On Sat, 19 Jul 1997, Michael Coghlan wrote:

> At 08:58 18/07/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >On Fri, 18 Jul 1997, Michael Coghlan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> So why then are we as a species living longer and longer?
> >
> >
> >I believe it is due to the advancements in medicine, namely
> >vaccines, anti-biotics and trauma surgery.
> >
> >I think another thing needs to be kept in mind.  Medicine has the awesome
> >ability to keep bodies going that nature would have long since shut down.
> >But the bodies are damaged goods.  Alot of these additional years that
> >people are living are in spent in great physical pain and suffering.
>
> I know. This is true. But my mother in law, who has just come out of
> hospital after having her cancer infected bowel removed is in no doubt.
> Given the choice - death or several more years of life with a body that is
> now most definitely from the damaged goods department - she will choose life.
>
> And
> >many of these chronic diseases that we are suffering from are due to the
> >enourmous amounts of man-made poisons the we dump into the eniviorment or
> >eat.
> >
> >Without the medical miracles that keep our damaged bodies alive, would we
> >be living as long as the peoples of the past?
> >
> >
> No of course not. And I think it's a bit rich for Dave Hartley to imply that
> there is a world wide conspiracy to render us all spiritual cripples by
> flooding the world with chemicals and toxins. You see, they (the purveyors
> of these substances) actually believe they are helping us! And if longevity
> is a useful measure of any kind of progress, then they're right. They are.
> But maybe we should all be content with a happier, healthier, shorter life?
> Say, 50 years maximum.

I agree with just about everything you have stated above.  I am for
progress and technology.  (please keep in mind that I am simply answering
the question that I extracted from the response.  I am not supporting all
of Mr Hartley views)  I support the intellegent use of man-made substances
that benefit humanity.  However I disagree with one thing you have
implied. That progress is neccessitated by dumping crap into the
enviroment and hence the food supply.  I could not more whole-heartedly
disagree.  How can a individual who poisons people take credit for the
efforts of another individual who helps prolong thier lives?  It doesn't
make any sense.  The only link that I can see between the "purveyors of
poison" and the medical professions is that the purveyors provide more
patients for the medical doctors to study.


-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Tomljenovic                    [log in to unmask]
Software Engineer
Neoglyphic Media Corp.               773-395-6247