5 ms·

>When you manipulate nature in a way you don’t completely understand, the consequences can be unpredictable and absolutely disastrous How were those doctors in

• grannyg00se 15y ago
  The natural way to deal with sickness is to survive it or die. Creating a vaccine and injecting it into people's bloodstreams to try to gain an advantage over a virus' spread can be seen as manipulating nature. There is plenty of nature manipulation that goes on in the development and reproduction of a vaccine.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    • grannyg00se 15y ago
      I doubt that as well. And in fact what he said was that "Doctors and scientists can draw a lesson in prudence and humility from this," which is not stupid at all. The program that he is linking to the initial outbreak wouldn't be the first vaccination program, surgery, antibiotic, or pain relief drug to cause harm.
  • burgerbrain 15y ago
    There is nothing "unnatural" about homo sapiens using tools to improve their condition.
    • RailRoadHobo 15y ago
      Following that same train of thought, there's nothing unnatural about toxic waste dumps.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        Are they not? Humans, like other animals, have waste. And like other more sophisticated animals, they generally make an attempt to isolate it from themselves. You see similar behavior from cats. You may as well argue that beaver dams are "unnatural". This "natural == not human" thing is fine (bullshit, but fine), until you start trying to use it to make moral/ethical arguments.
        • RailRoadHobo 15y ago
          Oh, I agree, the whole "it's not natural so it's BAD!!!" argument is infantile. My usual tactic for making people realize this is by pointing out how something they do, like living past 18 years old, is unnatural. It's not like animals don't bring about their own ecological collapse some times.
          • away 15y ago
            Was there really a time when people only lived to 18 years of age on average?
            • burgerbrain 15y ago
              Quite probably. High infant mortality rates do wonders to average life expectancies.
      • andrewflnr 15y ago
        It depends on how you define "natural". Is anything that happens in real life "unnatural"? Didn't it come about through "natural" biological desires, created by evolution? As long as you don't believe in God, anyway. So you have to define some dividing line, or at least a scale, telling when humans exercising their "natural" intelligence leads to "unnatural" results. I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you or not. It's just a tricky idea that needs to be defined.
        • RailRoadHobo 15y ago
  • fleitz 15y ago
    Humans are products of nature, therefore whatever we do is 'natural'. There aren't natural chemicals and artificial chemicals, there are just chemicals. The whole distinction is silly. Nightshade will kill you just as a dead as synthetic atropine. Doing anything will likely have unintended consequences, I would hazard a guess that vaccinating people has saved more lives than AIDS has claimed. Now that we have an AIDS vaccine, should we not vaccinate people for fear of causing an epidemic 80 years from now?
    • grannyg00se 15y ago
      I don't think that anything we do is natural just because we are a product of nature. It's getting into definition and semantics here but something like cross breeding a chicken and a pig can't be called natural as far as I'd say. I suppose that is not possibe but can you imagine chicken bacon?
• pyre 15y ago
  > How were those doctors in the 1920s "manipulating > nature"? Even if you don't think that vaccines are 'manipulating nature,' I would say that mounting global campaigns to inoculate everyone and completely eradicate a disease is 'manipulating nature.'
• Tycho 15y ago
  Doesn't seem like understanding was a problem here - they were just reckless in failing to adequately sterilise medical equipment. I'd say the moral of the story is more 'beware of reckless do-gooding.'