Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
We kill the wolves, and the wolves' prey take over the ecosystem. We try to wipe out one disease, and create a niche for a mutation to thrive that is far worse than its predecessor. We try to protect weaker members of our society, and their weaker genes just get passed on and amplified. Every time we try to outsmart nature, we lose.
|
I do agree that our world is an extremely complex place and that unthinkable long-term consequences to our current actions will always occur (how the hell did the harassment of a street vendor in Tunisia cause a civil war in Syria??), but this does not mean that our world is dictated by some global “karma”. In certain situations, yes, from climate change to antibiotics, causing a shift in equilibrium can potentially result in grave long-term consequences. However, this does not mean that we cannot find a future solution to the problem and this does not mean that we should always sacrifice our current generation to spare a possible worst case scenario for future generations (this is obviously a very gray area).
Either way, even though the mass killing of many viruses can speed up the evolution process and potentially lead to a more dangerous virus, I would rather take our chances. First, there is no guarantee that a “supervirus” will emerge and second, there is a good chance we will be able to fight off any new virus, especially if nanotechnology pulls through. No one can predict the future or determine whether final outcomes will be positive or negative but unless there is strong evidence suggesting otherwise, I would rather adapt to new problems than change course based on speculation.