It is. But so is polio, and so was the smallpox. So was dying of common cold. And so is warfare, since living things are in constant state of war with each other.

We are the first beings on this planet with capability to transcend it all. We invented aspirine, got rid of smallpox, are in progress of eliminating polio, and we do our best to limit war and destructive competition. We're the first living things to decide what's Good and what's Bad, and we know that natural order of things is not Good, it's just the default.

> natural order of things is not Good, it's just the default.

Ok. But human beings are horribly short sighted. Something that may appear beneficial in the short term and on a small scale. but may turn out to be horrible in the long term and on a larger scale.

We have eliminated some diseases. But we have also created new, much horrible and powerful ones. We have discovered antibiotics, but that have also created disease causing agents that are resistant to them.

When ever we change something fundamental, that has resulted in the creation of much bigger evil. I think this is because we don't have capability to see the whole picture. We look at a small portion of it and think. "hey, we can make it better". But ends up messing up the bigger picture making it grotesque. So my point is, this is not an easy decision that should be made so lightly.

> We have eliminated some diseases. But we have also created new, much horrible and powerful ones. We have discovered antibiotics, but that have also created disease causing agents that are resistant to them.

> When ever we change something fundamental, that has resulted in the creation of much bigger evil.

I disagree with the assertion. Sure, sometimes we screwed things up big time (e.g. climate), but sometimes the change really was for the better. For instance, even though we're facing super-germs, life is much better for everyone than before we had antibiotics. Sure, we may end up defeated by the resistant germs, but it's not certain - that's why we have to push science and technology further, develop new methods like bacteriophages, because we can keep up with nature and have it our, better way.

> I think this is because we don't have capability to see the whole picture. We look at a small portion of it and think. "hey, we can make it better". But ends up messing up the bigger picture making it grotesque. So my point is, this is not an easy decision that should be made so lightly.

That I will agree with. We often suck at seeing the bigger picture. That doesn't mean we're screwed, because a lot of things can be dynamically adjusted and fixed as needed, but it does mean we should be careful with significant interventions into established systems. Death itself, for instance, is something that underpins a lot of our social structures and systems, so it is something we need to be extra careful about, but it doesn't mean we can't, or shouldn't change it.