4 ms·

> I’m not disagreeing, I’m saying the reasoning doesn’t hold. Fair enough > But the argument that such measures are problematic because they sidestep an indiv

> I’m not disagreeing, I’m saying the reasoning doesn’t hold. Fair enough > But the argument that such measures are problematic because they sidestep an individual consent that we don’t bother getting in other analogous situations makes it moot. I guess this is where we don't agree. If I'm understanding correctly, your point is that existing contaminants in the food and air are analogous situations to these mosquito vaccines, and since we already don't give consent for the former, we shouldn't bother with the latter. I disagree: the fact that we have no control over these contaminants entering our body is not a reason to give carte blanche to the government to go even further.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> your point is that existing contaminants in the food and air are analogous situations to these mosquito vaccines, and since we already don't give consent for the former, we shouldn't bother with the latter Not quite. Contaminants as well as substances we intentionally introduce into our food and water for public health purposes. (Including biologics [1].) And not that we shouldn't bother. But that the argument for individual consent in a case where we've ample history of not bothering with it, often for the best, isn't a great argument. > not a reason to give carte blanche to the government to go even further Sure. But it's not "going further." It's business as usual. One could go full R. F. K. and argue against the whole enterprise. But that's a fringe position. A proven losing argument. To argue against this (and other specific wrongs at the far end of the spectrum) you need arguments as to why those cases are different. Because going from N = 10,000 to 10,001 isn't qualitatively "going further," it's doing the same thing. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7994123/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7994123/

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> your point is that existing contaminants in the food and air are analogous situations to these mosquito vaccines, and since we already don't give consent for the former, we shouldn't bother with the latter Not quite. Contaminants as well as substances we intentionally introduce into our food and water for public health purposes. (Including biologics [1].) And not that we shouldn't bother. But that the argument for individual consent in a case where we've ample history of not bothering with it, often for the best, isn't a great argument. > not a reason to give carte blanche to the government to go even further Sure. But it's not "going further." It's business as usual. One could go full R. F. K. and argue against the whole enterprise. But that's a fringe position. A proven losing argument. To argue against this (and other specific wrongs at the far end of the spectrum) you need arguments as to why those cases are different. Because going from N = 10,000 to 10,001 isn't qualitatively "going further," it's doing the same thing. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7994123/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7994123/