A quarter of all kindergartners in Washington county aren’t immunized. Now there’s a measles crisis

tbergs said:

Who really cares if some parents don't want to vaccinate or use an alternative vaccination schedule that spreads out the shots more as they get older. The world is over populated anyway. The only risk are the weak and non-vaccinated, right?

Once they get to be adults, they can go ahead and get all the vaccinations they want if they choose. 

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

Who really cares if some parents don't want to vaccinate or use an alternative vaccination schedule that spreads out the shots more as they get older. The world is over populated anyway. The only risk are the weak and non-vaccinated, right?

Once they get to be adults, they can go ahead and get all the vaccinations they want if they choose. 

because it's the old, the very young, and those with compromised immune systems that suffer from it. not just the ones that don't get vaccinated. herd immunity works for a reason. 

Right, like I said, the weak and non-vaccinated. We'd be wise to thin the herd anyway.

brianlux said:

If we were to take a wholly objective view of vaccinations we might have to come to the conclusion that in the long run, they are not helpful.  The human species is overpopulated partly because we choose to reproduce widely and partly because we have been successful in extending life through medical means- everything from hernia repair to heart surgery to vaccines.  We have cheated basic Darwinism.  I'm not saying I'm except from this.  Modern medicine has likely save my life a few times.  But objectively speaking, is our ability to cheat death good for us?  Can any of us seriously say objectively, this is a good thing in the long run?  I can't.

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

If we were to take a wholly objective view of vaccinations we might have to come to the conclusion that in the long run, they are not helpful.  The human species is overpopulated partly because we choose to reproduce widely and partly because we have been successful in extending life through medical means- everything from hernia repair to heart surgery to vaccines.  We have cheated basic Darwinism.  I'm not saying I'm except from this.  Modern medicine has likely save my life a few times.  But objectively speaking, is our ability to cheat death good for us?  Can any of us seriously say objectively, this is a good thing in the long run?  I can't.

objectively speaking, of course our species is weaker for it. we have defied natural selection. without treatment my daughter would be dead right now. but you can't put the cat back in that bag. not ethically, anyway. 

No, of course not!  Even though I never reproduce, I understand.  I have 15 children by way of godchildren, great godchildren, nieces and nephews and great nieces and nephews.  They are like my own children and I can't bear the thought of losing any of them.* 

But generally speaking, I think it is healthy for us to take an objective view of how we as humans go about our way of living and how that affects the world that sustains us and our own longevity as a species.

*As an interesting side note- and I am making no claims either way saying this- but the fact is, five of those children (all now adults) have never had any immunizations whatsoever and of the fifteen total, those five have always been the healthiest and strongest. 

oftenreading said:

How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

If we were to take a wholly objective view of vaccinations we might have to come to the conclusion that in the long run, they are not helpful.  The human species is overpopulated partly because we choose to reproduce widely and partly because we have been successful in extending life through medical means- everything from hernia repair to heart surgery to vaccines.  We have cheated basic Darwinism.  I'm not saying I'm except from this.  Modern medicine has likely save my life a few times.  But objectively speaking, is our ability to cheat death good for us?  Can any of us seriously say objectively, this is a good thing in the long run?  I can't.

This is the cause of so many of earth's problems.  I have no problem saying I'm anti-immigration, legally or illegally.  People need to stay in thier own neck of the woods and start fixing their own problems.  I've had many, many people say Canada is a great big country, we can take in loads ... no, we can't.  Take a look at where most of Canada's population is located.  We are the 2nd coldest country on earth, the vast majority of this country no one wants to call home because of less than ideal weather.  The current government wants to bring 400 thousand a year, and many of these people are coming from countries where childbirth seems to be a hobby...

In Toronto, Canada largest city people struggle to find affordable housing now...Toronto is likely running out of room to expand because there is a protected greenbelt that hinders Toronto ability to expand...

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns. 

That's a different situation than what was in the post I was responding to, I think. You moved to California presumably for lifestyle issues (whatever they might have been). You were not fleeing war, famine, or lack of civil rights from a repressive government. It's the sentiments of those who, by accident of birth, live safe lives in a wealthy country and feel they alone deserve that safety and seek to deny it to others that I object to pretty strongly. 

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

brianlux said:

oftenreading said:

How nice for those lucky enough to be born in safe, secure, wealthy countries to decide that others can't share that.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.  The concern of some anti-immigration folks is that it is better to have some parts of the world (at least) not be over-population and if you spread everyone around evenly, then all parts of the world become over-populated.  This is overly simplistic of course, because the land is not equitable in it's ability to sustain life.  Phoenix Arizona is a good example.  That area is extremely unsustainable. 

As a native Californian, I moved to the state of Washington for 3 or 4 years and was not welcomed by many of the long-time residents of that state because it was becoming "Cali-fornicated".  I got it, I get, and although I don't agree with strict anti-immigration viewpoints, I understand some of the concerns and I think it is a big mistake to quickly dismiss some of those concerns. 

That's a different situation than what was in the post I was responding to, I think. You moved to California presumably for lifestyle issues (whatever they might have been). You were not fleeing war, famine, or lack of civil rights from a repressive government. It's the sentiments of those who, by accident of birth, live safe lives in a wealthy country and feel they alone deserve that safety and seek to deny it to others that I object to pretty strongly. 

Just to verify: I move from California not to California. 

No, of course my situation was not as severe, yet, in some ways, it seemed like it.  I'm old enough to have seen California be invaded and degraded from what was once a beautiful place to the overcrowded, often dangerous, polluted, resource stripped, broken state that it is today.  And then I saw the same thing happening to Washington and Oregon because people like me were moving there.  So I moved back to my home sate. 

It is, therefore, very true that if you have too many people moving into an area to maintain a healthy ecological balance, you will degrade that place.  Perhaps those who fully support immigration (I am moderate that way, not strongly aligned on either side) believe that it would be more fair if every place on earth were equally fucked up.  I'm much more in favor of having every place equally healthy and, in it's own way, beautiful.  I believe if we do not strive for that, we will have to settle for the equally fucked up equation.  I know these statements will rankle some of the more politically correct here, but I say this with absolute concern for the well being of all people and of the earth.  Especially of the the earth.

Preventing people fleeing from war and other such tragedies will not make the environment of the Earth any better, it just keeps our little corner of it nicer and makes our little worlds nicer, while increasing the suffering of others.