroys entire economies, destroying the livelihoods of many more people than just the individuals with the disease.

Yah but who cares about africa?

We should be concerned with the diseases that affect longevity, and not irresponsibility or bad blood transfusions.

 

[nihilistic]

"Want" to have cured first? Difficult to decide. I guess cancer because it is the hardest and most incurable one. Mutations are hard to stop. Cardiovascular diseases are tricky too because it is really a physics (hydraulics & residue buildup) problem. But I can confidently predict that the one listed that WILL get cured first is AIDS, as it is the only one caused by an identifiable and (in the future) killable external agent. All the others are really conditions brought on by one's own body.

 

[StarWorms]

I couldn't give a **** about AIDS, since it is preventable. Heart disease is to a large degree avoidable or delayable, so cancer is the obvious choice, even though it is only the second greatest killer.

How narrow minded and sick of you.

AIDS can be passed from mother to child. It's only natural for someone to want a child - do you blame people for having sex and wanting children? Many people cannot afford contraception, many are not allowed by their religion, many do not even know if they have HIV. People in Africa are extremely unlikely to be tested for HIV. They'll only find out when they get AIDS, likely after they've had children.

Heart disease is difficult to avoid and is a huge killer. It's not easy to know when someone is in danger or not and as such, many people die because they don't realise.

Anyway, here's a page on Wikipedia for deaths in 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

29.34% Cardiovascular
12.49% Cancers
9.66% Strokes
4.87% HIV/AIDS
3.15% Diarrhoea
2.23% Malaria
1.95% Neurological diseases
1.73% Diabetes

19.12% Infectious diseases
6.49% Respiratory diseases
3.45% Digestive diseases

 

[Xanikk999]

Well are the people in africa aware of the problem? I imagine they know about the AIDs epidemic.

Might not know everything about AIDs or even basic prevention. But if i knew the basics i still would not have sex or kids if i lived in africa.

Its too big of a risk. If they know about AIDs and do it anyway, i blame those people.

 

[Naval Power]

I'm going to say cancer, I recently found out I may have it, its a little too early to tell though.

 

[sonorakitch]

To be frank, so are you if you take the attitude "I don't care about AIDS because only sinful promiscuous people get it."

While I don't agree with the sinful point, VX250 does have a very reasonable point here. AIDS is a virus that is contracted by committing primarily voluntary acts, such as unprotected sex and the use of dirty needles. AIDS, unless contracted in the rare cases of blood transfusion or the less rare and tragic contractions by children of HIV infected parents, is a virus that has a very easy cure. Education. Don't have sex with a lot of different people, don't have unprotected sex, stay away from multiple homosexual partners, and don't re-use needles when engaging in narcotic injection. Sadly, this education has not been very well implemented in Africa and Asia, which is why these regions are the hardest hit.

But don't you think Pasi that a non-voluntary contractual disease which strikes the most innocent needs the most concentration to develop a cure? Such as cancer?

I woudln't say heart disease, as it is easily repairable these days.

~Chris

 

[Atlas14]

Although there are many forms of cancer that affect people in various, often unpredictable ways, some forms do not sprout until very late in one's life. Therefore cancer should be subdivided, like it is in realilty, into its different types. I would be all for finding a cure first for something like testicular/breast cancer, but not necessarily cancer that forms as a result of too much smoking.

 

[sonorakitch]

Although there are many forms of cancer that affect people in various, often unpredictable ways, some forms do not sprout until very late in one's life. Therefore cancer should be subdivided, like it is in realilty, into its different types. I would be all for finding a cure first for something like testicular/breast cancer, but not necessarily cancer that forms as a result of too much smoking.

I agree if that were the best option, but I would think finding a way to prevent irregular cell division would take care of all forms of cancer. But I am certainly no doctor of medicine.

~Chris