4 ms·
I'm not convinced disease is inherently bad for a species. Sure it's bad for the poor individual that catches it, but who knows what the total net sum gain/los
by snarfy 11y ago
I'm not convinced disease is inherently bad for a species. Sure it's bad for the poor individual that catches it, but who knows what the total net sum gain/loss is. For all we know the net result could be a higher rate of extinctions as species end up with overall weaker immune systems.
- crusso 11y agoWhile there is some truth in that, the thought that we should allow natural culling processes to continue to thrive so that the rest of the surviving genetic population can improve the species goes against many core principles built into our society.
- soft_dev_person 11y agoThe core principle built into our society is that a lot of people on earth must suffer and die so that the lucky few can live the prosperous lives we do. Just saying. Admitting it is maybe not so popular.
- crusso 11y agoThat's extremely cynical and unwarranted.
- soft_dev_person 11y agoCynical, no doubt. But unwarranted?
- mschwaig 11y agoI think that reasoning is less applicable to a species like ours, which has so much power to collectively and conciously take action. In my opinion "let nature take it's course" is just a fancy way of saying "give up".
- minikites 11y agoI nominate you to tell this to all the people suffering from malaria and zika.