Do you feel this way about yourself only, or people in general? I suspect that you're not the kind of person to force your beliefs on others, especially recognizing that those beliefs are of a minority (although, I am always surprised by the size of this minority). I understand you can feel confident and comfortable with your own death and time, and many people have been able to get to that point. I guess what I want to know, is do you consider it moral to avoid medicine or other kinds of drugs or means of modifying your body and mind? Or is it merely a lifestyle choice, like what sport you choose to play or what your job is? We've heard news of children who have died of the flu this season - if one were in your charge, would you leave an ill child's life to fate, or would you do everything you could to keep that child healthy and alive? They don't have the capacity to understand or consent to a lifestyle which abstains from medical treatment for moral or ethical reasons, wouldn't it be unfair to leave them in the dark on medical treatment? They might not share your belief in destiny or an appointed "time" to die.
I do understand many don't agree with my view so I often keep it to myself because it is so controversial. I think that it is moral to avoid unnatural forms of medicine. To me, going to a hospital or taking unnatural medicine is like giving the finger to nature. It's like saying "I'm going to take matters into my own hands and neglect you telling me it might be my time." I don't know about this. Sickness is a form of population control. But we no longer live in a world where that seems to be important to anyone. I wound't want to force others to believe the same way so I won't stop someone from trying to save their own life. Will this view change when I have children of my own? To be completely honest, I don't know. If it's meant to be, it's meant to be. In this regard my views aren't fully formulated.
Yes, it's hard to know what one would do in a trying situation, especially with children, until you face it yourself. One thing to consider, from my perspective -- humans are part of nature. Medicine is our tool to stay alive, which is an urge encoded onto our very genes, as is the urge to keep our genetic descendants alive and reproductive. Why is it giving a middle finger to nature, to do that which nature explicitly programmed us to do?
During winter months, when growing seasons are shorter and humans aren't able to get as much food, women become naturally infertile. These seasons of infertility aid in a stable population. But since we've been able to produce food when it doesn't naturally grow, we've changed the natural rate of population increase. "Advanced medicines" are only a way of going against stable populations.
No offense, but I've never heard of that theory before, do you have a source? Population control and stabilization seems to be a reoccurring theme of your posts. Did you know this is already happening across the world? People are having fewer children because of advances in medicine and science, among other reasons. It seems to me that following your view could actually increase population as child mortality increases, people would have more children fearing some would die of sickness or infection.
I just read about it in the book Changes In The Land for my American Environmental History class. It was one of the pioneering books in the field of environmental history. How are there fewer children now? And I don't know that that's how it would play out that people would end up having more kids. If you look at tribes in Tanzania, they have a very sustainable population in which there aren't too many children.
It is a fact that more developed (i.e. more medically advanced) countries have a lower birth rate: (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-end-of-popul...) As we gain more technological freedom to control our own fertility, and as having children becomes a bigger economic disadvantage, the population growth rate has slowed considerably in countries with access to medicine. The countries that do not have advanced medicine available to the public - China, India, other developing countries - are the ones with enormous population booms that are damaging to the planet. Our ability to remain fertile at any time of year due to food production is greatly offset by our ability to control our birth rates. In fact, if you're concerned about our longevity, our replacement rate (the rate at which old people die and new people are born) is extremely tight, last I've heard, I'm not sure what the ratio is at now. I find it totally untenable to blame medicine for world overpopulation or "giving the middle finger to nature" when it's provable that medicine is a direct, causal link to population growth slowing.
I'm not going to pretend you don't have incredible points, because you do. To be honest, I'm not sound enough in my belief to know how to respond to this. Let me think about this some and then I'll get back to you once I've thought it out.
That's fair. I've definitely gotten a closer look at my beliefs -- especially the last point -- as a result of this conversation as well, and it's always worthwhile if you can get a chance to examine your thoughts from all angles.
Oh yes I definitely agree. The beauty of discussion is immense.