Would you rather have 100% Immunity to big diseases or small illnesses?

[QUOTE="tocool340"]The smaller illnesses are things you can get over at least. Big ones can be permanent and life ending. So common sense tells me to choose the big diseases....sethman410

I believe osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease qualify as large illnesses.

The reason you would be a liability is because of those large illnesses. People can age just fine without these hampering illnesses and do not require assistance, especially on their entire family.

You would rather die younger, than running the chance of living in a retirement home? Even though some people are in their 90s and still living on their own..UCF_Knight

I'm talking the natural aging process. Not extreme cases like osteoporosis. As we start approaching old age, our bodies tend to get weaker (unless you're to argue that everybody has some form of osteoporosis). Without the big diseases around to kill me, there becomes the possibility of living to be 120+. At that age your spouse and children have likely died along with most if not all of the friends that you grew up with. That's something that I personally would not like to have to deal with.ff7fan2

trick question?

or...?

derp

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]So you would rather take a chance of inheriting a life threatening condition and ending your life in your 30s, 40s? Why not just choose to be immune to large illnesses, live healthy until you deem fit, and then find a creative way to off yourself?ff7fan2

Live life on the edge. Sail around the world, go climb Everest, blast your bass in the middle of the hood at 2am. Something horrible will happen to you eventually, and you might just have fun doing it.

*And quick note: You're admittedly picking the suicide option now. Choosing to inherit a disease and kill yourself so you don't become a burden. I'm sure that form of suicide is much better..

But if you have a sibling, chances are one of you will develop cancer at some point in your lives. You don't think that's a significantly high rate?

Zlurodirom

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

But if you have a sibling, chances are one of you will develop cancer at some point in your lives. You don't think that's a significantly high rate?

ZumaJones07

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]

I believe osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease qualify as large illnesses.

The reason you would be a liability is because of those large illnesses. People can age just fine without these hampering illnesses and do not require assistance, especially on their entire family.

You would rather die younger, than running the chance of living in a retirement home? Even though some people are in their 90s and still living on their own..ff7fan2

120 years old is pretty old, you'd have to be VERY healthy to live that long. You're right about aging, the older you get the harder is is for your body to replicate cells and you start to deteriorate. The thing is, if someone had a natural lifespan of 120, they would have a later delay on the body breaking down. Instead of in your 70s like normal people, you'd probably not start till past 100. If you started showing signs of age at 70, there is no way, even with medical help, your body will survive another 50 years (to 120). The body has it's own clock, and you can change it a little, but overall you cant change it by to much. There is no reasson to fear living past 120, plus if you have superior genes that allow you to resist these diseases, your children will too, so they won't die from this either.

The three leading causes of death are cardiovascular/heard disease, cancer and a stroke. In the US this takes up more than 50% of the death rate. If you can cut your chances of death (just looking at the top 3, there could be even more "larger diseases" that are farther down the list) by at LEAST 1/2, I don't know why anyone would not take that chance...

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]So you would rather take a chance of inheriting a life threatening condition and ending your life in your 30s, 40s? Why not just choose to be immune to large illnesses, live healthy until you deem fit, and then find a creative way to off yourself?ff7fan2

Well, you don't have to commit suicide. You can go out in a blaze of glory against the Mafia or some gang. Like Walter from Gran Torino...

...:P

*And quick note: You're admittedly picking the suicide option now. Choosing to inherit a disease and kill yourself so you don't become a burden. I'm sure that form of suicide is much better..UCF_Knight

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

But if you have a sibling, chances are one of you will develop cancer at some point in your lives. You don't think that's a significantly high rate?

ZumaJones07

Ok I have to ask, what are your "circumstances" and why do you think you are so likely to not contract anything. I know younger kids think they are "supermen" and certain things will never happen to them, because it always happens to other people. I sure hope that's not the mentality you are taking, because it's not a wise one to use for life in general.

Does "big diseases" include medical emergencies like sudden cardiac arrest that have an unknown cause?

I would still choose big diseases, though. I don't understand choosing small illnesses that are really just a minor annoyance, if that, when you can prevent yourself the risk of having a horrible disease that can make your life unbearable or kill you.

Well your stuck between a Rock and an Annoying place,

I think i'd rather get rid of the Rock

Small ones can't really kill you, so I picked 100% immunity against big diseases.

More people die from cardiovascular disease than cancer!

UCF_Knight

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]

More people die from cardiovascular disease than cancer!

markop2003

Thats a trick question.. If you got AIDS.. It doesn't kill you.. It wrecks your immune system, so those little ones kill you.. Furthermore I would argue that some of the "little" illnesses aren't reallly little.. Some of the largest deaths are to things like influenza, something we take forgranted... sSubZerOo