Current Events > Instantly become the richest man on Earth or get rid of all disease and viruses

(+) Yeah! (+)

I take the money out of greed.

I think diseases are a net negative on society. If society collapses without them then it needed to change. Once population growth reverses the remainder of the world would be better off for it. The world's worst diseases bring suffering nobody should ever have to bear.
---

I'm a cancer survivor with schizophrenia and probably some CTE gnawing away up there. I'll take the cure all diseases.

I'm already rich too, so win-win.

---

I'll take the money. There would be unimaginable famine all over the world if disease and viruses were suddenly gone. Millions of people would die and wars would be fought over resources.

At least with the money I'd be able to help in other ways.

---

Choco posted...

holy shit the irony in this post @Unsugarized_Foo you're trolling right?

Maybe.

---

Taharqa_ posted...

I'll take the money. There would be unimaginable famine all over the world if disease and viruses were suddenly gone. Millions of people would die and wars would be fought over resources.

At least with the money I'd be able to help in other ways.

Keep telling yourself that to justify your decision.

Viruses and diseases are needed I think. I'll take the money

ShibaToken posted...

Keep telling yourself that to justify your decision.

I don't need to justify anything, it's my fucking opinion on the matter.

---

Taharqa_ posted...

I don't need to justify anything, it's my fucking opinion on the matter.

Your opinion is selfish. You're trying to justify choosing money over saving lives.

ShibaToken posted...

Your opinion is selfish. You're trying to justify choosing money over saving lives.

Are you a child or something? Either way lives would still be lost.

---

If anyone figures out the second one, the first one will happen anyway.

I'm not selfish so I'd take the money and get everyone the new iphone

---

I don't see how eradicating all diseases kills people, let alone more people.

This is the equivalent of people who don't want a cure for cancer because "then the pharmaceutical industry would collapse"

Aren't there good viruses?

---

LivingLegend posted...

Plot twist...

You get terminal cancer immediately after getting the money.

Ya know, I wouldnt even be upset. I'd give all the money to my son.

---

ShibaToken posted...

I don't see how eradicating all diseases kills people, let alone more people.

This is the equivalent of people who don't want a cure for cancer because "then the pharmaceutical industry would collapse"

What do you think happens in any ecosystem where there is imbalance? If all diseases were eradicated the human population would explode even more than it has over the last century. Famine would literally occur and eventually wars would be fought over resources. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. There is a famine going on in Yemen right now that is basically man made.

---

YugiNoob posted...

Aren't there good viruses?

https://youtu.be/YI3tsmFsrOg
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221904-800-why-we-dont-lay-eggs/

---

I feel like getting rid of all viruses and disease would be poor for biology overall.
---

IHeartRadiation posted...

https://youtu.be/YI3tsmFsrOg
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221904-800-why-we-dont-lay-eggs/

"Genocide for Breakfast" would be a good band name

Taharqa_ posted...

What do you think happens in any ecosystem where there is imbalance? If all diseases were eradicated the human population would explode even more than it has over the last century. Famine would literally occur and eventually wars would be fought over resources. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. There is a famine going on in Yemen right now that is basically man made.

None of this has ever been tested on a civilization with sentient life and the technology we have. You are arguing based off a premise that does not apply.

Also, Yemen has diseases so again I don't see the comparison.

IHeartRadiation posted...

https://youtu.be/YI3tsmFsrOg
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221904-800-why-we-dont-lay-eggs/

I knew I recognized those little guys lol (although I don't know why she was attacking the good viruses)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ded5ckBLfU

---

I'm taking the cash. Unless people know it was you that ended all disease, there's not much benefit to ending all current maladies.

---

easy answer

sad to see so many selfish ppl here tho. 45% yikes man.

---

Naysaspace posted...

easy answer

sad to see so many selfish ppl here tho. 45% yikes man.

It's up to 53% selfish people now. More than half the voters want to see the world get fucked up big time D:

---

Money I hate humanity we are destructive creatures

Money. Sucks as it may but deadly diseases play a role in keeping population in check. Doing a damn poor job imo but removing them would just make our population more problematic.

As the richest man in the world (and me not having or wanting kids) I could easily use my money to help people from dying of things they really shouldnt like starvation. Doubt all the money in the world would stop such a thing but I could at least pick a area to help for the rest of my life and still live comfortably

---

008Zulu posted...

I'm taking the cash. Unless people know it was you that ended all disease, there's not much benefit to ending all current maladies.

Except you know, ending a major source of suffering. But fuck that fame is more important /s

ShibaToken posted...

Except you know, ending a major source of suffering. But fuck that fame is more important /s

It would actually cause a great deal more suffering if all viruses were wiped out

---

YugiNoob posted...

It would actually cause a great deal more suffering if all viruses were wiped out

<citation needed>

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared

---

SolidShadow3 posted...

Money. Disease is a form of population control imo. A very fucked up and horrible one, but without it the population would get bigger and create worse issues. With the money I could just help people out with their needs.

I would be benevolent with the money, but I would never advertise it.

This

is

a

myth

---

Oh and just watch the video in post 68

---

I feel curing all diseases will do as much harm as good. Think about the multi millions of people that work in healthcare.

I'd take the money and donate it to medical research

---

YugiNoob posted...

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared

The fact of the matter is, the premise is being applied to a civilization that is sentient and has exponentially growing technology. It's a flawed premise that has yet to be tested.

But yeah. Keep trying to justify your selfish greed over saving lives.

ShibaToken posted...

The fact of the matter is, the premise is being applied to a civilization that is sentient and has exponentially growing technology. It's a flawed premise that has yet to be tested.

But yeah. Keep trying to justify your selfish greed over saving lives.

You honestly think that eradicating such a large number of living beings will positively affect the planet? I would PAY not to have all viruses gone because Im not so small minded; this has nothing to do with money.

---

JACKBUTTMOMMY posted...

I feel the question is obviously posed in a "do the good thing or bad thing" way with ideal circumstances.

This. Its just that it was phrased far too broadly which started the debate. If it was something like money vs getting rid of all harmful diseases and viruses like cancer, influenza, covid, etc, then this poll would be much more skewed towards the disease killing. But as it is now, people are applying real world logic to a hypothetical situation that was meant to be much simpler.

---

YugiNoob posted...

You honestly think that eradicating such a large number of living beings will positively affect the planet? I would PAY not to have all viruses gone because Im not so small minded; this has nothing to do with money.

Imagine putting viruses on the same level as humans.

ShibaToken posted...

Imagine putting viruses on the same level as humans.

Imagine thinking that only humans affect the ecosystem

---

YugiNoob posted...

You honestly think that eradicating such a large number of living beings will positively affect the planet? I would PAY not to have all viruses gone because Im not so small minded; this has nothing to do with money.

This. Eliminating viruses would have all sorts of unforeseen, and very much foreseen, consequences.

---

YugiNoob posted...

Imagine thinking that only humans affect the ecosystem

Imagine justifying your greed by disingenuously asserting that "ALL LIVING THINGS MATTER"

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

This. Eliminating viruses would have all sorts of unforeseen, and very much foreseen, consequences.

<citation needed>

super surprised to see how many people voted to be rich

i mean eliminating disease and virus doesn't mean people won't die. there's plenty of other reasons to die, and you're still gonna age and break down without diseases and viruses. it just means that we'd see people living longer healthier lives, like maybe living to 100 wouldn't be crazy. and yeah we'd need to be smarter about population control and new issues may arise from that, but choosing that option is still a no brainer for me.

even from a selfish point of view i'd go so far to say that I'd rather take eliminating only MY chances for getting a disease or catching a virus over being the richest man on the planet, and that is also a no-brainer. because you can still be rich as fuck and die from cancer

---

Money.

---

ShibaToken posted...

Imagine justifying your greed by disingenuously asserting that "ALL LIVING THINGS MATTER"

Yeah, given that you just flat out ignored post 87 to reply with the standard CAPS but no substance post tells me youre just trolling. Theres no reason to continue.

---

Beefbud posted...

super surprised to see how many people voted to be rich

i mean eliminating disease and virus doesn't mean people won't die. there's plenty of other reasons to die, and you're still gonna age and break down without diseases and viruses. it just means that we'd see people living longer healthier lives, like maybe living to 100 wouldn't be crazy. and yeah we'd need to be smarter about population control and new issues may arise from that, but choosing that option is still a no brainer for me.

even from a selfish point of view i'd go so far to say that I'd rather take eliminating only MY chances for getting a disease or catching a virus over being the richest man on the planet, and that is also a no-brainer. because you can still be rich as fuck and die from cancer

finally someone gets it

Money. Eliminating disease would likely be a net negative in the long run even if it saved people in the short term.

ShibaToken posted...

<citation needed>

five second google check

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared

Also its obvious. You went to school once, don't play the fool.

---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

five second google check

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-what-if-all-viruses-disappeared

Also its obvious. You went to school once, don't play the fool.

ShibaToken posted...

The fact of the matter is, the premise is being applied to a civilization that is sentient and has exponentially growing technology. It's a flawed premise that has yet to be tested.

But yeah. Keep trying to justify your selfish greed over saving lives.

At least I know now both of you had no sources ready to back that shit up and literally just googled your argument lmfao

nemu posted...

Money. Eliminating disease would likely be a net negative in the long run even if it saved people in the short term.

In the long run we all die because of the sun exploding / earth's atmosphere collapsing.

I guess we should choose money over moving to another habitable planet because "we'll come across aliens that will want to kill us potentially"