So the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" refers in the abstract to the idea that, given fitness function F, members of a species who pass fitness function F will out-survive members who fail function F and then reproduce in higher numbers. But natural selection itself does not define any fitness functions, and makes no mention of a "universal fitness quality" that can be used to judge the fitness of an individual.
The fitness functions that nature comes up with are pretty arbitrary, and don't necessarily align with cultural ideas about merit, fitness or attractiveness. A disease that weakens bones could kill more tall people than short people, a disorder that exploits muscle tissue might affect people who work out more, and a respiratory disease that spreads through the air could take down more sociable people while allowing introverts who stay inside to survive.
The point of modern medicine is that we recognize these many of these fitness functions have no meaning beyond the immediate danger they present. And we can use technology to say "that fitness function is dumb" and remove it from the equation. In doing so, we aren't "unlearning a lesson nature wanted us to learn", we're protecting ourselves from the meaningless and arbitrary rocks that nature occasionally throws at us, and as a result we are increasing human lifespan and quality of life. (And yes, you can quibble about stretching out the suffering of people with terminal cancer, but the millions of children who don't pointlessly die of infant diarrhea each year would probably push back a bit)
nature's fitness is not arbitrary. it's about survival. culturally accepted fitness is arbitrary or linked to a particular evolution era. nature is constantly evolving, so what's fit in this era is not fit in the next.
> the millions of children who don't pointlessly die of infant diarrhea each year would probably push back a bit
I didn't say I don't like medicine. I do and do visit doctors. My main point was about freedom restrictions and how people should have free will to decide.
The amount of nuance that you refuse to integrate with your worldview is staggering. I'm shocked to see people write comments like this on Hacker News of all places.
I know this point has been beaten to death already (which contributes to my surprise that you'd even make a claim like this), but have you entirely forgotten about people who rely on younger, more able bodied people AND probably wouldn't survive a full blown coronavirus infection? How do these people "decide if they want to die from Coronavirus"?
HN asks you to assume a favorable interpretation of the comments. For me it is very clear that the parent meant the whole spectrum, including all nuances by stating the two extremes.
Reality Check: It's not different. People should stop from thinking they have a higher moral ground. Nobody does. On the other hand, on a free society, you should not be able to strip people from their freedom, regardless. People should be able to decide if they want to die from Coronavirus or live a semi-paralyzed life in fear. If you are that concerned, then you can confine yourself at home until everything is over.
Also humanity and evolution has a coping mechanism called natural selection. Helping people through medicine is a good idea but I think we are stretching it too much. In a few hundreds year, everyone will be walking on earth on a space suit.