If a certain species of tree was proven to cure cancer, would you support using/falling these trees?

Question

These trees can always be farmed in the process to make sure that there's a steady supply (like in the logging industry). But in the meantime, that would mean many animals would be without their current habitats and the "ecosystem" would be disturbed.

Answer 1

Interesting hypothetical question with a lot of 'ifs' in it.  If someone was so inclined as to try to quantify the equation (how many trees, how many people) it would be easier to look at the issue objectively.  But I think the general answer would be yes for most people-in the short term, as the tree farms are developed, disruption of habitat would be worth the benefit.

Actually, that is one of the reasons that environmentalists DON'T want ecosystems disturbed any more than necessary.  Aside from the environmental costs in terms of pollution, etc, one of the primary issues has been destruction of ecosystems that could yield medical and other human  benefits as yet undiscovered.

Answer 2

We would cut down the tree------ cure cancer---- and plant LOTS more of them.

This is also the scenario that applies to nuclear power-- Zero CO2-- very little waste product if we recycle the fuel(we cannot right now due to a law passed by Congress in the early 1980s)--

Yes we could GROW Nuclear power-- but we will not for some strange irrational reason.

You can read my thoughts about this and other energy subjects on my Energy Now! blog at

http://www.neighborsgo.com/blog/boatman2

Answer 3

do you have a name for these trees, or is this just one of those hypothetical questions?

how ever the Chinese are convinced that a certain conch mushroom does cure cancer, and they pay good money for them.

And Conch mushroom do grow on trees.

Answer 4

If it was my child who had the cancer I would not give it a second thought. the tree would go.

Answer 5

No, I would be very much for growing them in mass in controlled areas, like they do christmas trees or any other tree that is used for it's product.  It's not exactly helpful for cancer if all the tree's are eliminated now is it?

Answer 6

The yew tree bark extract is used for treatment of cancer.I believe the method for collection is cutting limbs off and stripping those ,without killing the trees.Farming the yew tree would be a wiser method.

Answer 7

What about the toxic trees and plants that  cause cancer in the rain forest?  ( not hypothetical but real).

Answer 8

what animals would be "disturbed"?

(hey, i know some people in that category.)

squirrels?  no problem.

questions like this always leave stuff out.

one doesn't want to seriously imperil any species.

one also wants people not to die.

given the limited information, yes, i'd support cutting some down.

but certainly not all.

however, unless they were as common as pine, fairly soon their value would increase, and tree farms would be planting them.

in fact, given the state of today's pharmaceutical industry, i suspect it wouldn't be long before they'd figure out what was beneficial, and implant that specific gene in some algae species, and grow the stuff in hydroponic tanks.

Answer 9

Yes if it is done wisely. We are good stewards of them taking only what is needed and no more. Replanting as we harvest.

I have been sitting here racking my brain for ways to make sure to keep the speculators away from it.

Answer 10

As a matter of fact, the common yew ( a shrub-like tree ) has provided a very helpful anti-cancer substance.  And the may-apple tree has, too.   Further, it has not been necessary to run out and cut down all the yews and may-apples.  So there ya go...

Answer 11

People must always come first, that's biblical (if that means anything to you).  Also, I'm sure that there's a solution for the animal habitat problem.

Answer 12

There will never be a cure for cancer, why?...because there is no money to be made in a cure, only treatment and then eventual expiration/death after the treatment revenue is made....There has to be research to justify the billions being spent on it, and we actually need the death rate created by Cancer.....

There hasn't been  cure for anything since Polio, and the reason is as I said already, there is no profit in a cure....Could you imagine the doctors that would no longer be needed if cancer were cured?... The hospitals that would go broke...The businesses that would go bankrupt?...

The only way a cure for Cancer or AIDS will be developed is if some private entity without government approval were to just start treating patients and curing people, of course the government would step right in and shut that down pronto, can't have cures now can we?...

That's the only way a cure would ever be seen by the regular people... although the elite might already posses such, that is "The Illuminati" ...

Answer 13

Certainly. But the people who ask these silly "what if" issues are invariably the ones who don't know the realities. For example, the mere fact that they ask such questions shows they stereotype environmentalists (and liberals, since they also equate the two--incorrectly) are anti-technology.

They're "concerned" with what's going tohelp people?  Then why the hypocrisy?

What do I mean?

Guess what--there is just such a tree.  It's rare.  But the drug it produces--interferon--is one of the best cancer fghting drugs every found.  

These jerks say they'd farm the trees. Well, they aren't doing it. Nor are they supporting the research anddevelopment needed to make it possible to synthesize interferon (which is doable--we know how.

Answer 14

Most of the medicines and cures that we have today actually come from different plants and trees.

As far as me supporting the falling of trees in exchange for the cure for cancer, yes I do support that.

At least it's not just for furniture.

Answer 15

Mankind will always continue to do as he always has ,if the trees have something he wants he will cut them down.

(Not a personal opinion but the truth.)

Answer 16

Interesting hypothetical but I don't think it would be necessary to fall the tree to harvest it's curative elements.  Mostly medicinals are found in bar, berries, etc.  In essence this is happening though. The pharmecutical companies are raiding the native wisdom in the rain forest and vastly altering the culture and the landscape.

Answer 17

I am about as liberal as you can be, and yes, I would definately use the trees, as quickly and as much as possible, and plant them in huge areas to continue using them.

To the guy who talked about "interferon" - interferon isn't produced in trees.  It's produced in vertebrates - yes, including YOU - to counter viruses, parasites, and tumors.  And clearly it isn't too effective, or else cancer would be less common.

Answer 18

there is a reason for everything put on this earth , and we should use it as it is intended.however i like the term waste not want not.if we use these trees the way they should be used then there will be enough

Answer 19

I would need more details to make a decision. How quickly can the ecosystem recover after the disturbance? Will the damage be permanent (extinction) or will the populations recover? I would support using the trees if the ecosystem can recover, but I wouldn't support it if the damage was extreme and permanent.