TED Conversations

Olivier Coquillo

This conversation is closed.

Why can't we all get together and find a cure to all terminal diseases?

I have not done enough research on collaboration between research centers but I promise to read all of your comments, since I am mostly asking this question to learn from you.

One of my dreams is to be able to witness an international collaboration and a public commitment from top research centers to find a cure to terminal diseases and to distribute the cure for free to people in need.

Do you think that there is a competition between research centers and scientists? Do you think that some groups are more focused on finding a cure to make money rather than finding a cure to save lives? I would love to know what you think.



Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 21 2013: I believe that terminal diseases are natures' way of controlling our numbers, whereas we think that everybody has the right, whether born physically able to or not, to procreate at will and contribute to a world where the majority do not have enough to eat. There needs some kind of intervention to halt the ever-increasing human population and its devastating effect on the planet. To want to "cure all terminal diseases" is idealistic, na├»ve and immature, the sort of thing an 18 year old Miss World candidate would think was the "right" thing to say. Quality of life is about more than being able to pop a pill to cure an ailment or illness, or provide wheelchair access and "special" schools for the disabled. In the wild when a creature is ill, injured or otherwise unable to feed or defend itself, it is taken by those stronger, and becomes a useful and invaluable part of the food chain and cycle of life. Those born disabled are not raised in the cozy confines of the den, home-tutored on killing prey and survival skills they will never be able to use, brought regular meals by the pack and given to think they deserve to lead a normal existence. True nature has its own way of dealing with "glitches" in the system. Natural selection. Quality of life is producing young that are born naturally strong, fit and healthy, with the best chance of survival through being of strong genes, able to grow to feed and fend for itself, and only the strongest and fittest contributing their genes to the better evolution and survival of the species. You want to fight against nature, against natural selection and survival of the fittest, a system that has created a planet which can evolve, sustain and nurture life? A system that has been in place for hundreds of millions of years before us and no doubt hundreds of millions more after we are long gone? How many more lives need "saving"? You are misdirected. Finding a cure to all diseases goes so much deeper than just money and scientists.
    • thumb
      May 22 2013: It has been said that our next big discoveries are going to be in the area of medical science. Humanity and technology are changing and growing at a never before seen pace in our history. There has been more technological advances in our last century than had ever occured before. It has also been suggested (Jason Silva & others) that mankind is on the brink of creating the singularity whereupon a machine will be capable of thinking for itself as in artificial intelligence. It would have instant access to EVERYTHING we know and be capable of cross referencing, algorithmically computate DNA sequencing and so much more.
      In this context everything changes and mother natures way of doing things would have been substantially altered. Not only that but there is already talk of populating Mars and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to eventually see mankind populating other planets and solar systems. In this way Earth will be no longer our sole place of residence for humanity. The weak, frail and injured will be no more ( essentially, marring other factors). :D
    • thumb
      Jun 1 2013: Thanks for sharing your opinion Claudine.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.