|
People in here completely misunderstand what is being talked about. This is about biological immortality, meaning "not dying of old age". You would still die at some point, be it from cancer, or a car accident, or a gunshot to the head.
I for one would have no problem living 1000+ years since I see a lot of interesting things happening in that space of time. First contact would be pretty damn awesome.
|
Potential for tumor formation and malignancy is a hallmark of aging, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your version of immortality doesn't prevent cancer, you will not make it even remotely close to 1000 years.
|
On April 02 2013 02:52 heishe wrote:
People in here completely misunderstand what is being talked about. This is about biological immortality, meaning "not dying of old age". You would still die at some point, be it from cancer, or a car accident, or a gunshot to the head.
I for one would have no problem living 1000+ years since I see a lot of interesting things happening in that space of time. First contact would be pretty damn awesome.
dying of old age is a multitude of deceases, including cancer. the freak thing about modern day age is that people seem to get cancer at a younger age (and it may actually be that we only notice this more often because of more people and better technology to spot it). otherwise people been getting cancer since the dawn of time.
there are chromosomes which shorten over time and when they reach a certain point something that works as a sort of deathswitch flips on and the cells die. some cells regenerate, but the problem is that other cells, the most important cells do not seem to regenerate (aka braincells).
|
Assuming it's even the realms of possibilities for us, I would say that we aren't even remotely close to being capable of anything other than fantasizing about it.
Also to people saying that this would just prevent death from old age. If that is your standpoint then this really wouldn't change anything at all since none really dies just from "getting old" as far as I'm concerned.
|
On April 02 2013 03:13 Cereb wrote:
Assuming it's even the realms of possibilities for us, I would say that we aren't even remotely close to being capable of anything other than fantasizing about it.
Also to people saying that this would just prevent death from old age. If that is your standpoint then this really wouldn't change anything at all since none really dies just from "getting old" as far as I'm concerned.
It's never the direct cause but it's normally the underlying reason.
|
On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing....... When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty. How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses?
I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God.
Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
|
On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Show nested quote +Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult  any joiners?
People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
|
On April 02 2013 03:58 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners? People can believe in science as blindly as religion .
Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
|
|
|
On April 02 2013 04:17 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 03:58 Shakattak wrote:On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners? People can believe in science as blindly as religion . Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute.
lol
On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing....... When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty. How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses? I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God. Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it.
The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
|
Speaking from experience, immortality sucks.
Ooops I may have said to much....
|
Biological immortality will probably be achieved sometime after the technological singularity. I suspect that will not come until most of us are dead, or too old to be treated.
Of course, even then nobody will actually live forever. If nothing else, the heat death or other demise of the universe puts a cap on how long anything can survive.
|
On April 02 2013 04:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 04:17 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 03:58 Shakattak wrote:On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners? People can believe in science as blindly as religion . Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute. lol Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing....... When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty. How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses? I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God. Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it. The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility.
Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife.
|
I hope not, I don't want to live forever, the thought of that scares me really. I enjoy life but I imagine living forever, or atleast 200+ years would be terrible.
|
|
|
On April 02 2013 04:40 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 04:27 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2013 04:17 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 03:58 Shakattak wrote:On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners? People can believe in science as blindly as religion . Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute. lol On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing....... When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty. How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses? I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God. Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it. The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility. Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important". Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife.
I never said "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb.", I said that using science to force false metaphysical dilemmas like "So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important".
is to miss the point of using science altogether.
|
On April 02 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 04:40 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 04:27 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2013 04:17 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 03:58 Shakattak wrote:On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners? People can believe in science as blindly as religion . Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute. lol On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing....... When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty. How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses? I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God. Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it. The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility. Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important". Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife. I never said "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb.", I said that using science to force false metaphysical dilemmas like Show nested quote +"So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important". is to miss the point of using science altogether.
How is it to miss the point of science? Fine, if your point is that it's close-minded to say something can't possibly be when we don't have proof that it doesn't exist, point taken. However, you have to realize the difference between going "Something probably happens after death because... Um.. yeah, I can't think of a rational explanation, but I just believe it, life would be pointless otherwise", and instead going "Everything I know from existence stems from the fact that I have a functioning brain, once it stops working, I can't appreciate existence anymore". One is a theory founded on blind faith, one is a theory founded on some form of reasoning. Neither is provable, nor disprovable, but one is rational while the other is not.
Unless I'm wrong and you or someone else can come up with a rational basis for belief in an afterlife, something which points us in the direction that we don't stop existing once our bodies stop existing.
|
On April 02 2013 04:52 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 04:46 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2013 04:40 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 04:27 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2013 04:17 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 03:58 Shakattak wrote:On March 31 2013 17:09 FSUrequiem wrote:Is this idealogy yours or have you been initiated into it? To think that it is the belief in a creator that has caused these troubles is naive and dangerous.
If you spend some time researching history, you will see that it is the manipulation behind the church/organized religions that is to blame. Orchestrating wars is only the tip of the iceberg with these people, mass manipulation is the true crime you should be upset out.
For more information or for an overview of what the future might be , your search words are: Novus ordo seclorum It is the fact that it is possible to manipulate people through these means. At least with science people are more educated in their decisions, and take steps to ensure their right/true. And as for initiation, I'm in my own cult any joiners? People can believe in science as blindly as religion . Sure, the difference is that there's no need to believe in science blindly, it's all there for anyone else to check. For religion, however, blind faith is a prerequisite, and in fact, a defining attribute. lol On April 02 2013 03:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 02 2013 02:49 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:On April 01 2013 18:47 Tobberoth wrote:On April 01 2013 13:36 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
I wouldn't want to live forever in the human condition even if it's possible. Death actually does not exist, only a changing from conditions. I would never want to be in the human condition forever. Wanting to do so is only clinging and eventually you will change conditions no manner what as we have no control over the universe.
What's so special about the human condition? There's only the 5 senses that most of us cling too and besides that nothing....... When you're dead, there's zero senses, I'd say 5 is plenty. How do you know that there's zero senses when you die? Any proof? Also whats so special about the senses? I don't know, I'm assuming from past experience. You experience nothing before you're born and you experience more or less nothing during deep sleep. There's no reason to suspect anything different will happen to you when you die and your brain turns into ash. There's literally nothing which points to there being an afterlife, it's just as much blind faith as believing in God. Dying is returning back to non-existence. Some people don't find that to be such a bad thing, others find it terrifying. Personally, I find the idea quite disturbing since I'm satisfied with my life and it will suck balls when it ends. Not that I will exist to feel bad about it. The above is filled with a great deal of the very thing you claim science disregards, that being some sort of "faith" beyond reason. Your "faith" in science and our rational understanding of human existence has led you to assume a great many things about death that we simply cannot know. You say that there is no reason to suspect anything other than non-existence after death, and yet, there is absolutely no rational way of even giving evidence to this theory. That is not to say that I'm claiming some sort of heaven or life after death; rather that using our rational understanding of death to say what death is, i.e. "Dying is returning back to non-existence" is an exercise in futility. Not at all. It's simply going by the theory most facts suggest. There's nothing indicating that anything special happens when we die, simply everything that defines us disappears. The brain, which stores everything that we are and gives us consciousness, stops functioning. The only reason people believe that something special happens is because it's a way for humans to give hope to something which is inherently hopeless. So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important". Saying "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb" is like christians saying you can't disregard god just because you can't prove that he doesn't exist. There's no need to prove god doesn't exist, because there's no reason to believe he exists in the first place. Same with an afterlife. I never said "You don't know what happens after death, so disregarding an afterlife is dumb.", I said that using science to force false metaphysical dilemmas like "So you can either go "My brain stops functioning, so I can't appreciate or experience anything", or you go "Something magical happens to something magical called a soul, so the brain is actually, countrary to everything we know, not all that important". is to miss the point of using science altogether. How is it to miss the point of science? Fine, if your point is that it's close-minded to say something can't possibly be when we don't have proof that it doesn't exist, point taken. However, you have to realize the difference between going "Something probably happens after death because... Um.. yeah, I can't think of a rational explanation, but I just believe it, life would be pointless otherwise", and instead going "Everything I know from existence stems from the fact that I have a functioning brain, once it stops working, I can't appreciate existence anymore". One is a theory founded on blind faith, one is a theory founded on some form of reasoning. Neither is provable, nor disprovable, but one is rational while the other is not. Unless I'm wrong and you or someone else can come up with a rational basis for belief in an afterlife, something which points us in the direction that we don't stop existing once our bodies stop existing.
Well, my entire point is that something like the afterlife deals with those corners of our existence that are especially difficult to approach rationally. In fact, I'd wager that such a thing is impossible (at least within our lifetime).
In the end, I'm not arguing against science or rationality; I'm simply arguing that not all facets of human existence, death and life included, can be explained rationally.
|
On April 02 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote:
Potential for tumor formation and malignancy is a hallmark of aging, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your version of immortality doesn't prevent cancer, you will not make it even remotely close to 1000 years.
we're making a ton of progress towards curing cancer. id wager we manage to cure cancer before we manage to achieve immortality
|
On April 02 2013 05:03 HeavenS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 02:57 farvacola wrote:
Potential for tumor formation and malignancy is a hallmark of aging, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If your version of immortality doesn't prevent cancer, you will not make it even remotely close to 1000 years. we're making a ton of progress towards curing cancer. id wager we manage to cure cancer before we manage to achieve immortality
You say that, but my best friends father was diagnosed with a form of hematological cancer of indeterminate origin less than a year ago, and it killed him in 3 months flat, no questions asked. You are right to say that we've made progress in fighting cancer; but in terms of curing it, we can really only claim success in a few select areas (those mostly being breast cancer, lymphomas, and leukemia amongst a few others). If you get pancreatic cancer, even with early detection, you are almost 100% dead within a few years. Certain sorts of malignant melanomas can kill a person in mere weeks. And like my friends father, if your cancer happens to be "of indeterminate origin", although incredibly rare, you will die very quickly. The problem is that for every type of cancer we figure out a successful treatment modality we discover a slightly different form of that cancer that resists all treatment, all the while there are those kinds that will simply kill you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
