Welcome to Gaia! ::

would you choose to save an endangered animal over curing a close relative of cancer?
I found your poll very hard to answer. In the end I decided that I would choose saving my mother of cancer over a species of near extinct frog.
what i wanted to say was uh...mm...dunno
My grandma is dying of Parkinsons. I think we might choose a cure for that over endangered species too. I am sure my mom would and she is vegetarian!!
Out of context the question is one thing but put into perspective in a situation where one is personally affected, wouldn't everyone choose to protect their own?

Curing cancer will cost trillions of dollars, and treatment alone costs hundreds of thousands or millions if the disease is advanced.

Saving endangered species costs as little as $0....as much as a million.

I'd much rather save all the endangered species of the world than cure a disease that's preventable and treatable.

I'd also much rather end world hunger and homelessness than cure cancer.

Cancer is only one of the five leading causes of death in first world countries.

AIDS, malnutrition, and war are the main causes of death worldwide.

You end hunger and homelessness, malnutrition will disappear, and both AIDS and war would be greatly decreased, because much of war comes from those without home or food either revolting or being bullied.

Also there's this:

$1000 and some willing volunteers would easily be able to save any endangered species.

$1000 and some willing volunteers would only be able to pay for an hour or so of cancer research.

I'm not on the side of the animals because they deserve better than us, or because they're suffering more than cancer patients, I'm on the side of the animals because a little bit goes much further when it involves only some kindly nurturing, and when it doesn't involve twenty-first century science technology.

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. Cancer, first of all, is neither able to be cured or prevented with current techniques. I had an uncle who came down with lung cancer and he had never smoked, drank, or used any carcinogenic product in his life. He went through all the typical treatments (chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, etc.) and was lucky to survive. But the cancer could have taken him just as easily as he was rid of it. There is no foolproof cure or form of prevention when it comes to a disease such as cancer, as it is the body literally fighting a production of itself.

While in any general case in which I had to choose between human life and animal life, I'd choose human life. Those of you who pointed out that humans are animals, too - you're right. And as animals, it is our duty to ensure the survival of our species. If we're all dying from diseases, we won't be able to help the animals or reverse the damage we've done to our planet, will we? Then again, if we focus on studying and preserving the natural wonders around us, we may find many natural cures to seemingly incurable diseases. So, I guess in a general case I wouldn't know what to do.

But in the case of cancer... well, I think I'd spend the money on the cancer research. I think we'll be more likely to find a cure by studying the human body rather than questing for a miracle plant, as cancer starts in the human body. Know what I mean?

I find this a very easy question to answer. It depends on the closeness of either to me. If my mom was dying of cancer, Id save her. If my bird was endangered, Id hold it close. When it comes to them generally, I go with what Thatlu said, but with a twist. Do what I can to help both. They are both very large problems, and neither can go unhelped. People are just animals. We are not some almighty godlike race of lordly beings who own animals. Likewise, if the countries sat together and discussed the cancer epidemic, and did VERY exstensive research on it, then we could find a cure, I'd wager.
Either way, they are BOTH very important issues, and one cant say "******** the cancer patients, help the animals!" or "Lets all slaughter the animals, and save the cancer patients!" Lets work on BOTH smile

Don't kill me for saying this, but... I think saving an endangered species would be better than finidng a cure for cancer.

Entire populations of animals are almost to extinction because of what humans have done. We started it, we have to fix it. It more than just not having anymore animals on the planet if they go extinct. The eco-system would be completely screwed up.

In nature, when a species is over-populated Mother Nature has a way of getting it back down to size. I think cancer is one of those ways. It is sad but, eventually everyone dies. Does it really matter how? Don't get me wrong I know exactly how difficult it is for people who have family members with cancer. My grandfather had lung cancer and he died. It was very sad, but no one can live forever. Maybe there won't ever be a cure for cancer. It's possible that there are somethings that just can't be cured. There are so many more problems in society, famine, war, oppression... I think putting a stop to those would be far more effective.

I'd rather help both of them! As much as I love animals, if I had to choose, I'd choose the cancer victims.

thanks for posting whee