4 ms·
No, the logic that an appropriate solution to a problem is to intentionally eradicate an entire species (at the risk of unintentionally eradicating several more
by macawfish 8y ago
No, the logic that an appropriate solution to a problem is to intentionally eradicate an entire species (at the risk of unintentionally eradicating several more).
That logic makes me sick.
And what makes anyone think that malaria won't find some other vector that's much harder to control?
- CamperBob2 8y agoSo you don't agree that eradicating smallpox, for instance, was a good idea?
- UncleEntity 8y agoThe question is how they eradicated smallpox? IIRC they didn't genetically modify humans to be sterile to prevent the spread of the virus, could be wrong though...
- gpm 8y agoOh, I see, you're attaching value to species instead of individuals with your statement. I can understand your point of view, I disagree I think just because I have different base moral values here. I attach value to the existence of complex life, but not to individual species (with the possible exception of humans). If Malaria is going to find a better vector, it will do that anyways. It's more likely to do that while there is more of it (more chances to mutate correctly) so to minimize the risk of that happening one should do their best at killing it off.