4 ms·

If my quality of life is low, even while otherwise healthy, what do I care about the well-being of the herd? If I'm held down, and made to work two or more low

If my quality of life is low, even while otherwise healthy, what do I care about the well-being of the herd? If I'm held down, and made to work two or more low-paying jobs, and still can't escape poverty, you're going to have to hold me down even harder, and force me to take care of myself. If I'm unhappy in life, I'm not going to see a doctor to keep that life going. Does this make sense yet?

lovich 8y ago
That does make a point, but it's not what's happening here. You don't get to 30 years old before you decide to get vaccinated. You get them as young children. Following your analogy it would be more like "I don't like my life, so I'm not going to take care of my children" Also we do take steps to hold people down and make them take care of themselves or just do it ourselves, when it's gets so bad that they affect other people. If you let your home start collapsing it'll get condemned. If you let trash pile up on your property and attract dangerous animals into the neighborhood you'll get increasing fines until your forced to clean up. If you go into a drug fueled bender all the time and wander the streets attacking people, you'll be arrested. This is just another case of people creating negative externalities that everyone else has to deal with, and then hiding behind the idea that personal freedoms mean they can do whatever they want without limit
- downer60 8y ago
  Well, the argument goes something like: I'd euthanize my kids and spend the rest of my waking life in one of your jails, dying childless, rather than let them live in your world, raised by you, and not me. If I'm in your jail, I'd rather dispell all illusions about it, and not live a life pretending my children are more than your playthings. Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Let's be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I don't really think or believe this myself, but this is the root of the argument. My reason for surfacing the foundation of the premise for such behavior, is because I think different strategies are needed to confront emerging biological hazards of the future. It's not going to be enough to just ask people to jump on a band wagon, and it's barking up the wrong tree, to remove an individual's choice from the equation. People have to want to live, and biological epidemics have to be attacked with a variety of strategies. Vaccinations are good, and so are antibiotics, but they won't save us in all cases, and they won't save all of us even when they do work. Other brute force methods like area denial take over, when the sophisticated medical tactics fail. It's important to look ahead, and recognize that in scenarios where vaccines and antibiotics don't work, to consider the situations that emerge even when other plans fail. Basically, the oldest option on the table is quarantine. It's low tech and appeals to biblical sensibilities. Some people are willing to try it instead. The argument is going to go that way. Strategies for dealing with people who think like that are going to have to chart a different course. My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines?
  - bmn__ 8y ago
    > I'd euthanize my kids and spend the rest of my waking life in one of your jails, dying childless, rather than let them live in your world, raised by you, and not me. Sounds like your idea is to reject society for ultimate freedom. However, you do not get to both escape its bonds of obligations yet also enjoy its benefits. Are you ready to give up everything? I invite you to ponder on the historical meaning of outlawry. > My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change You're not a doctor or bio scientist, you have no basis to speculate about a solution to disease that makes immunisation superfluous. > Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem Because we need to fight measles now or people die needlessly.
  - lovich 8y ago
    >Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Ignoring the abortion aspect where theres arguments on both sides as to whether its killing a person or not, lets look at the rest of that. You are saying that you don't want to live in a world where your choices are forced, but if you had to, you'd kill your kids rather then let them live in it? How is this logically consistent at all? The only thing I'm seeing out of your argument is that you believe you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and you can take peoples lives if that is your decisions >My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines? So just put our heads in the sands and not deal with any issue because "...five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem?". People who didn't make the choice to not get vaccinated are dieing due to others choices _now_, so we should let that keep happening because it _might_ not be a problem in the future? I get the whole individual freedom argument. I even agree with it. However, when your choices start affecting others, you are now guilty of the exact same problem you were accusing others of. You are making choices for other people

lovich 8y ago

That does make a point, but it's not what's happening here. You don't get to 30 years old before you decide to get vaccinated. You get them as young children. Following your analogy it would be more like "I don't like my life, so I'm not going to take care of my children" Also we do take steps to hold people down and make them take care of themselves or just do it ourselves, when it's gets so bad that they affect other people. If you let your home start collapsing it'll get condemned. If you let trash pile up on your property and attract dangerous animals into the neighborhood you'll get increasing fines until your forced to clean up. If you go into a drug fueled bender all the time and wander the streets attacking people, you'll be arrested. This is just another case of people creating negative externalities that everyone else has to deal with, and then hiding behind the idea that personal freedoms mean they can do whatever they want without limit

downer60 8y ago
Well, the argument goes something like: I'd euthanize my kids and spend the rest of my waking life in one of your jails, dying childless, rather than let them live in your world, raised by you, and not me. If I'm in your jail, I'd rather dispell all illusions about it, and not live a life pretending my children are more than your playthings. Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Let's be clear, I'm playing devil's advocate, and I don't really think or believe this myself, but this is the root of the argument. My reason for surfacing the foundation of the premise for such behavior, is because I think different strategies are needed to confront emerging biological hazards of the future. It's not going to be enough to just ask people to jump on a band wagon, and it's barking up the wrong tree, to remove an individual's choice from the equation. People have to want to live, and biological epidemics have to be attacked with a variety of strategies. Vaccinations are good, and so are antibiotics, but they won't save us in all cases, and they won't save all of us even when they do work. Other brute force methods like area denial take over, when the sophisticated medical tactics fail. It's important to look ahead, and recognize that in scenarios where vaccines and antibiotics don't work, to consider the situations that emerge even when other plans fail. Basically, the oldest option on the table is quarantine. It's low tech and appeals to biblical sensibilities. Some people are willing to try it instead. The argument is going to go that way. Strategies for dealing with people who think like that are going to have to chart a different course. My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines?
- bmn__ 8y ago
  > I'd euthanize my kids and spend the rest of my waking life in one of your jails, dying childless, rather than let them live in your world, raised by you, and not me. Sounds like your idea is to reject society for ultimate freedom. However, you do not get to both escape its bonds of obligations yet also enjoy its benefits. Are you ready to give up everything? I invite you to ponder on the historical meaning of outlawry. > My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change You're not a doctor or bio scientist, you have no basis to speculate about a solution to disease that makes immunisation superfluous. > Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem Because we need to fight measles now or people die needlessly.
- lovich 8y ago
  >Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Ignoring the abortion aspect where theres arguments on both sides as to whether its killing a person or not, lets look at the rest of that. You are saying that you don't want to live in a world where your choices are forced, but if you had to, you'd kill your kids rather then let them live in it? How is this logically consistent at all? The only thing I'm seeing out of your argument is that you believe you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and you can take peoples lives if that is your decisions >My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines? So just put our heads in the sands and not deal with any issue because "...five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem?". People who didn't make the choice to not get vaccinated are dieing due to others choices _now_, so we should let that keep happening because it _might_ not be a problem in the future? I get the whole individual freedom argument. I even agree with it. However, when your choices start affecting others, you are now guilty of the exact same problem you were accusing others of. You are making choices for other people