(February 1985)
While cleaning out my
old files, I discovered this little paper that I had written over 30 years ago
for a class I was taking. Though the
numbers and a few details have changed, I can't say my thoughts are much
different today. So I'm posting it as
written.
(P.S. I received an A-.)
An article in Parade Magazine caught
my eye last week. It was titled "A
World Without Disease." The article
told us to "imagine a new world, a world in which disease no longer kills
or maims, ... (where) there is ample food to feed all people because crops also
resist disease." It promised that this
is no science fiction tale and that we are on our way to this because of the
marvelous new science of genetic engineering.
We've all read stuff like this before,
haven't we? Is it possible? Or is this somebody's utopian dream, a sugar
pill for the problems of the world? I
believe that it is just a dream, impossible of fulfilling. Not only that, but setting our hopes on a
world without suffering through science may divert us from making real efforts
to alleviate suffering in the world.
There are moral problems with this idea. I'm not speaking of ethical implications of
tampering with human life; I'm speaking of the moral implications of rich
versus poor, of developed nations versus undeveloped. The majority of funds spent on research in
this area is being spent in the western world.
Cures are being found through genetic engineering and other
research, people are being relieved from suffering, but who are these
people? Their number mainly includes
those of the upper and middle classes of the richer nations. Do we have any indication that their number
will ever include those of the lower classes of the world - those who are
really suffering?
The sheer mathematics of world population
growth belies the idea that one day we will have cured the ills of the whole
world. The population of this planet now
stands somewhere between 4.75 and 5 billion.
The World Bank estimates that by the year 2025, forty years from now,
world population will be somewhere near 8.3 billion, almost double today's
figure. The greater number of these is,
and will be, found in the under- developed nations. Do we really believe that we will be able to
cure the ills of all these? We are
unable even to feed them. The images of
starving Ethiopian children staring at us from our TV screens during the
evening news are a reminder of that fact.
Can we cure their diseases without first relieving them of starvation?
Another problem with the elimination of
disease in the world is the problem of administration. Who is capable of initiating and carrying
through a disease control program in any of the underdeveloped nations of the
world? Corrupt and inept govern-ments in
many nations do not desire that larger nations dictate the use of foreign
aid. Who is going to convince them that
they need to eliminate disease?
There have been successes in disease control
in the underdeveloped nations. A recent
report on 20/20 centered on a medical team in Bangladesh which had virtually
eliminated cholera deaths in a certain region at a cost of only a few cents per
person. Their problem, however, was that
even for its low cost there were not enough funds available, though funds are
being invested in medical research elsewhere.
Shall we then discontinue medical research
and spend all our time, money and effort on other matters? I'm not saying that. I have a grandson with a congenital defect. He would not be alive today if it were not
for medical discoveries made in the recent past. I hope too that someday a cure for his
illness will be discovered. Genetic
research and engineering does hold promise.
But there are others with the same and other defects who will never be
cured. There ought to be a balance between
the enormous amount spend on medical research for the few, and the relatively
small amount spent on helping the many.
We are a rich nation. Perhaps we can eliminate disease here. But what about the rest of the world? Are we to ignore their need? Does our hope for the future only include
ourselves? Maybe we cannot find a
solution for all the world's ills, but that does not mean that we ought not to
put more money and effort into relieving the suffering of as many as we
can. The Bible says, "The poor will
never cease to be in the land." To
let utopian thinking cause us to forget that, will also cause us to forget what
follows, "You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to the needy
and poor in the land" (Deuteronomy 15:11).
The great danger of false utopias is that we do not make an effort to
relieve the sufferings of the poor in the world.