If you absolutely have to resort to trial and error, at least don’t be the error.

Natural Selection is as dumb as a box of rocks and slow as molasses; when it comes to achieving a goal we humans do far better, far faster.

There’s obviously the merest whiff of trolling here, but come on.

*Edited so as not to besmirch the good name of frogs.

I will (most likely) not have kids, but even if I’m weak I don’t see it as my duty to die in order to not dilute the species.

But if you're not "weak", you could inadvertently spread it to someone who is "weak", and they could spread it to many other "weak" people, and then they all die and don't pass on their genes. It's true that this is a form of eugenics and natural selection, but it's not the kind that's compatible with the values of most humans.

> I discussed months ago here on HN that looking legally causing someone's death without intent is not criminal because you had no intent of killing

Intentional killing is usually first degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter, depending on premeditation. Second (in some schemes third) degree murder (depraved indifference) and involuntary manslaughter, and negligent homicide all are crimes, and do not require intent to kill.

So, you are very, very wrong.

> I have no intent or knowledge that I'm going to harm anyone

The source you link notes that there are other levels of mens rea supporting criminal offenses (recklessness, negligence) as well as offenses which are not dependent on mental state at all (strict liability offenses.)

I understand what involuntary manslaughter is but does it apply to spreading a virus? I'm not a lawyer but if it does I will act accordingly and try not to commit involuntary manslaughter hypothetically speaking.

> I understand what involuntary manslaughter is but does it apply to spreading a virus?

Neither depraved heart murder nor involuntary manslaughter has an exception for viral-agent-as-mechanism on any jurisdiction I'm familiar with.

You better hope that the judge handling your case doesn't stumble upon this comment thread. Your lack of Mens Rea isn't going to fly if you're caught meta-discussing the whole thing.

Also, manslaughter?

> I have no INTENTION of HARMING anyone.

I feel the same way when I'm doing 150mph down the highway. And yet...

If you kill somebody you will be charged for involuntary manslaughter or constructive manslaughter depending on what speed limit was but if I sit next to you unvaccinated in a waiting room should I be charged as well?

Are you asking for an ethical opinion, or legal one? I am no lawyer, I have no idea if you could be on the hook for reckless endangerment. If you know that your choice is risky, and you fail to act, then there are circumstances when you could be criminally liable. But usually these are situations where the law prescribes a duty to act.

Are you comfortable endangering those around you because protecting them is an inconvenient imposition on your freedom? That's an entirely different issue.

I mean if you're against vaccines, the best public health measure since soap, perhaps you're the weakest link we're begging natural selection to act on. Hope you don't use glasses, take antibiotics, receive surgery, or benefit otherwise from the million and one things humans have invented so as to not deal with random selection dependent on changing external stimuli

>I mean if you're against vaccines, the best public health measure since soap, perhaps you're the weakest link we're begging natural selection to act on.

I'm not against vaccination I'm against mandatory vaccination and limiting my human rights if I don't vaccinate. Nobody will prevent you from visiting a country if you don't use glasses, take antibiotics or anything else you mentioned.

I never visited Africa but I heard there are some security measures regarding Malaria but c'mon forbidding someone to work or travel only because he or she didn't get vaccinated against 1 pathogen is over the top.

I guess you're against sovereignty of nations other than your own? Plus how are they going to buy your country's vaccine if you/your countrymen won't take it?

And btw I understand what manslaughter is but again I'm not a lawyer. Refer me to any case or cases where someone is guilty of spreading a virus without intent(Involuntary).

Laws adopted in the course of the HIV pandemic in many jurisdictions made various acts that were more likely to spread the virus criminal if you knew you were infected unless other people put at risk were informed of the fact and consented to the risk, whether or not you intended to cause harm.

First google result: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit.... It's not difficult to find more examples.

If you know or could reasonably suspect you have a lethal virus and still go out without taking proper precautions then that is absolutely something people have sued over many many times.

It is unclear whether defendant was aware of having a HIV. It seems like he had no intent of spreading a disease and had limited or no knowledge of having it.

"I didn’t really do it intentionally but when we were drunk it ended up happening”."

How the case ended?

Legality and ethics are two distinct things.

I know but legal system is based on ethics. E.g. not stealing or not killing etc.

and now we’re evolved enough to have brains capable of giving us a competitive advantage against diseases!

unless you think that brains somehow aren’t part of our biological machine.

How about IVF and that it becomes almost a necessity for all their children.

Or the increased necessity of glasses at a young age.

It's not the beneficiaries particular brain that gave the competitive edge ;)

This is only an issue if everyone wants or needs kids. Glasses are similarly not a big deal. I feel like you could have used better examples to argue in favor of eugenics but at the end of the day it's still eugenics? People should have access to any and all medical advancements, better to address the problem than ignore it with selective breeding

So, why don't you move to the wilderness and leaves the internet for us, the weak ones?

Natural selection gave us the social structures that allow you to buy your cold cuts and quietly hoard your wealth so that you don't have to face an ounce of real hardship in your life.

> I mean it is natural selection if I'm weak I will die if I'm not I will pass my genes to my kids.

That's not how natural selection works.

What strength is there in being able to resist COVID-19 specifically, which is just one arbitrary sickness out of many that can still arise? One that didn‘t even exist until recently?

Strength and weakness are completely dependent on the environment and we are shaping that environment, for example by vaccinating.

It’s not you dying that’s the problem with your statement so much as the other people you’re going to kill because of your choice not to get vaccinated.

That’s one step away from a family member of mine saying recently, “You all can live in fear but I choose to live my life in faith that God will take care of me.”

You augment your memory with Google searches and your running speed with cars, why not augment your natural immune system with vaccines.

Well, I am about to get vaccinated with astrazeneca in half an hour ... but my counter argument would be: relying on vaccination and sterilisation too much, causes the immune system to be weak, too. Immune system needs practice, too.

That's literally what the jab does?

I came to counter him with a joke, but the downvoters beat me to it. Anyways:

The vaccine is more like going to the gym. We could continue our ancestor's practice of trying to run from lions, which was possibly better adrenaline practice, and even mostly successful. We might not be scientifically certain of the long-term side-effects of going to the gym, but I'll just rely on the gym nonetheless. And good for you going to the gym too!

Agreed.

> relying on vaccination and sterilisation too much, causes the immune system to be weak

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the mechanism of vaccination.

I think I do, but do you?

Because the way I understand it, vaccination trains only a very specific part of the immune system. Which is then indeed effective against the very specific virus, but does not really increase your general immune system strength.

Huh, it's almost as if the vaccine is to innoculate me against a specific lethal pathogen that I don't want to risk training my immune system on

If you want a better overall immune system eat better and excercise, there is zero reason to avoid a vaccine unless you're immunocompromised or allergic

"there is zero reason to avoid a vaccine unless you're immunocompromised or allergic"

sigh did you really get all the vaccines, that exist?

I doubt so. I actually never heard anyone recomending that. Quite the contrary. The idea is to get vaccinated against diseases you are likely to get in contact with - and then you still have to think about it, if it is worth it. Because EVERY vaccination has potential negative side effects, some quite severe.

So now there is a great chance to get in contact with Covid - so yeah, it makes sense to take that vaccine. I think I said, I did today.

But taking every vaccination?!? Come on. Or provide a source that the WHO or alike do recommend it. That would surprise me, as I traveled quite a bit and therefore discussed various vaccines with various doctors before.

And also, I never implied that you should skip a vaccine to get training on that disease. I said if you rely too much on sterilisation and vaccines - it does not help your immune system overal. Counterclaims to that? I doubt it. I am a bit annoyed by that bite-reflex of the crowd here. Maybe save that for the anti-vaxxers?

Vaccines are immune system training on literal steroids. Overall I get your point so, as we see with increased allergies.

Antibiotics, maybe. But vaccines stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies.

Vaccine is the practice

Reply to all:

(you all missed the sterilisation part and the "relying too much")

And well yes, vaccination is training. And training is good. Thats why I just did it. But training is not a real fight. Real battle experience beats training experience by far. At least in martial arts.(and as far as I know with the immune system, too. the immune system is a little bit more sophisticated than "antibodies". And the vaccinations mostly train only one part of it - the antibodies)

Meaning when your body would be vaccinated against everything known in a sterilized environment - he would never have to fight for real. Just against cripled germs or parts of them. So chances would be, a great disadvantage when facing a new disease it did not train for. A disease that is actively attacking and not just providing dna to read and store.

And my immune system is in a quite good shape(I travelled a lot off grid), which is why I actually was indeed more sceptical to the vaccination than the actual disease. Because it is a new technology. And nobody can guarantee, that the side effects are not worse for me, than the disease would be. Especially in the long run. Autoimmune diseases are increasing a lot. I can only trust the developers that their genetically modified cure does not mess with my immune system. I recon chances are low, so I got the shot.