in regards to the person your responding to: It's not nonsensical at all. His friend is arguing that if we accept losses to disease then the following humans w

in regards to the person your responding to: It's not nonsensical at all. His friend is arguing that if we accept losses to disease then the following humans will be the more resilient ones. however, I thought I would mention a rather fatal flaw in this argument: There is no guarantee that humans that can survive diseases like the measles will be "stronger" than humans who can not. For example, Sickle cell anemia, a genetic disease, is an ADAPTION to survive malaria. It's an intentional sacrifice. Bacteria that adapt to anti-biotics arn't necessarily stronger than bacteria who did not adapt. Adapted bacteria make sacrifices to survive a hostile agent, they don't get it for free. So attempting to immunize humans by breeding them to be resistant/immune has no guarantee to make humans stronger. It's possible the change required could be entirely benign, or it could be catastrophic.