…and this is a 
Scientists contributing to the moral decline of the universe, again
Category: Science
Posted on: February 9, 2007 5:37 PM, by PZ Myers
Uh-oh. Those evil scientists are up to no good again, blindly making discoveries and creating inventions without any thought to the long-term consequences. Dynamite, nerve gas, the atom bomb, the hydrogen bomb…what's next? What new horror will they unleash on humanity?
Scientists are close to coming up with a vaccine against Chlamydia. The bastards.
Notice the trend? Develop better hygiene to end childbed fever, anesthetics to dull the pain of childbirth, cures for venereal diseases, the recent vaccine against human papilloma virus, and now this. It's like they don't think women deserve to suffer. You know this will only lead to licentiousness, rampant freedom, and orgies. Come on, fellow scientists, think. Do you really believe this kind of behavior will make the world a better place?
Just you wait. Someone will try to stop them.
Comments
Fortunately the HPV vaccine episode appears to be showing a little activism can stymie those who want women to suffer.
Posted by: llewelly | February 9, 2007 5:45 PM
Yeah, damn those evil scientists. Next thing you know, they'll develop vaccines or cures for HIV and herpes. And you can imagine how much worse off we will be when those diseases are consigned to the dust bins of history.
Posted by: MTran | February 9, 2007 5:48 PM
*sigh* Ads for herbal remedy crap on the page.
Posted by: Zombie | February 9, 2007 5:52 PM
In the United States, About 14,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer disease each year and more than 3,900 women die in the USA each year from this disease.
The millions of dollars spent on PAP smears, colposcopies. The untold human misery in uterine removal and sterility. The horror of watching your mother, sister, or daughter needlessly die. ...Oh screw that, little Jeanie might have sex if she gets the shot, so let them suffer and die.
I thought the people would laugh at stupid dangerous backward morons like this in the 21st century.
Posted by: bones | February 9, 2007 5:58 PM
Sadly, I can already hear Jerry Falwell blathering on about this sinful acheivement. God help us all ... or Joe Pesci help us all. Take your pick.
Posted by: Boss Foxx | February 9, 2007 6:00 PM
Yeah, I'm waiting for something demented to appear on Worlds'NutsDaily
Posted by: daenku32 | February 9, 2007 6:07 PM
A world with more orgies WOULD be a better place! :D
Posted by: Aaron Kinney | February 9, 2007 6:13 PM
"International vaccine company Sanofi-Pasteur has awarded QUT a funding boost of more than $300,000 to continue its research into Chlamydia and work towards developing a vaccine specifically targeting adolescent women."
Wow that's a lot of money!
Exxon's CEO Lee Raymond didn't even make that much in two whole days while he was working.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | February 9, 2007 6:15 PM
Arg, you guys!!! Don't you know that God has a plan to make women's bajingos burny when they're bad, and it really embarasses Him when you thwart his best-laid plans with a simple vaccine?! I mean, seriously, what kind of pathetic make-believe sky-daddy can't even smack a bitch up for being teh slutz0rs just because she got some shot full of deviltry in her arm? A really pathetic one, that's what kind. Now, knock it off!
Posted by: Dennis | February 9, 2007 6:18 PM
I think we can beat this thing like we did that gol-durned ERA thing that would have encouraged women to leave their husbands, become lesbians and practice witchcraft!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | February 9, 2007 6:26 PM
Why would women deserve any rights? The Babble tell us
very clearly how we should treat the "lower" sex.
Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I really like the last part........
Posted by: JONBOY | February 9, 2007 6:33 PM
Rats! What am I going to do with all these "I went to the Caribbean and all I got was a case of chlamydia" t-shirts?!
Posted by: Darryl Pearce | February 9, 2007 6:49 PM
A world with more orgies WOULD be a better place! :D
Posted by: Aaron Kinney
So long as people weren't compelled to join in, then... Yes, it would. (with no smiley at the end of the sentance)
Posted by: Tom McCann | February 9, 2007 6:52 PM
Too bad scientists never get invited to those kind of parties.
Posted by: Zarquon | February 9, 2007 7:09 PM
Curing things? Yes. Though the religious fundamentalists may object to diseases being put asunder from humans by humans.
Making love not war? That also seems to have a lot going for it. So the religious fundamentalists are likely to disapprove of that too.
Posted by: SEF | February 9, 2007 7:13 PM
I'm all in favor of vaccines for unpleasant diseases - but unless they pose an epidemic risk, I don't see why people should be forced to take them if they want to attend public school, no matter what their reasons are.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 7:17 PM
Too bad scientists never get invited to those kind of parties.
Posted by: Zarquon
You'd be suprised.
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 7:21 PM
So, which diseases would you say should or should not be required to vaccinate against?
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2007 7:24 PM
I'm very sorry to tell you this, PZ, but your daughter has...WHAT???
I couldn't use the word sex as a hotlink. WTF?
By the way, PZ, I'm sorry I had to bring your daughter into this joke, but I just couldn't resist. If you follow the link, I'm sure you'll understand, and maybe have a good laugh.
Posted by: AustinAtheist | February 9, 2007 7:41 PM
I was wondering the same thing.
phat
Posted by: phat | February 9, 2007 7:43 PM
Those that can be spread easily from person to person through the normal contact you'd expect at school and that have serious consequences: measles, Whooping cough, etc. Chylamydia? No. The flu? Not unless a serious superstrain pops up, which I expect one will, eventually. HIV? No.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 7:43 PM
Is it just me noticing it more, or does it seem like there's a lot of good science coming out of Australia these days, at least in medicine?
Posted by: craig | February 9, 2007 7:44 PM
Stop! This will cause people to use intercourse for pleasure instead of intense self-denial! Pastor Ted Haggard didn't once have any pleasure while making his children with his wife! And that's the way it should be!
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | February 9, 2007 7:45 PM
>>You know this will only lead to licentiousness, rampant freedom, and orgies. Come on, fellow scientists, think. Do you really believe this kind of behavior will make the world a better place?
Hmmm. I wonder where the Christian outrage was when someone proposed a 16-hour erection pill?
Why not just make us wear Scarlet Letters? It's cheaper than medical research for women's health issues.
Posted by: Cathy in Seattle | February 9, 2007 7:45 PM
Spot the common fallacy:
"I don't believe in violence, so I won't pay the part of my taxes that goes to funding the military. In return, I don't expect the army to defend #12 Freedom Street if somebody invades us - just defend the people at #10 and #14 who paid. My property, my choice."
"I'm not worried about fire, so I'm going to let the grass grow long and pile up dry wood and paint tins all over the place. In return, I don't expect the fire brigade to come to #12 Freedom Street if there is a fire - just look out for #10 and #14. My property, my choice."
"I'm not worried about disease, so I'm not going to get vaccinated. If I catch something, that's my own problem. My body, my choice."
The nature of contagious disease is that it's contagious. People who get vaccinated protect not only themselves, but others in their community; people who don't vaccinate expose others to risk, while freeloading on the 'herd immunity' provided by the vaccinated. The idea that individuals should be free to make decisions for themselves only holds up when they are only hurting themselves; vaccination is not such a case.
Posted by: Geoffrey | February 9, 2007 7:55 PM
Dr. Finger was the fundy attached to the CDC committee reviewing the HPV vaccine. He was a liaison between Focus on the Family & the committee. His comments, cited in WIKI, regarding an HIV vaccine:
In an interview with Michael Specter for the March 13, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, Dr. Finger stated that, should an HIV vaccine become available, ACIP would have to carefully consider its effects on sexual activity. "'We would have to look at that closely," he said. "With any vaccine for H.I.V., disinhibition would certainly be a factor, and it is something we will have to pay attention to with a great deal of care.'"
Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Finger
Katha Pollitt is right - for these people, it truly is a choice between Virginity or Death.
Posted by: Paula the Red | February 9, 2007 7:57 PM
Given that around 1.5 million teenage women in the USA contract chlamydia every year, you might want to re-evaluate your expectations; presumably they're catching it somehow.
We can tut-tut over whether schoolkids should be having sex, but since nobody's found an effective way to discourage it that's not a terribly relevant question. And pretty much by definition, children are not yet at the age where we should be exposing them to the full punishment for all their bad decisions.
Posted by: Geoffrey | February 9, 2007 8:09 PM
Is it just me noticing it more, or does it seem like there's a lot of good science coming out of Australia these days, at least in medicine?
*entire nation reels from backhanded compliment*
There's always been a lot of good science coming out of Australia. But medical science is more prominent because it seem to capture the imagination of international news outlets.
Posted by: Brachychiton | February 9, 2007 8:19 PM
Diseases aren't punishments for making bad choices, you idiot.
And this reasoning:
is wrongheaded at best. There are precious few decisions we can make in life that have absolutely no capacity to hurt anyone. By your reasoning, refusing to take courses in first aid would qualify as "harming others".
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 8:23 PM
Interesting factoid from Oz...most koalas in the wild have chlamydia, and that is affecting their viability as a species. Wonder if there is any research link? Also, wonder if this new vaccine works cross-species (and no, no man-on-koala hanky-panky meant, even though they are teh cute!)
Posted by: VJB | February 9, 2007 8:33 PM
I have to agree with Geoffrey.
Why should the level of communicablilty be the deciding factor?
If they ever come up with and HIV vaccine wouldn't you want everyone to get it?
It's a numbers game pure and simple. The more that get the vaccine the less chance the disease will spread.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 9, 2007 8:38 PM
"There are precious few decisions we can make in life that have absolutely no capacity to hurt anyone. By your reasoning, refusing to take courses in first aid would
qualify as "harming others"."
Two differences I can think of:
Omission vs Commission:
Failure to learn first aid is an act of omission, while spreading an infectious disease - even if it is initiated by the passive failure to get a vaccine - is an act of commission.
Specific Responsibility vs Random Bystander:
It is common for school teachers to be required to have minimal first aid training, since they are in a position of responsibility in that professional role. Not getting car insurance is an act of omission, but is a failure to provide compensation (the ability to compensate) for damage one is responsible for, versus injuries witnessed as a mere bystander.
Posted by: Colugo | February 9, 2007 9:04 PM
Colugo, I've seen you around here before, and you seemed fairly reasonable, but this is just plain stupid.
Not receiving a vaccine for a disease is not equivalent to spreading that disease. Not receiving the vaccine is also an act of omission, not an act of commission. The distinction is ultimately not very useful because any act can be restated as a non-act and vice versa.
Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who can be said to be entitled to a teaching position, whereas students are indeed entitled to a public education in our system. Refusing to provide that entitlement is something that should be done only when certain standards are met - and people's failure to help create a state that you perceive as desirable does not constitute meeting such a standard.
I know this may seem outrageous to some of you, but just because you think an outcome is highly desirable, even if it really is objectively highly desirable, that doesn't mean that you're justified in using force and coersion to create that outcome. Shocking!
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:13 PM
This gets me every time there is a public argument that relates in some way to human reproduction. In a preponderance of instances, those who are telling us what Father God is trying desperately to get through to us is that is vitally important what we do with our pee-pees. Given that our pee-pees give us pleasure of sorts depending upon their actual use at any given moment, and given that the entire gist of religion is of a higher nature, not concerned with things of the earth or fleshly concerns, why do religious apologists fixate so intensely on what others do with their genitals?
It seems to me that some people are so deeply committed to their anticipated life to come after they die that any good thing in this life becomes trite, foolish or, even worse, an grotesque and deformed caricature of the World a 'Comin.
I suppose it would be bland and redundant to suggest that there are more important things with which to be concerned?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | February 9, 2007 9:18 PM
You really don't understand why communicability is an issue? You don't see why a child who's HIV positive should not be forced out of school or cause other children's parents to pull them from school, while a child who has a hypothetical slow-acting form of Ebola ought to be kept out of school by all means necessary, including fire?
Wanting people to do something and forcing them to do it are two very different things.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:22 PM
Kids are required to get measles, mumps and other vaccines if they want to attend public school or most daycare centers.
If vast numbers of people just decided to not get their children immunized you would see a jump in the numbers of kids getting those diseases.
It's a matter of scale. The more that get it the more effective it is.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 9, 2007 9:24 PM
Aren't diseases like measles and mumps 1) easily transferrable through normal, everyday contact and 2) likely to lead to serious consequences if they're contracted, such as sterility, death, or at the very least serious illness?
Aren't they also particularly likely to strike young children?
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:27 PM
Yup. But they can be contracted by adults too.
But look... it's a global epidemic with lots of horrible symptoms.
Chlamydia may also cause reactive arthritis, especially in young men. (Some forms of reactive arthritis formerly were known as Reiter's syndrome. The latter term has fallen out of favor owing to revelations about Hans Reiter's Nazi past and in particular his active participation in horrific human experiments in concentration camps.) About 15,000 men develop reactive arthritis due to chlamydia infection each year in the USA, and about 5,000 are permanently affected by it.
As many as half of all infants born to mothers with chlamydia will be born with the disease. Chlamydia can affect infants by causing spontaneous abortion; premature birth; conjunctivitis, which may lead to blindness; and pneumonia.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 9, 2007 9:33 PM
Isn't that true of the flu also?
Also, why is it acceptable, in your model, to voluntarily present a risk to others of placing them in a state of suffering, as long as they aren't too likely to die from it?
Also, the hypothetical case of HIV-positive students being forced out of schools has fuck-all to do with the "vaccination as a criterion for admission" issue.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2007 9:37 PM
Posted by: llewelly | February 9, 2007 9:37 PM
The troll makes as much sense as usual.
How about a strict liability model? The nutters can refuse vaccination for themselves and their children, as long as they accept liability for ALL the consequences to themselves, their children and all those they possibly infected. These family decisions would be publicly available knowledge, on which medical and life insurance companies, mortgage companies and potential employers could base their own criteria and decisions.
Posted by: dkew | February 9, 2007 9:38 PM
*seconds dkew's suggestion*
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 9, 2007 9:40 PM
Not normally, no. If that changes in the future, I will rethink my position on requiring vaccinations for the flu.
Wrong. "Not willing to coerce people" is not equivalent to "state is acceptable".
Are you really asking me why it shouldn't be illegal to leave one's home if you have a head cold?
It has a great deal to do with the issue. There are no grounds for keeping a HIV-positive child out of public schools because the risk of transmission from everyday contact is so extremely low. If HIV could be easily transmitted, there would be excellent reasons for denying such children public educations.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:42 PM
I agree with Caledonian. Ease of communicability should very much be the deciding factor.
dkew: a nice idea, but I doubt it's practical.
Posted by: John Marley | February 9, 2007 9:51 PM
How about a strict liability model? The nutters can refuse vaccination for themselves and their children, as long as they accept liability for ALL the consequences to themselves, their children and all those they possibly infected. These family decisions would be publicly available knowledge, on which medical and life insurance companies, mortgage companies and potential employers could base their own criteria and decisions.
hmm, the immediate question that pops to mind is:
How much is a human life worth?
If you go on a strict liability based model, and those who "opt out" get infected with a contagious disease, end up infecting somebody's kid, and the kid dies...
well, I think you can see where the difficulty lies.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 9, 2007 9:52 PM
I find it remarkable that people who get behind the idea that people have the right to do with their bodies what they see fit on topics like abortion simultaneously believe that individuals ought to be compelled to do with their bodies what serves their perceptions of the general good on topics like mandatory vaccination.
For that matter, what makes you think parents *aren't* liable if they let their children transmit serious diseases to other kids? America has an incredibly high rate of litigation - what's keeping parents from filing lawsuits?
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 9:52 PM
You all have it wrong. Vaccinations are so passé. I've heard it on good authority that the DI and Jerry Falwell's church are in collusion developing a Christian Chastity belt (the real purpose of the DI's new science lab). It's said to perserve the virginity of women/girls from the age of 11 on by having the capacity to adapt to the growing woman's body. And in an ecumenical move, Falwell is expecting to appeal for the blessing of Pope Benedict. What more can we ask for?
Posted by: Keanus | February 9, 2007 9:54 PM
America has an incredibly high rate of litigation - what's keeping parents from filing lawsuits?
nothing, but that doesn't bring their kids back, either.
Moreover, lots of folks could give a shit if they find themselves legally liable for their potential actions, so long as they are still free to act as they choose. Should others suffer because a liability model allows abuse, even if it provides for punishment after the fact?
this debate starts to sound like the half pound of prevention being worth a pound of cure argument.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 9, 2007 9:57 PM
You people who think that society ought to intervene to put things the way you'd want them: what precisely do you consider off-limits?
Parents of deaf children who refuse to have cochlear implants put it? Parents who want to teach their children obscure languages? Parents who raise their children in profoundly different cultures? Parents who have political/social/religious beliefs that you don't like?
Should the children of neo-Nazi members be taken away from the state? What about people who use reproductive technologies instead of adopting? Should people who adopt be forced to randomly select a child instead of accepting only children of a certain age/sex/racial background?
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 10:01 PM
Have you actually considered the implications of your preferences?
Should be ban all trampolines? Sure, plenty of people can possess them responsibly, but someone's not going to put up proper fencing - and even among those who do, sooner or later some child will hurt or kill themselves. We'd better pre-empt this tragedy by invoking state authority to protect people from themselves!
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 10:06 PM
You people who think that society ought to intervene to put things the way you'd want them: what precisely do you consider off-limits?
nothing.
everything.
there is no easy answer, as you damn well know. Flexibility is paramount, but also unrealistic given how politics works.
It's always boils down to a balance between freedom and security, just as with most other issues that must be decided for a variable populace.
No solution will be perfect, but there in the end always is some balance reached between the current perceived needs of freedom vs. security on any given issue.
like you say, looking at the flu virus, it can mutate between a minor annoyance and life threatening. Would a blanket policy of any kind really be a perfect solution?
what about the policy that conceivably causes the least harm to most people over the long term? Is that acceptable?
In my mind, ideally, it would always boil down to not just the absolute level of communicability (unless it was effectively "0"), but what the impacts of infection would be on someone who was a legitimate target of infection.
obviously, if the only available means of transmission would be of a sexual nature, then yes, that limits the means of transmission, but not the potential ubiquity of it.
potentially, anybody could still get a sexually transmitted disease. It becomes more likely as sexual activity increases, so one might consider required vaccinations after a certain point of maturity, for example.
that would also be combined with a knowledge of the impacts (both immediate and potential) of the disease under consideration.
while I personally don't like to include the following into consideration, there is also the potential impact economically if any given disease were to spread, and these considerations are certainly considered legitimate for most governing bodies. I can understand the argument of indirect impact based on economics, even if the idea seems distasteful.
I consider "seat belt laws" to be extreme examples of this. while there is NO immediate direct impact on another's life or freedoms if you don't wear a seatbelt, the impacts on the economy of the state due to treating uninsured injury cases resulting from not wearing a seatbelt, and general increases in medical costs, were and are considered to have sufficient indirect impacts to warrant the proposal and passage of such laws, in many states.
I simply don't think the issues are even philosophically, let alone practically, as simple as you are trying to paint them here, Cale.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 9, 2007 10:17 PM
But some answers are easier than others - and some kind to spout rhetoric like "balance between X and Y" to obscure the reality that they can't actually defend the positions they espouse and really aren't interested in doing so in the first place.
You don't "balance" two contradictory concepts. You set up a hierarchy, dictating which takes precedence in which situations. Empiricism and theory are both important in determining the structure of that hierarchy.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 10:29 PM
The value of a human life? Zillions if you're rich or famous, peanuts if you're not, squat if you're a dark furriner.
I didn't mean that extreme libertarian proposal seriously, except in the sense that the financial institutions would have to make hard calculations, and just maybe some of the nutters would see reason when no one would cover their gambles. It wouldn't work well for those with no assets, prospects, brains or conscience. So the public health model stands.
Posted by: dkew | February 9, 2007 10:30 PM
Drat - that should be "some like".
Don't even get me started on seatbelt laws.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 10:34 PM
Caledonian, did I misread what you wrote above or do you really believe that parents opting out of vaccinating their kids doesn't put a severe strain on herd immunity?
If indeed that's what you wrote, you truly know nothing of infectious disease.
Universal vaccination against the flu is an extremely good idea; influenza kills tens of thousands annually (mostly infants and the elderly) and novel strains that become pandemic are catastrophic (surely I don't need to remind you of the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-1919. Influenza is very, very contagious through casual contact.
Admittedly, mandating immunization against infectious diseases that are not spread by casual contact (HPV, chlamydia) is perhaps heavy-handed (though as a pediatrician, I'm not too bugged; the folks that most want to opt out are those who also don't want their children learning about Teh Sexx and fill my waiting room with teenagers who need some very adult-type help). Having said that, arguing against mandatory flu immunizations is right up there with the "vaccines cause autism" crowd.
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 10:35 PM
No one is forcing them to vaccinate their children, they just can no longer send their children to public schools. They can always send their spawnlings to private school.
I don't see what your problem is with that, Caledonian.
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 10:41 PM
Also with Caledonian here just about 100%.
Here's the thing about communicability. Some of you guys are saying, well maybe schoolkids "shouldn't" be having sex, but they are.
But having sex isn't a compulsory part of going to public school. Breathing the same air, touching the same objects, those sorts of things necessarily happen when students share the same space. That means that diseases that are transmissible in such ways should be vaccinated against compulsorily. How could you justify forcing someone to be vaccinated in order to attend public school when their presence at such school in unvaccinated state couldn't possibly cause anyone harm? They might infect someone in an outside situation, but so might someone who was homeschooled and thus immune (sorry...) to the requirement to begin with.
I'm all for requiring vaccination against highly communicable diseases, and I would want to be vaccinated against chlamydia myself, but that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate to force every high school kid to get the vaccine.
Posted by: nicole | February 9, 2007 10:46 PM
I don't know about misreading, but misunderstanding: almost certainly. 'Severe' strain also depends on the number of people who opt out. But more to the point, making decisions collectively is almost always worse than making them individually, and the likelihood of correct decisions drops as the group involved gets larger.
Considering the consequences of some past medical screwups, I am of the position that medical intervention should never be imposed on people who don't wish it unless there's a compelling interest, and I mean truly compelling, for society to do so. Aside from negating choice and freedom, imposing things through force tends to lead to more net harm than letting individuals choose their own courses, if only because risk aversion tends to be impaired when you're used to forcing your will through.
And regarding mandatory flu immunizations: go screw yourself. No one in my immediate family has ever had any form of the flu. Until a truly lethal strain comes around, one that we have a risk of getting, we're neither at risk of the flu nor likely to spread it to others. I am most certainly not going to accept a cost without benefit to myself just to satisfy your control needs. If people don't want to get the flu, they can get themselves immunized with my blessing - they can receive both the possible benefit and the possible price. When some superflu that kills 20% of the people who get it and spreads like wildfire comes around, we can consider breaking out the mandatory immunizations - also with my blessing. Until then, you can shove it right up.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 10:48 PM
So we've established that:
a) you don't know shit about herd immunity;
b) you don't know shit about influenza;
c) your sense of social responsibility is right up there with Jeffery Skilling; and
d) your grasp of statistics is also pretty shaky.
That was very enlightening, Caledonian. Thank you.
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 10:52 PM
But more to the point, making decisions collectively is almost always worse than making them individually
Huh, what?
You just argued that dictatorships are better than democracy.
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 10:54 PM
Given his Lysenko-like grasp of medicine, why are you surprised, Graculus?
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 10:57 PM
"Don't even get me started on seatbelt laws."
Drivers: Drivers wearing seatbelts are more able to retain control of the vehicle, and hence reduce risk of injury and death to others. Preadult passengers: Refer to principles regarding the endangerment of minors and dependents. Adult passengers: Assumption of responsibility by driver, similar to safety procedures on the part of someone who is responsible for an aircraft or laboratory. (For example, ensuring that lab workers wear gloves and safety goggles and secure compressed gas tanks.) Also, bodies and body parts traveling at high speed upon impact can injure others (including even those outside the vehicle if bodies break through the windshield).
Clearly, we're philosophically on different points on the libertarian-collectivist continuum. Science (and naturalism, and application of reason, empiricism, and logic) can help inform, but it cannot settle this one for us.
Just like science (and naturalism et al.) cannot settle some other philosophical, ethical, and moral issues, such as the "appropriate" disposal of the dead and human-animal hybrids/chimeras.
And to allude to that endless thread on whether a scientist can be a theist, or mystic, or whatever, and truly "get" science: While some of us can engage in science as a professional activity, none of us can wholly embody "science" - because science is incapable of resolving all questions in all domains of human experience.
Posted by: Colugo | February 9, 2007 10:58 PM
Neither system is inherently good. An enlightened dictatorship is better than even an enlightened democracy - but it's far, far rarer. Democracy as a general category is prone to the worst sorts of demagoguery and lowest-common-denominatorism that are rare in dictatorships, but dictatorships are prone to corruption - and at worst, by imposing a single set of decisions upon individuals, puts severe limits on the ability for choices to be made with awareness and knowledge of specific circumstances.
Practically speaking, it doesn't matter much whether the overwhelming power is a single in control of the masses, or the masses as a whole. Fascism and collectivism have similiar consequences despite purportedly being at the extremes of a particular political spectrum.
And regarding herd immunity: I know perfectly well what it is, thank you, and I also note that it doesn't justify mandatory immunizations in many if not most cases. I am somewhat confused as to why you're implying gross ignorance of certain facts because someone's challenging the assertions you are incorrectly claiming proceed from those facts.
No, that's just a politic lie - I know precisely why you're doing that. And it's a large part of why I don't want people like you making decisions for everyone. Or, indeed, anyone.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 11:10 PM
Very likely. Your provided reasons are an excellent argument for why wearing a seatbelt is a good idea - they are not adequate to justify the imposition of seatbelt wearing.
Wrong. This is a point that not enough people grasp. If it can be said that there is a correct stance on this issue, those are precisely the things that we must use to identify and implement it. If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what's implemented in the first place, and neither my feelings or thoughts on this matter nor yours are of any importance.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 11:17 PM
You caught me! Caledonian, you li'l rascal, you found me out. I'm busy being some kind of Communist, trying to prevent epidemics and keep kids out of the hospital. If I were a freedom-loving guy like you, who gives not a shit about his effect on his neighbor and can make the claim that no member of his family has ever had the flu *with a straight face*, why then, I'd be all for keeping kids away from those nasty, autism-causing vaccines and laffin' my butt off about outbreaks of pertussis and mumps that keep poppin' up in the good ol', freedom-lovin' U.S.A.!
Oh, well. I must be true to my Stalinist control-freak nature and try to prevent infections. Maybe one day I'll be as enlightened as you, and realize that prevention of epidemics doesn't justify the inconvenience of parents who want to enroll their kids in public schools. Fire up the SUV!
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 11:20 PM
Fascism and collectivism have similiar consequences despite purportedly being at the extremes of a particular political spectrum.
Fascism is a form of collectivism.
And you have begged the question... why can't non-vaccinated children go to private schools if their parents are unwilling to meet the admission requirements for public schools?
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 11:21 PM
Fascism a form of collectivism? Ferdinand Porsche is looking down from Industrialist Heaven and laughing. How many corporations were nationalized by Hitler or Mussolini? Those guys loved Big Business, and were loved by it.
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 11:24 PM
It comes down to one very simple fact.
When you talk about public health concepts, you almost have to use legislation to change behavior.
Want to cut smoking rates? Tax cigs or pass no smoking laws.
Want to make motorcycle riding safer? Require turn signals, lights, spedometers, etc. Require helmet use.
And seatbelts actually protect others as well. Being belted in makes it easier to maintain or regain control of your vehicle.
Want to maintain herd immunity? Require vaccination. If you don't like it, move somewhere where you don't have to interact with other people.
Posted by: Robster | February 9, 2007 11:25 PM
Fascism a form of collectivism?
Yes.
Check your definition of collectivism.
Then your definition of fascism.
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 11:27 PM
Then your definition of "corporation".
Then your definition of "private property".
Then your definition of "private sector".
The Nazis were so "collectivist" that they encouraged the activities of privately-owned (or stockholder-owned, if that's your definition of "collectivism") outfits like Porsche AG, IG Farben, Krupp, Erma, and Daimler-Benz without once trying to nationalize them; the Italian fascists loved them some Fiat; Chile's fascist government loved not only domestic private industry but foreign ones as well; every pistol on Franco's officers' belts was produced by private firms (most of which still exist): can't tell you 'bout Portugal, though.
It's a funny kind of collectivism that is so corporate-friendly.
Posted by: DocAmazing! | February 9, 2007 11:33 PM
1) You don't know what 'begging the question' means.
2) You're missing the point that society is not free to establish arbitrary admissions requirements. Such requirements must be justified.
And I most certainly can make the claim that no one in my family has had the flu with a straight face, because it's true. Mild and transient colds are the worst we've dealt with in my lifetime - none of us have ever come down with "the flu" as we generally recognize it. Weird genetics, cleanliness, or luck, I can't say which are responsible, but the result is clear. I suppose it's not technically accurate to claim that none of us have ever been infected with any influenza virus - but it's a bit like saying that we all have massive E. coli infections raging constantly.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 11:34 PM
It's a funny kind of collectivism that is so corporate-friendly.
Corporations are collectives.
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 11:39 PM
In many people, mild and transient cold is how influenzavirus presents itself. Mighty glad no one in your family was very ill; sorry about those to whom you passed the virus on. We all pass that virus on, unless we're vaccinated. The seventy-year-old at the bus stop who catches that virus from the mildly ill person who sneezes goes on to develop a raging viral pneumonia and shuffles off this mortal coil. That's the nature of influenza, and will always be so, unless the transmission is halted by increasing (yes, you guessed it) herd immunity.
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 11:39 PM
Well, Graculus, if you're broadening your definition of "collective" to include any enterprise involving a group of people who work toward a common goal, then I guess corporations are collectives. Of course, by that definition, any form of government is "collectivist", because all government involves group goals and group input.
Posted by: DocAmazing | February 9, 2007 11:42 PM
Um, no. On several levels.
1) People who get sick despite being vaccinated (which I'm told is relatively common with all the types of flu) are just as capable of passing it on as sick people who weren't vaccinated.
2) To my awareness, we didn't pass on any influenza to anyone.
You're arguing a bad example - this is a case of how herd immunity *doesn't* work very well. I suggest you pick any one of the large number of diseases where herd immunity is highly effective to make your case.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 11:46 PM
"If it can be said that there is a correct stance on this issue, those are precisely the things that we must use to identify and implement it."
Those are necessary (because they help inform decisions) but they are not sufficient. Here is what is missing: values.
"If there isn't, then it doesn't matter what's implemented in the first place."
I must respectfully disagree. It does matter - even if there is there is no objectively "correct" stance.
Again, I refer to values. Values are neither wholly derivable from science, naturalism, reason, empiricism, and logic (all of which I will simply refer to as "science") nor are they completely arbitrary.
Some will say "OK, values are derived from our evolved moral sense." Partly, but to understand what values are, we must consider Tinbergen's four causes. Hence, values will always have individual experiential and culturally constructed dimensions. That is not same as them being arbitrary. Nor are values wholly decidable by "science."
Side issue:
"Those guys loved Big Business, and were loved by it."
Big business had no compunction against doing business with communists either. For example, Ford had business dealings with the Soviet Union. (Avoiding the semantic issues of "true" communism vs Soviet "state capitalism," or historical asides like Lenin's NEP.)
Posted by: Colugo | February 9, 2007 11:47 PM
Anarchy.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 11:47 PM
Wrong. Values are either incoherent, or they have objective qualities that act upon survival rates, and thus scientific thought can reveal how they arise and perpetuate themselves.
Wrong. They are one or the other.
Posted by: Caledonian | February 9, 2007 11:50 PM
No, I'm not.
And capitalist corporations are not "a group of people working towards a common goal", most of the people employed therein couldn't give an airborne rodent's posterior.
Posted by: Graculus | February 9, 2007 11:50 PM
Man. I think STD vaccines are a great idea. And it's completely idiotic to assume that people will get the chlamydia vaccine and immediately go out and have sex. I mean, just because I get a flu shot doesn't mean I'm going to go around licking doorknobs.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | February 9, 2007 11:53 PM
This'll be quick--
1) Getting sick despite being vaccinated happens because the innoculum of the disease (the quantity that a vaccinated person is exposed to) overwhelms the vaccinated person's immunity. This happens because herd immunity was *never established* or because it has *broken down*. Herd immunity to the flu isn't highly effective only because the flu vaccine isn't mandatory--almost no communities in the US have significan herd immunity to the flu until very late in the flu season, when most people have had the illness, after the epidemic has passed.
2) Of course you're unaware of passing on influenza to anyone. I may not love your sense of social responsibility, but I don't believe that you would actively spread the flu, nor would any member of your family. Influenza is spread via casual contact. It doesn't need to be prolonged contact. You may have spread it (assuming you ha