So a Facebook post regarding a Wear Red Day flier went something like this:
Which I responded to with something along the lines of
"I guess I shouldn't have gone to med school since I'm only contributing to immense human suffering. Fuck studying 16 hours a day and $250k in loans I'm gonna open some McDonalds and kill me some fatties. If anyone from administration at school is reading this please don't expel me. I'm being sarcastic of course."
And then I promptly decided to delete this post because I thought it was stupid and I figured it wasn't worth my time to argue with these people. Of course facebook emails them my response and I soon got a private message... below with my response following.
helping rich people live longer
...is definitely profitable. Way more profitable than curing malaria, for example. So consider that $250k money well spent, assuming the economy doesn't collapse because of resource shortages before you get to reap the rewards. But what you wrote (and then deleted) is not an effective counter-argument against the carrying capacity of the Earth. Saying that something is unpleasant is not evidence that it's not true.
Now at this point I know I shouldn't be angry because it's just a waste of time... but I really couldn't help but respond to the guy who obviously THINKS that he's absolutely in the right about wishing death upon unfortunate people...
I'm not arguing sustainability I'm arguing that letting people die of preventable causes is not a valid solution.
When I was in 6 and in 1st grade they taught us about endangered and extinct animals, how all these animals were dying because of habitat loss, pollution and human overpopulation... and I felt so bad for the animals that I wished a bunch of people would die, and continued to qualify it with "people that I don't know, not my parents or my brother, not my favorite uncle, not anyone that they know because I don't want them to be sad" and then I immediately felt bad - obviously bad enough that I still remember it to this day - when I realized that those people dying would probably make other people sad because they were someone else's mom, dad, brother, favorite uncle and I hoped that someone else in the world wasn't making the same wish I was. I think I'm in med school still paying for that thought. Over 1/3 of the pregnancies in the world are unintended, a large percentage of those are unwanted, and those who CAN get abortions do. Birth control win, preventable deaths not so much.
I won't disagree that the human population is headed toward being unsustainable... but there's other ways around this... birth control for one... why do we have to go so far as to say people have to die in war famine and disease so the rest of us can live comfortably in our excess of food water and land? And why universal birth control only AFTER failure of equal distribution of war famine and disease??
Tell me that you've never been to a doctor or that if your family member were sick you wouldn't tell them to see one, tell me that you've never been vaccinated for anything, that you don't drive a car or use electricity and I'll believe that you're really convinced about the sustainability issue. Otherwise what makes you more entitled to life and luxuries than any other human being who is fighting to live?
Shame on human beings for the things they do to the world and shame on them for existing. But now that we're already here the solution isn't to let people die. If that were really the solution to the world's problems then the human race should just commit mass suicide for the sake of the earth. The solution is realizing the problem and addressing it, about education, teaching people to make the right choices, access to birth control, realizing that 90% of the sun's energy goes unused, that there are better ways to farm or reuse our resources, and doing our part even if it's inconvenient to us. It's 28 degrees outside I just walked my 2 miles to study at Panera and I'll carry my groceries home afterward, my motorcycle gets 60 miles to the gallon, what if the rest of the world could do the same? It's depressing to me how wonderfully recycling could work but it doesn't because people aren't educated enough to know that every piece of unrecyclable trash they put in the recycling bin renders the entire batch completely useless and negates the positive efforts of everyone else... Ugh I could go on forever about everything and I agree people are stupid and inconsiderate and selfish... But does it mean they should die for it?? Why not consider the alternatives before employing the death sentence? Why should a hypothetical person who has spent their life advocating sustainability, volunteering their time to environmental conservation and who now is suffering from terminal cancer be lumped into a category with the rest of them and receive any less compassion or any more ill will than someone who you love? Why even should someone who was never taught any better be deemed worthy of death by war famine or disease. Why not blame the system, blame the entirety of humanity, hold everyone accountable for the downhill course that we're falling down instead of wishing ill upon those who are randomly unfortunate enough to die early and die miserably?
If I chose my profession for profits I wouldn't have gone into medicine. I would've started earning money when I was 20... Not gone through hell just to put off my career until I were 32 only to go into primary care which will earn me a measly 120k/year which I could've been earning doing any number of things 10 years earlier.
No prompt response this time... I wonder if he thinks I'm as hopeless as I think he is or if he just has no reasonable rebuttal.
_______________________________________________________
Update:
Randall Chiu
Hah I had no idea I would start a storm of debate here... I just thought the screwup was funny. I don't think anybody here would advocate letting people die. That is, we aren't saying that we would actually start a famine, or that if there were a famine that we wouldn't go and try find food for ourselves, our families, and our friends. Nor do I think anyone here purposefully ignores vaccinations and medicine.
Like the professor said, education and food and medicine are -good-. The paradox is that the logical endpoint of medicine (a cure for all diseases and ailments, or practical immortality) is most certainly -bad-. We don't have that capability now, but each breakthrough brings us closer. It may very well be achieved soon - and our wisdom has yet to catch up with our abilities.
5 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Bi-Ying Yeh
"our wisdom has yet to catch up with our abilities" well said and 100% agreed
5 hours ago · Like
Wesley McLaughlin
A few years ago, my grandmother died of heart disease. She was 84. Was her death "preventable" by modern medicine? Not yet (they tried) but soon it may be. Did her death make her family sad? Yes, but not as sad as the death of a child would. Old people are supposed to die. We may be reaching a point where they don't, as long as they're rich. I think that's unfair to the mother who has to watch her child die of equally preventable causes just because some rich old person is afraid to let go.
about an hour ago · Like
Wesley McLaughlin
I'm considerably less optimistic than most people about the prospects of education and technology (things like solar energy and recycling) solving this problem. Birth control works, in rich countries (most of them have negative population growth). Making it more available in poor countries will help, but China shows us that government coercion will also have to be part of the solution. When have lots of resources, having just one child and putting a lot of resources into that one child is a viable reproductive strategy. When you lack resources, and live in a place with high infant mortality, war, malaria, etc., it's not. As a result, poor people have more children than rich people (they need to play the odds).
about an hour ago · Like
Randall Chiu
I'm not saying overpopulation isn't a problem, Wes, but what's your grandmother got to do with a dying child in Africa? That's a false dichotomy.
55 minutes ago · Like
Wesley McLaughlin
It's indirect, for sure. But with finite resources, people are going to have to die. I think it should be old people rather than young people. What does going to medical school have to do with protecting endangered species? That's the train of logic I'm having trouble following.
41 minutes ago · Like
Wesley McLaughlin
It's actually not that indirect. We're killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now North Africa over resources.
31 minutes ago · Like
Bi-Ying Yeh
endangered animals --> wishing people would die so animals could live --> feeling guilty for wishing people would die --> wishing people wouldn't die --> med school. But that's irrelevant.
I'm sorry about your grandmother, but yes, 84 is old. My paternal grandfather died of a stroke, I'm not sure how old he was but my dad was probably 20, he was probably in his 50s, I've never met him. My paternal grandmother died of TB when my dad was a toddler, he doesn't remember her, she was likely in her 30s.
My friend's boyfriend has a brainstem tumor, I know a little boy who's 2 years old and in and out of the hospital constantly for leukemia, I interviewed a 23 year old with a pancreatic tumor a few weeks ago, two of my friends from college died in a car accident the year they were supposed to graduate, an SUV veered off the freeway and struck my friend's boyfriend while he was trying to check out a flat tire, he was 26. My friend's father died of a heart attack at age 50, he never got to see his daughter graduate medical school, never saw his children get married. I can go on forever
People need to die, there's never a good time and there's no right time. Some die at 60, some die at 110, and it's always tragic, there's always sadness, but yes, it needs to happen and it will. But saying that "One of the worst things we can do is cure heart disease and cancer" is unfair and (bleep)
There's no right solution to the sustainability issue but halting the progression of medicine is not one of them. Killing people in war is not one of them. Until we've exhausted all other options and the end of the world is upon us, these shouldn't be things we even consider.
5 minutes ago · Like
Wesley McLaughlin
Yup, that's what we're doing. Pushing the problem off into the future until we don't get to choose how to solve it. I don't think we should halt medical progress, and I never said we should. But we should be devoting our resources toward curing diseases that affect mostly young people (like malaria) not mostly old people (like cancer). But because humans are inherently selfish and short sighted, and because of our market economy, that's the opposite of what we're doing. By how we choose to spend money on research, how we choose to use our resources, and by bombing poor people, we are choosing to kill young people far away rather than old people at home. Extending the life span of people in rich countries inevitably shortens the life span of people in poor countries. I strongly disagree that we should not make hard choices now and wait until the end of the world is upon us.
Bi-Ying Yeh
Yes, let's focus now on humane ways of killing people. That's much more logical than renewable energy, recycling and sustainable practices.
I'm done here. Joey just sent me this http://xkcd.com/386/
and he's right, I have better things to do.
Wesley don't ever come to my hospital, I may just euthanize you. For the sake of humanity and our future generations.
_________________________________
Update again
Wesley McLaughlin
It is certainly easier to argue with what I'm not saying than what I am saying. I said we should devote our resources to curing diseases that affect primarily young people, and not diseases that affect primarily old people. How you go from that to "focusing on humane ways of killing people" is beyond my understanding. But yes, stop thinking about it. That's much better for your psychological well-being.
Joey Miller
Arguing on the internet notwithstanding, there's a stark difference between actually devoting your life and talents to lessening the world's suffering... and to just talking about it.
Joey Miller
Plus also: http://www.imdb.com/title/
Wesley McLaughlin
I'm no saint, and I'm a total hypocrite. I don't know anyone who's not a hypocrite. Being as concerned about animal suffering as human, I foster for dogs that need homes. Beyond that, I try to educate people about the fact that economic growth is bad not good and that it makes much more sense to work on diseases that harm young people. Admittedly, I do this primarily by blogging, which might qualify as "arguing with people on the internet." I'm also spectacularly unsuccessful, since people just won't believe things that they find unpleasant. I don't delude myself into thinking that my net effect on the world is positive. I wipe my ass with dead trees, I exhale carbon dioxide. I don't drive, but I consume fossil fuels. But at least these two dogs are happier than they would be if I weren't helping them.
Joey Miller
Well with a track record like that who could hesitate to take up the mantle of your causes! ;)
Wesley McLaughlin
Nice jab. You guys have effectively refuted my argument that we should devote more resources to malaria prevention than cancer prevention. What I'm saying is unpleasant, it must not be true. And yes, people who speak of unpleasant truths should be euthanized. I'm convinced.
Letter to the Editor:
ReplyDeleteBefore your 'friend' makes such insensitive and socially irresponsible remarks - he should really pause to think about the social and emotional devastation that China's One Child policy left behind. I have read Chinese periodicals that have spent years worth of issues speculating on the legacy of an entire generation that is being crippled by the weight of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents' hopes, dreams, and financial dependency. Yeah, in places with high infant mortality, disease and turmoil they "need to play the odds," but it's not exactly as though these odds come for free. Each off-spring requires significant resources, the impact of which is heightened by the sparsity of these said resources... and yes, perhaps if they had a choice, they would conserve their resources and not reproduce. But the keyword here is CHOICE. In a country like America, it's easy for people to throw around words like "government coercion" and "reproductive strategy" because their rights aren't being forcibly taken away anytime soon, they have never clutched their livelihood in their hands through government issued rations that are diminished by a predetermined amount with each additional child in the household, and the penalty for their opinion is not a matter of life and death. I'm not even quite sure how this conversation evolved from heart disease to the One Child policy. Frankly, I don't care. I am one of the strongest proponents of not having children and, yeah, when I see the environmental and economic impact of large, low-income, welfare dependent families, I sure do wish they would stop having kids. However, I don't think the solution is letting heart disease run rampant. Government incentives and encouragement to reduce family size - completely welcomed. Government COERCION for ONE CHILD POLICY - out of your damned mind.
As for letting the old die and saving the youth... I'm not even sure what that means. Where's the cut-off for Old? Can someone please tell me? Am I halfway there yet? If I already have high cholesterol, does that mean I'm closer to Old than all my other friends? If I have children who are dependent upon me to live... am I less old because I need to live longer to make sure my robust, worthy children live on to make this world a better place? Wait, what if I never have children, can I absorb their years into my life expectancy because I technically removed their impact from the planet by never having them? If a perfectly healthy little child murders an elderly, hunchbacked old lady with gout and diabetes what is the prorated moral qualm of this event on this sliding ethical scale? What if I throw in osteoporosis?
It's easy for everyone to postulate viable strategies for just about everything in this world. Many don't work and, once in a while, some do. I think the only thing we can do is to each do our part to do what we think is right. So, doctors should keep wanting the best and most effective care for each and everyone of their patients... regardless of age, gender, race, creed, orientation, etc. Death isn't picky and you shouldn't be either. And some of us will keep doing our part and pick up the pieces that fall through and NOT tell family members - "SIDS really doesn't even make a dent in the birth rate. Hey, at least you won't be adding any more non-biodegradable diapers to the unsustainable landfill problem, thanks!" Or, "Well, look on the bright side, your dad was old and he's really doing everyone a favor by kicking the bucket. If you ask me, he really took too long because, frankly, we're overpopulated and we should really be thinking about the younger generation. Buck up, it really could be worse, we could be China. Have a better day!"
Letters to the Editor continued:
ReplyDeleteI have 2 dogs AND I don't eat red meat because I don't support the negative environmental impact or cruelty of dairy/cattle farming. So, if we both have a hypothetical deadly disease in the post-apocalyptic future... and we both come to your makeshift office in some bunker... and you only have medication to cure one of us... it would HAVE to be ME right?!?!?!?
But the real question is: Are all those cows that I'm not eating happier than they would be if I WERE eating them?
________________________________________
Dear Reader,
Of course I'd save you, but also I don't believe I'd have to choose because someone who so avidly believes in sustainability and natural death for the sake of humanity would voluntarily lay down his life when the world is ending, just like a patriot who avidly supports his country and preaches freedom voluntarily risks his life for his country during wartime.
...Unless of course the former is a complete hypocrite and would argue that he should get the medicine so he can continue blogging about sustainability and steal the last of his neighbors' food so he can keep his dogs happy with it.
@Wesley: Just because you say something unpleasant, doesn't make it true. It just means you said something unpleasant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous commenter about the One Child Policy.
Anyway, I don't think he would volunteer to save another's life, but let's just hope heart disease doesn't claim him before malaria does with the looks of all the humanitarian work he's doing over there.
(1) I wish Murmurs was still in business so we could post all this. Plus, your rebuttal was one of the best things I've seen you write.
ReplyDelete(2) I'm almost tempted to friend this Wesley character to have access to this conversation to post a rebuttal. And while I agree that efforts should be focused more on easily curable diseases that affect a wider swath of population (which inherently will include younger people), I, um, think we already do. Lol. Malaria has a cure, doesn't it? Why do we need to research a new one?