Wilko Johnson

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Bad news with the terminal cancer. A real character and a cracking guitarist. Hope he keeps fighting and they find a space for him somewhere.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Indeed. The bloke's a true one off and this is a bummer of a bit of news.

If he's still capable by June they should get him on the Pyramid for a nice lunchtime set.

[Mardy]

I hadn't seen thatn news. That's proper shit. Damn, man, Damn.

[The Nal]

Pancreatic cancer? Sadly I think it''ll only be a tribute to Wilko Johnson.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Pancreatic cancer? Sadly I think it''ll only be a tribute to Wilko Johnson.

[eFestivals]

Hope to God all our kids get to live in a world where cancers gone the way of smallpox.

I've no problem with a cure for cancer that causes younger lives to be extended, but a cure for cancer saves no lives at all (it merely extends them, for something else to then kill that person), and the very simple fact is that society cannot afford for a cure for cancer to be found.

Do you want life to your years or years to your life? Because a cure for cancer gets to mean that no one of any age gets to have much of a meaningful life, because it'll be spent wiping the arses of the old and dribbling for 16 hours a day, while those old and dribbling are thinking (if they're still able to think at all) "what the fuck am I doing here".

One day people will wake up to the fact that there's no cure for death, and the debate around 'cures' will have to change.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

I've no problem with a cure for cancer that causes younger lives to be extended, but a cure for cancer saves no lives at all (it merely extends them, for something else to then kill that person), and the very simple fact is that society cannot afford for a cure for cancer to be found.

Do you want life to your years or years to your life? Because a cure for cancer gets to mean that no one of any age gets to have much of a meaningful life, because it'll be spent wiping the arses of the old and dribbling for 16 hours a day, while those old and dribbling are thinking (if they're still able to think at all) "what the fuck am I doing here".

One day people will wake up to the fact that there's no cure for death, and the debate around 'cures' will have to change.

[5co77ie]

My mum was diagnosed with same, she lasted 3 months from diagnosis, that doesn't give him long. I would have thought the chances of many dates on the farewell tour will be slim.

[eFestivals]

Give over Neil. Theres a difference. Cancer takes too many people too young and causes too much pain to them and their loved ones. Anything that works towards stamping it out gets my money every time.

If you meant it - I find your comment on why cure cancer when something else is going to get you pretty offensive.

As I said, I've no problem with cures that save younger lives. But cancer does not only kill young lives, it kills many more older lives than it does younger ones.

And I didn't say anything like "why cure cancer when something else is going to get you". I simply pointed out the facts of what happens if a cure for cancer is found.

It makes me laugh when there's a news report that says something like "XYZ is now the biggest cause of death, and we need to act against it". Well of course the biggest cause of death will change as we act against the previous biggest cause of death. It's an inevitable consequence, that can never ever be changed unless death is able to be eliminated entirely.

And do we really want to eliminate death? I don't know about you, but I've no desire to exist but not live. That's precisely where we're heading, and the result will be early deaths on an unimaginable scale which will be an impossible to act against in any shape or form. That's far more offensive than anything you might think I'm hinting at.

Edited January 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

I want to live forever. The concept of death terrifies me

[eFestivals]

I want to live forever. The concept of death terrifies me

the idea of you living forever terrifies me even more than that.

[mrtourette]

I want to be able to complain about my tax dollars paying for old people to have their miserable state-funded lives extended.

[Ted Dansons Wig]

I like the concept of living forever unless it meant living forever in Runcorn.

[abdoujaparov]

Sad about Wilko...one of my guitar heroes

[1waveydavey]

Tricky view Neil, inevitably you were going to get somebody on here who replied who has had cancer and that's me.

I hear what you say about the difference between young and old people getting cancer and being cured. I was 40 when I was diagnosed and thankfully was discharged following my five years of remission a few months ago. I'm guessing at 40 I sit in the young category? Just?

A cure is a cure and would not be age specific I guess so you'd need to accept that, just as I accept that we all go the same way in time. Nobody wants to be a dribbling burden at their end of their time and we all want to have dignity at the end. I suspect cancer is already treated differently in older people than younger and it is more of a "management" approach rather than attempt to cure. The treatment is brutal and at the moment can threaten life in itself.

Not completely sure I know the point I want to make other than its a painfully tricky issue and I'd respectfully ask you to give fuller thought to it maybe?

I'm a Neil fan and enjoy the fire you add to debate on here, I'm just asking you to give a little more thought to this issue.

[eFestivals]

I'm just asking you to give a little more thought to this issue.

Sorry to hear about your illness, and i'm pleased to hear it's come good.

I'm not trying to wish death on anyone; let's get that one out of the way first. And I believe that everyone should have the opportunity of a full life if possible - and that would certainly include 40.

But no cure 'saves lives', it merely extends life. All lives are lost sooner or later by something or other.

If cancer is cured then (as we work things currently) that wouldn't only extend the lives of the likes of you, it would also include all of the much older people who currently die from cancer.

That means that the average age of death would be higher, with all of the associated costs that come with it (costs that the fit and able working people have to bear, with the effects of that onto their lives). It also means that something else would then replace cancer as the cause of death of those people, and focus on finding a cure would move onto that new thing, and the cycle goes around endlessly with each new cure that's found.

Ultimately it gets to mean many more people needing caring for in old age, but not really having much of a life in those extra older years (sitting in a chair, dribbling, for many of them), while the lives of younger people are effected by having to provide the resources to have those people sat in a chair dribbling. Eventually it becomes unsustainable, before even thinking of the added unsustainability of the much greater population too.

I have no problems in theory with a cure for cancer or anything else, but life is not only theory.

Sooner or later we as a society are going to have to address the massive difference between the great and positive theory of finding cures and the negative reality that it has onto the lives of everyone (in the way we currently offer healthcare).

I don't have the answers for how that new debate will pan out, but one answer might be that 'cures' are only made available to people who are below a certain age to give them the right to a full life, but not to older people over a certain age where life extension has too many negative effects elsewhere.

As I say in my sig: do you want life to your years or years to your life?

Edited January 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

I don't have the answers for how that new debate will pan out, but one answer might be that 'cures' are only made available to people who are below a certain age to give them the right to a full life, but not to older people over a certain age where life extension has too many negative effects elsewhere.

As I say in my sig: do you want life to your years or years to your life?

Edited January 10, 2013 by strummer77

[eFestivals]

Are cures the problem or are further cures the solution?

eventually a point is reached where further cures are pointless, because while those cures might give you (for example) non-cancer, cures cannot stop bodies naturally degrading with age. So people would end up 'healthily alive' but immobile at some point.

I think an age cap is also a mad idea anyway. People do not age at the same rate.

oh, i'm sure it won't pan out as that really, given how society is going.

It'll pan out that only the rich get to live, and the rest of us poor fuckers don't get close to the cures that might be available.

An age cap is far less mad than life-age being decided by privilege (which is what we get now anyway).

Edited January 10, 2013 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

eventually a point is reached where further cures are pointless, because while those cures might give you (for example) non-cancer, cures cannot stop bodies naturally degrading with age. So people would end up 'healthily alive' but immobile at some point.

[whisty]

I've no problem with a cure for cancer that causes younger lives to be extended, but a cure for cancer saves no lives at all (it merely extends them, for something else to then kill that person), and the very simple fact is that society cannot afford for a cure for cancer to be found.

One day people will wake up to the fact that there's no cure for death, and the debate around 'cures' will have to change.

Edited January 10, 2013 by whisty

[eFestivals]

But that's a different issue of course, one that I completely agree with you on!

which only gets to show that an age-cap isn't so mad after all, eh?

Perhaps an age cap isn't the ultimate answer, but it's certainly better than what we currently have.

[strummer77]

which only gets to show that an age-cap isn't so mad after all, eh?

Perhaps an age cap isn't the ultimate answer, but it's certainly better than what we currently have.

[Rachie]

My brother was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in July. He took me to see Wilko Johnson in October. It is a savedge disease, but my brother is doing well. (although he is accepting treatment)

[Ted Dansons Wig]

My brother was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in July. He took me to see Wilko Johnson in October. It is a savedge disease, but my brother is doing well. (although he is accepting treatment)

[russycarps]

someone's been watching Logan's Run methinks