Feb 20, 2022 Matt Beasley wrote:--------------
, jillery wrote:And no healthy ungulate says "gee, there are too many of us around, so I'll just sit down and let the wolves catch me," which is essentially what you want humans to do by giving up attempts to prevent infectious diseases.
Matt Beasley wrote:-----------------------
oot...hot.ee wrote:You express a common but incorrect understanding that the strength and vitality of the human race as a whole have much to do with our
Matt Beasley wrote:--------------------
Neither the left nor the right are saying anything aboutPerhaps it is because they have no good ideas how to deal
the majority being overweight, and thus being at risk
for Covid and many other diseases, ... because their
priority is getting votes! They aren't saying much
about the little guy spending so much on alcohol
and drugs, too. Don't wanna lose them votes!
with it. On one hand Ideas like making alcohol illegal do not
work but instead make all kind of Al Capones to go out of
hands. On the other hand just whining that people are obese
or too much into drugs without anything constructive to tell
is bad reputation as it helps no one.
In suppressing communicable diseases, we're living in a protective >bubble, so people think they can do whatever they want, get as
fat, dumb & happy as they please, & get away with it. And the kinds
of people who used to die younger are now persisting, so the species
as a whole is losing strength & vitality.
biological fitness. Ever since a hominid used the first flaked stone,
the strength and vitality of the human race has depended more on its cultures than its genomes. The whole point of doing smarter not
harder is to create ever more protective "bubbles".
"The caribou feeds the wolf, but it is the wolf that
keeps the caribou strong" -- Keewatin Inuit Proverb
--------------
Most healthy ungulates are fast enough to outrun a pack of wolves.
In fact, wolves are only successful in taking down large prey about
20% of the time they make an attempt, and wolves are often injured,
and sometimes killed, by the prey they hunt. The pack will usually
give up the chase if they start to fall behind. But if the chosen
prey is injured, weakened, or old, the wolves may have the advantage.
By taking the weakest animals, wolves increase the overall health
of the remaining herd. --Defenders of Wildlife
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
Matt Beasley wrote:------------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall healthThe above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that
such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent
correlation to being a "fitter human".
Even assuming a virus that kills every human it infects, there will
almost always be humans who evade being infected, if only by random
chance. If said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".
, jillery wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall healthThe above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that
such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent correlation to being a "fitter human".
Even assuming a virus that kills every human it infects, there will------------------
almost always be humans who evade being infected, if only by random
chance. If said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".
We don't have accurate statistics for the percentage of LGBTQ and
mental illness throughout most of history, but I find it very hard to believe that the percentages today are the same as they were then.
Matt Beasley wrote:-------------------
, jillery wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall healthThe above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that
such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent correlation to being a "fitter human".
Even assuming a virus that kills every human it infects, there will almost always be humans who evade being infected, if only by random chance. If said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".------------------
We don't have accurate statistics for the percentage of LGBTQ and
mental illness throughout most of history, but I find it very hard to believe
that the percentages today are the same as they were then.
What have the sexual minorities or mental illnesses to do with
resistance or vulnerability to viruses? Who claimed anything about
those percentages? Why you feel that there is need to believe
something about those?
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:-------------------
, jillery wrote:What have the sexual minorities or mental illnesses to do with
Matt Beasley wrote:------------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall healthThe above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a
of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that
such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent
correlation to being a "fitter human".
Even assuming a virus that kills every human it infects, there will
almost always be humans who evade being infected, if only by random
chance. If said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those >> > > genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".
We don't have accurate statistics for the percentage of LGBTQ and
mental illness throughout most of history, but I find it very hard to believe
that the percentages today are the same as they were then.
resistance or vulnerability to viruses? Who claimed anything about
those percentages? Why you feel that there is need to believe
something about those?
They're obviously disruptive to the health of human society!
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:00:32 -0800 (PST), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:>> > , jillery wrote:>> > > Matt Beasley wrote:>> >-------------------
health>> > > >of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife>> > > The"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall
above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a>> > >
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that>> >
such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent>> >virus that kills every human it infects, there will>> > > almost always
correlation to being a "fitter human".>> > >>> > > Even assuming a
be humans who evade being infected, if only by random>> > > chance. If
said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those>> > >
genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".>> >
------------------>> > We don't have accurate statistics for the
percentage of LGBTQ and>> > mental illness throughout most of history,
but I find it very hard to believe>> > that the percentages today are
the same as they were then.>> >
What have the sexual minorities or mental illnesses to do with>>
resistance or vulnerability to viruses? Who claimed anything about>>
those percentages? Why you feel that there is need to believe>>
something about those?
They're obviously disruptive to the health of human society!
There's that word again. "Obviously" is the last refuge of willfully
stupid trolls.
On 2023-02-23 01:36:00 +0000, jillery said:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:00:32 -0800 (PST), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:>> > , jillery wrote:>> > > Matt Beasley wrote:>> > >>>> >>> > > >"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall-------------------
health>> > > >of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife>> > > The >>>> above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a>> > >
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that>> > >>>> > such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent>> > >>>> > correlation to being a "fitter human".>> > >>> > > Even assuming a
virus that kills every human it infects, there will>> > > almost always >>>> be humans who evade being infected, if only by random>> > > chance. If >>>> said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those>> > >
genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".>> >
------------------>> > We don't have accurate statistics for the
percentage of LGBTQ and>> > mental illness throughout most of history, >>>> but I find it very hard to believe>> > that the percentages today are
the same as they were then.>> >
What have the sexual minorities or mental illnesses to do with>>
resistance or vulnerability to viruses? Who claimed anything about>>
those percentages? Why you feel that there is need to believe>>
something about those?
They're obviously disruptive to the health of human society!
There's that word again. "Obviously" is the last refuge of willfully
stupid trolls.
Yes. In news groups "obviously" means "I don't have any serious or
logical arguments, but".
Matt Beasley wrote:-------------------
Öö Tiib wrote:There's that word again. "Obviously" is the last refuge of willfully
Matt Beasley wrote:-------------------
, jillery wrote:What have the sexual minorities or mental illnesses to do with
Matt Beasley wrote:------------------
"By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall health >> > > >of the remaining herd." --Defenders of WildlifeThe above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that >> > > such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent
correlation to being a "fitter human".
Even assuming a virus that kills every human it infects, there will >> > > almost always be humans who evade being infected, if only by random >> > > chance. If said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those >> > > genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".
We don't have accurate statistics for the percentage of LGBTQ and
mental illness throughout most of history, but I find it very hard to believe
that the percentages today are the same as they were then.
resistance or vulnerability to viruses? Who claimed anything about
those percentages? Why you feel that there is need to believe
something about those?
They're obviously disruptive to the health of human society!
stupid trolls.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 14:11:16 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-02-23 01:36:00 +0000, jillery said:Just a note: It's not restricted to newsgroups. By far.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 11:00:32 -0800 (PST), Matt Beasley
<lessgovt@gmail.com> wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
Matt Beasley wrote:>> > , jillery wrote:>> > > Matt Beasley wrote:>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "By taking the weakest humans, viruses increase the overall-------------------
health>> > > >of the remaining herd." --Defenders of Wildlife>> > > The >>>>> above quote incorrectly assumes that "vulnerability to a>> > >
particular virus" is the same as "weakest human". Instead, all that>> > >>>>>> such a vulnerability illustrates is itself, which has no inherent>> > >>>>>> correlation to being a "fitter human".>> > >>> > > Even assuming a
virus that kills every human it infects, there will>> > > almost always >>>>> be humans who evade being infected, if only by random>> > > chance. If >>>>> said evasion were correlated to heritable genotypes, those>> > >
genotypes would all be different ways to be "fitter humans".>> >
------------------>> > We don't have accurate statistics for the
percentage of LGBTQ and>> > mental illness throughout most of history, >>>>> but I find it very hard to believe>> > that the percentages today are >>>>> the same as they were then.>> >
What have the sexual minorities or mental illnesses to do with>>
resistance or vulnerability to viruses? Who claimed anything about>> >>>>> those percentages? Why you feel that there is need to believe>>
something about those?
They're obviously disruptive to the health of human society!
There's that word again. "Obviously" is the last refuge of willfully
stupid trolls.
Yes. In news groups "obviously" means "I don't have any serious or
logical arguments, but".
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 292 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 191:01:16 |
| Calls: | 6,616 |
| Files: | 12,165 |
| Messages: | 5,315,135 |