should all pharmaceutical companies be shut down, so that humans can just evolve?

[CabVet]

why don't you just explain to me what you think are the benefits of shutting down all the pharmaceutical companies now?

None, zero, nada.

 

[dawiyd]

why don't you just explain to me what you think are the benefits of shutting down all the pharmaceutical companies now?

Patents on life saving drugs will disappear. Then again, so would the manufacturers.

 

[Loudmouth]

He is not against natural selection, he is against artificial selection. By doing a study of artificial selection, Darwin came up with the theory of natural selection.

It would only be artificial selection if we denied antibiotics and other life saving drugs to people who have traits we want to select out of the population. This obviously isn't the case.

You might as well argue that bees building a hive is artificial selection because it is technology that keeps bees from dying. We evolved the ability to use a big brain for our survival. Drugs are one of those products of that big evolved brain.

 

[And-U-Say]

Evolving in to what?

Well, something that better survives in the environment. Since we are creating our own environment and it is changing, it is kind of hard to say what. More like "in what direction is it going?" Without a lot of death due to environment, I would think it is just an increase in diversity without direction.

 

[gattaca]

 

[SkyWriting]

Look at the various religions and you'll notice that most have this in common: self-promotion. They have clauses and doctrines and other bits going on that mean a) non-belief is detrimental, b) belief is benefitial, c) you have to get it done before you die.

My parents had the same rule about cleaning my room, and my boss has the same rules about what he wants done at work.

Your point fails miserably. What institution or even individual does not self promote?

 

[SkyWriting]

It's a sad truth in the world that people can be convinced by the most tenuous of logic. ..?

Not in the least bit correct. People make decisions based on emotion or "gut feeling".
Then they prop up that feeling with logical pieces.

How great leaders inspire action – the golden circle. - Life-Engineering | Life-Engineering

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My parents had the same rule about cleaning my room, and my boss has the same rules about what he wants done at work.

Your point fails miserably. What institution or even individual does not self promote?

As I said, self-promotion per se isn't the issue - it's the means by which it's done. As I said, it's the beliefs that a) belief is good, b) non-belief is bad, and c) the deadline is death. That creates proselytisation.

Religion and politics are typified by belief: you have to believe in X, Y, and Z in order to be a member of a particular religion or politik. Institutions like universities don't have a set of beliefs that, when believed in, make you part of that institution, nor do they encourage self-promotion of those beliefs. Exceptions are, predictably, religious universities.

A company that advertises on TV is self-promoting, but the business doesn't believe that people will suffer for eternity if they don't buy their product. The self-promotion of religions is such that that adherents consider it wicked to not convert non-believers.

That's why even 'good' religion ferments extremist fundamentalism - no other 'institution' convinces its members that it's wicked to not recruit, that it's the height of moral goodness to convert others.

And that's the point. They think it's the height of moral goodness to convert others - and so anything else is excused. Killing 100 people is justified if you end up saving 1,000.

 

[46AND2]

I think I'm adding this poll question to the Craziest things you've heard thread.

 

[SkyWriting]

As I said, self-promotion per se isn't the issue - it's the means by which it's done. As I said, it's the beliefs that a) belief is good, b) non-belief is bad, and c) the deadline is death. That creates proselytisation.

Religion and politics are typified by belief: you have to believe in X, Y, and Z in order to be a member of a particular religion or politik. Institutions like universities don't have a set of beliefs that, when believed in, make you part of that institution, nor do they encourage self-promotion of those beliefs. Exceptions are, predictably, religious universities.

A company that advertises on TV is self-promoting, but the business doesn't believe that people will suffer for eternity if they don't buy their product. The self-promotion of religions is such that that adherents consider it wicked to not convert non-believers.

That's why even 'good' religion ferments extremist fundamentalism - no other 'institution' convinces its members that it's wicked to not recruit, that it's the height of moral goodness to convert others.

And that's the point. They think it's the height of moral goodness to convert others - and so anything else is excused.

I'm afraid I've never seen that in all my days in any church.
Well, one or two.

If you could provide your sources? Links to such churches?
You say they are all of that bent. So it should be a breeze.

My own church is not evangelical. Not that I belong to it.
I just call it that because it's my family church.
Church of the Brethren : Home

Killing 100 people is justified if you end up saving 1,000.

I worked with a guy who killed 5. Should he have been put to death rather than 7 years in the pen?
He was a nice guy and we were good friends. Should he have been on death row?

I wouldn't have a problem with that, if the jury had determined he was dangerous...I have no problem with killing one to save 10 more. Just having guys living in day-care facilities that they prefer to life on the street is not justice OR punishment OR a deterrence. It's just a reward for trying to make to make it to "the big money". Check this out and see.

 

[Jro]

Evolving in to what?

Well, something that better survives in the environment. Since we are creating our own environment and it is changing, it is kind of hard to say what. More like "in what direction is it going?" Without a lot of death due to environment, I would think it is just an increase in diversity without direction.

There's still differential rates of reproduction, even without death.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since we are creating our own environment and it is changing, it is kind of hard to say what.

Species have done that since the dawn of time. The first good example is the Great Oxidation Event that occurred 2.4 billion years ago.

Without a lot of death due to environment, I would think it is just an increase in diversity without direction.

2,000 to 3,000 people die every day due to malaria, and that is just one example.

 

[Delphiki]

So you think total dependence on pharmaceutical companies is a sign of intelligence do you?

pharmaceutical companies get richer as more people get sicker.

pharmaceutical companies get richer as more people get sicker.

pharmaceutical companies get richer as more people get sicker.

Ah yes, all these people we have dying of small pox and bubonic plague nowadays, eh?

 

[SkyWriting]

As I said, self-promotion per se isn't the issue - it's the means by which it's done. As I said, it's the beliefs that a) belief is good, b) non-belief is bad, and c) the deadline is death. That creates proselytisation.Religion and politics are typified by belief: you have to believe in X, Y, and Z in order to be a member of a particular religion or politik. Institutions like universities don't have a set of beliefs that, when believed in, make you part of that institution, nor do they encourage self-promotion of those beliefs. Exceptions are, predictably, religious universities.A company that advertises on TV is self-promoting, but the business doesn't believe that people will suffer for eternity if they don't buy their product. The self-promotion of religions is such that that adherents consider it wicked to not convert non-believers.
That's why even 'good' religion ferments extremist fundamentalism - no other 'institution' convinces its members that it's wicked to not recruit, that it's the height of moral goodness to convert others.And that's the point.

Fraid I can't agree with any of that. Effective institutions do have a moral or ethics code for all members to follow
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:1zoLRPWMfWYJ:www.pg.com/en_US/downloads/company/governance/Policy_Worldwide_Business_Conduct_Manual.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjdHq7MFWwgDmQrJgsdnmEtaISbzW-g17OftPpbe9WRkfRlHDXN3HK29SokuDiNY15xg8uvoEGTxuouLVe8tyRQXIf-pAuocw64GOBAICk8BumozcBWKeIYLBlxvZnf0l8rp4-7&sig=AHIEtbQGEx-DE7KY8sE76Y8-_8igV-23IA
and
they self promote them-selves or their products, and

they do give the message that you will suffer for eternity without joining them or buying their products.
Selling to pain - the greatest motivator - Mass High Tech Business News

Most even hold religious style services for the purpose of building your belief.
Business Leadership Training Seminars & Motivational Keynote Speakers from MVP Seminars

 

[gattaca]

Ah yes, all these people we have dying of small pox and bubonic plague nowadays, eh?

what have you got against natural selection?

 

[essentialsaltes]

what have you got against natural selection?

Nothing, but you have to understand what it is.

It is a description of how the world is.
It is not a prescription of how the world ought to be.

"I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all too numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live."
--Richard Dawkins, Introduction to The Selfish Gene

 

[Tomk80]

what have you got against natural selection?

It's a nice description of how populations evolve. It's not a moral proscription, and letting people suffer is not a moral thing to do.

Medicines help in not letting people suffer. Medicines are good. Searching for cures helps in not letting people suffer. Searching for cures is good. Not doing anything to stop suffering lets people suffer. Not doing anything to stop suffering is bad.

 

[Tomk80]

why don't you just explain to me what you think are the benefits of shutting down all the pharmaceutical companies now?

There are no benefits, only drawbacks. People who have cancer, children who have pneunomia etc would all die, horribly and painfully in many cases. People suffering from chronic pain would have no pain relief in any form. Vaccines would not be administered, leading to abrupt strong increases of measles, polio, chicken pocks and other quite horrible diseases, with the increased suffering and death accompanying them.

Personally, when I would be suffering from my relatively mild asthma attacks in winter, I would not have medicines available to stop these. And quite frankly, I hate not having them available because the wheezing impaires my ability to sport, to play trumpet, to dance and is a constast distraction, interering with my ability to work and leading to sleep deprivation. And that is just for about a single week in the year. Some of my friends who have severe asthma attacks likely would have died.

No benefits whatsoever.

 

[verysincere]

>Should all pharmaceutical companies be shut down so that humans can just evolve?
>

Should everyone jump off the nearest bridge so that the law of gravity can just have its way?

Should everyone commit suicide so that worms and microbes can return all nutrients to the soil?

(I have no idea what motivated the OP but I've often heard evolution-denying creationists speak as if the theory of evolution contained within it some sort of moral directive---or even some kind of rationale for humans to be a ruthless as possible. Why? I have no idea. (Ask a creationist.)

 

[verysincere]

Doesn't "pharmaceutical" come from the greek word #5331 in the greek NT?

Revelation 18:23 "The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore.
For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery/pharmaceuticals/farmakeia <5331> all the nations were deceived.

5331. pharmakeia from 5332; medication ("pharmacy"), i.e. (by extension) magic (literally or figuratively):--sorcery, witchcraft.
.

>Doesn't "pharmaceutical" come from the greek word #5331 in the greek NT?
>

Doesn't matter. Etymology is not lexicography!

You just committed one of the lamest of all exegetical fallacies. The fact that a particular Greek word 2000 years ago eventually provided the morpheme for an English word meaning "magic" tells us NOTHING about modern pharmacology.

That logical fallacy is so ridiculous that it defies all imagination.

It reminds me of a pastor I used to know when I was growing up. He said, "The power of God is EXPLOSIVE POWER. How do I know? Because the Apostle Paul used the Greek word DUNAMIS and that is where we get the word dynamite! No, Alfred Nobel a little over a century ago did NOT determine the meaning of a word the Apostle Paul chose to use. So add the anachronism fallacy to "Strong's obfuscations".

Strong's Concordance can be a handy tool---but only if someone is trained in the proper use of it. I know many colleagues who FORBID Strong's Concordance in their first year courses until they can at least teach students some fundamentals of hermeneutics. Countless novice Bible readers have presumed to "correct" Bible translations after consulting Strong's Concordance! [A dose of humility would help them even when their "common sense" fails them.]