Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:


I didn't say "what is good for my particular tribe." I said what is
good for the species. What various societies think is good for them
(often to the detriment of other groups) has no bearing on the matter.

Astonishing. Just who, other than perhaps yourself, do you think
is wise enough to determine what is good for an entire *species*?

OK, let's take one simple example. When wars were fought with clubs or
swords, the strong and/or smart survived better than the weak and/or
stupid. Thus warfare was, in at least one sense, good for the species.

Once we learned to kill at a distance, with nuclear weapons being at the
current end of that chain, who died became much more random (and
included a lot of non-combatants). So warfare is now, in all senses,
bad for the species.

I don't think it takes a lot of wisdom to figure that one out.



The absence of vaccines might potentially lead to the deaths of
the "least fit" which is, of course, evolutionarily appropriate as I
understand the theory. In fact, people who espouse a purely mechanical
universe have no moral basis for objecting to this sort of thing.

If this were a primitive society, I'd agree with you. But not only has
our current society introduced methods where a disease can spread far
beyond the area it would have in olden times, the disruption of society
would be far greater because of our greater interdependence. So since
we've changed the conditions to the benefit of the virus, we need to use
compensating conditions to combat it.

And what happens to the poorest members of our society if vaccines are
made profitable by raising prices? Surely your beliefs must include
answering the "Am I my brother's keeper" question in the affirmative.