Choice: Is it yours to make?

I suddenly recalled something Dr.Tan said while I was showering earlier. He once said (something along these lines), "Medicine is a regression to Mankind's progression" or "Medicine is a regressive science to Mankind"

It sure was food for thought. The progress in medical frontiers translates into better health and thus people live longer - Life expectancy increases as a direct influence of medical advancements and education of course. Is this a bad thing?

Well according to Dr. Tan, whatever then happens to the 'evolution' of Mankind? Whatever happens to 'survival of the fittest'? With medicine, 'survival of the fittest' is obsolete, because people are born inferior physically or mentally will have due care and treatment that increasingly becomes better. People used to fall prey to infectious diseases such as smallpox, and all but the resilient ones or those with immunity will be subjected to 'natural selection'. As with non-human species, the weak die and are unable to reach the age of propagation and hence are selectively disadvantageous. And so according to Neo-Darwinism theory, these weaker ones will die out and the stronger ones will continue to propagate and, on top of these traits, some may hopefully 'mutate' such that these stronger ones become even more selective advantageous and get BETTER..and BETTER. Well that's how WE - Mankind, came about according to the evolutionists.

And so, because of medicine that took away the need for 'natural selection', Mankind can no longer evolve into a stronger specie(s). (Of course, Mankind has replaced 'natural selection' in another form as the wheels of society turns and turns)That's the whole gist of the argument, and I'll leave it at that for you to think.

Now something about what I was talking with Russell about.

The cure for Aids

The question posed was, what would you do if you found the cure for Aids?
Would you release it to save the whole, the millions that are infected and become one of the richest and most powerful man on earth while doing so?

Or would you not release such a potent drug or cure? Knowing full well that promiscuity, being on the rise, would scale to unprecedented heights? I just read a survey: 69% of Singapore youths have AIDS as the top sexual concern. What would happen if AIDS becomes an obsolete concern? Pause for a moment to think of the moral decay of society in the present situation and then...would you still release the cure?

If you decide to say, no, that what if, just what if, someone close to you is suffering from AIDS? Your closest family or friend perhaps? Would you still knowingly let that person die because you refuse to allow moral decay to seep into society? Or what about the poor children suffering from AIDS from reasons other than sexual promiscuity? Such as child prostitution, or perhaps a congenital infection carried down by pregnancy? Is it fair to let these people die? Who gave YOU the choice of LIFE and DEATH for these people? Would it be tantamount to be playing 'god'?
What then, if you say that these people are the exception and ought to live, who or what gave you the authority to judge over the lives of men, whether they be guilty of sexual promiscuity or otherwise? I believe that as a doctor or scientist, they very well should adhere to the Hippocratic Oath - essentially to save a life be it a criminal on death row or any citizen of the world.

It is a tough choice really...what would YOU do? The right thing? Which is? Giving to save lives regardless whether they are deserving of it or not? Or, not giving to curb the down-spiraling of society into decadence and lawlessness?

I would give. I think saving lives first is paramount. I cannot play god and judge lives, nor do I have a say to someone else's life and death. Most importantly to rid the curse of being ridden with AIDS, especially to someone innocent and unsuspecting, yet to be eternally cursed in this form, a highway , a point of no return, to a certain horrible death? Subsequently the effects of such an invention would be globe shaking. I'm certain of that outburst of immorality too. Nevertheless, the immediate problem as I see it is a life and death situation. Rather, life OR death.

So, what is your choice?