4 ms·

Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time.

LeifCarrotson 8y ago
Wiping out smallpox seems to have no negative side effects. In any case, side effects that might exist are hugely less problematic than millions of human deaths!
- TheHypnotist 8y ago
  The discussion isn't about wiping out a disease, it's about wiping out a species to wipe out a disease. Smallpox was eliminated in large part due to vaccination, not wiping an animal or insect from the face of the planet. Now, if you can eliminate the malaria within the mosquito, that's something else entirely.
  - sampo 8y ago
    Smallpox was a species, too. If we allow viruses to be species.
    - TheHypnotist 8y ago
      Fair - and you are probably right. But I'd rather not get into semantics. You know what I meant.
      - krageon 8y ago
        If everyone knew what you meant we wouldn't be having the discussion that we are definitely having.
        TheHypnotist 8y ago
        Did you not read the OP? It makes the discussion pretty clear.
- rincebrain 8y ago
  One could argue that the rise of people arguing against vaccination of children is directly related to those people not having direct experience with the horrific realities of the diseases in question. That aside, millions of human deaths (annually or in total) is a horrific tragedy, but if we, say, managed to render a large area of land uninhabitable through ecological collapse for a generation or more, it might be far worse, both in some imaginary absolute scale, and for the people directly displaced.
- fiblye 8y ago
  There's a difference between wiping out a virus that pretty much only affects humans, and wiping out an animal that's been present for millions of years and is firmly established as a food source for countless other animals. One has the sole effect of making humans healthier. The other is linked to far too many things to predict the outcome of. Considering dragonfly nymphs have mosquito larvae as a stable food source, it's safe to say that knocking them out will probably affect them. Then follow that food chain up (and down) and things start to get complicated.
fsloth 8y ago
"Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time." Perhaps this is observational bias from your part? Human brain detects negatives far easier than positives. The world is a complex place, and any action that has externalities likely creates both negative and positive ones - and for some people even same effects can be negative for some and positive for others. Yes, bad things can happen for anyone. Generally, though, I would say deeds of compassion breed compassion.

Wiping out smallpox seems to have no negative side effects. In any case, side effects that might exist are hugely less problematic than millions of human deaths!

TheHypnotist 8y ago
The discussion isn't about wiping out a disease, it's about wiping out a species to wipe out a disease. Smallpox was eliminated in large part due to vaccination, not wiping an animal or insect from the face of the planet. Now, if you can eliminate the malaria within the mosquito, that's something else entirely.
- sampo 8y ago
  Smallpox was a species, too. If we allow viruses to be species.
  - TheHypnotist 8y ago
    Fair - and you are probably right. But I'd rather not get into semantics. You know what I meant.
    - krageon 8y ago
      If everyone knew what you meant we wouldn't be having the discussion that we are definitely having.
      - TheHypnotist 8y ago
        Did you not read the OP? It makes the discussion pretty clear.
rincebrain 8y ago
One could argue that the rise of people arguing against vaccination of children is directly related to those people not having direct experience with the horrific realities of the diseases in question. That aside, millions of human deaths (annually or in total) is a horrific tragedy, but if we, say, managed to render a large area of land uninhabitable through ecological collapse for a generation or more, it might be far worse, both in some imaginary absolute scale, and for the people directly displaced.
fiblye 8y ago
There's a difference between wiping out a virus that pretty much only affects humans, and wiping out an animal that's been present for millions of years and is firmly established as a food source for countless other animals. One has the sole effect of making humans healthier. The other is linked to far too many things to predict the outcome of. Considering dragonfly nymphs have mosquito larvae as a stable food source, it's safe to say that knocking them out will probably affect them. Then follow that food chain up (and down) and things start to get complicated.

fsloth 8y ago

"Let's just say it's been pretty reliably proved over time." Perhaps this is observational bias from your part? Human brain detects negatives far easier than positives. The world is a complex place, and any action that has externalities likely creates both negative and positive ones - and for some people even same effects can be negative for some and positive for others. Yes, bad things can happen for anyone. Generally, though, I would say deeds of compassion breed compassion.