Worldwide Vaccines; More Harm than Good?

The solution is to solve/spend resources on the problems that vaccination exacerbates, because things like resource distribution/production, overpopulation, etc, are problems that need solving regardless.

The true problem is that we don't go full force into solving these issues, not that one of the issues is exacerbating problems that already were there.

 

This is the kind of topic that I find really frustrating because it makes sense and I don't see a real solution to it.

I mean it's like one of those things where I feel like I'm having the same conversation over and over in my head.. with no solution...

The ideal situation would be for there to be enough resources for us not worry about the population, and then to be able to tackle things like disease with vaccinations.

I feel like we're doing things backwards, because often people need to feel like they are at least doing something. Show a healer a wound and then dare to get them not to fix it.. I just don't see that happening.

But the real question should be how to change the process you know.. The real problem is having enough resources not to have to worry about overpopulation, but since that isn't the case, what do we do?

Sit back and watch people suffer, even if we have the means to heal?

And what else are we supposed to do besides educate on birth control, take away peoples rights to have children? Implement laws that say how many children a family can and can't have... maybe? I don't see it going over that well...

I don't know.. I see the problems. I just don't know where we go from here....

 

Becomes a "weighing game" (or, utility problem would probably be a good technical term for it): is keeping a terrible disease around more harmful then exacerbating resulting problems?

Keep in mind these too:
Will exacerbating other problems turn attention to those to be solved (so you eventually eliminate them and the disease anyways)?

Can we reliably predict the new, more pronounced problems (because if we can't, then we might as well eliminate the disease, as it is a problem we can predict)?

 

The main reason for over-reproduction is low quality of life. Any improvements in the quality of life will reduce reproduction naturally. This includes vaccines, but there should also be education. I honestly believe that the optimal solution to most world problems at the moment would be radical redistribution of quality of life.

That being said, vaccines are clearly supported by powerful corporations which produce them and distribute them. So that's the main motivating force behind events, it's not necessarily the well-being of poor countries.

 

I see what you're saying, and your original question was probably a step ahead of where I was going, although I still think it is useful to point out that it specifically is a weighing game.

To that end, I would say that there is certainly a possibility that eradicating a disease from a given region, given that we aren't going to pour resources into solving the difficulties that may result (I would contend that we probably would if those difficulties outweighed the disease eradication...we'd feel responsible for it), that the solution is that we have to judge region by region what the projected utility of our actions are.

I think redirecting the question to be, "How do we determine whether eradicating a disease is right for a given region?" is more interesting.

 

Well, we were already on somewhat of a right track. We can identify some of the issues that eradicating a disease would cause. I think you would have to consider the effects of those problems, and the effects of the effects of those problems, and the effects of the effects of the effects, etc.

So as an example, eradicating, say, malaria from a region that is very troubled by it in sub Saharan Africa would, as primary effects, produce a population boom and a shift in the population toward the much younger and the much older.

A result of these effects will be an increase in resource demand (but not an increase in the workforce immediately, that would come after the "boomer" generation came of age...about 15 years after the eradication). The country will probably become an importer/debtor country.

With debt comes interest. A long term danger is the country will have little room in its economy for social benefits, defense, and other high budget programs.


So, the country will probably want to reduce tax benefits (or even put a penalty on) for having children, as they are sort of "high supply" in this economy. They will probably want to take measures to stimulate their industrial sector so they can produce more goods to compensate for higher demand. Further, they'll want to stimulate domestic companies in the commercial sector that do a lot of international trade. Specifically, companies that import "need" items like food and wood (as that will be what is in demand) and companies that export everything else (so the country won't rack up a large debt) will be the primary candidates.


That is the kind of stuff that needs to be considered. Admittedly, I personally don't have the economic, ecological, or public health knowledge to come up with all the specific potential problems eradication of a major disease problem would bring. I understand the complexity of the issue, but unless someone here studies the specific stuff associated with it, we may not be able to answer the question.

 

mf, sir,

I agree that vaccines, as a single measure, can do more harm, and even more human suffering, in the end, if not part of very well planned infrastructural and educational reforms. Sadly, as I mentioned before, it is highly likely that just the business interests of some companies, that produce said vaccines, have worked as more major force in making decisions, instead of solid determination to carry on a major cultural improvement. We'll see.

You made a very interesting point with this thread though. To help a human to survive the immediate danger, only to be faced with even worse suffering, is in the end more sadistic than humanistic. Our current idea of "help" is all about the local impact, here-and-now, fix it, save it, cure it, solve it, day-to-day. Get them to say they are "happy", get them to say they "agree", get them to say they are "guilty", get them to say that's their "choice", get them to say they are "feeling better", get them to vote for you, get them to buy from you -> assume you've helped. Nope. It doesn't work that way in reality. Instead, we should focus on more long-term thinking about systems, and about people. Consider the whole life-cycle, not just a moment of it. Until we do this, we'll be stuck with endless problems, that get more and more extreme.

 

Funny, I was just about to come back to this thread and say something very similar. Eradication of a disease, in the short term, may have detrimental effects and those need to be addressed.

However, in the long term (and I'm not just thinking life-cycle here ENFPcbs, but 500 years, 1000 years from now), eradication is nothing but improvement. People will survive short term bad effects, and although those will have ripples in the fabric of our world, eradication produces more people (which is a benefit to industry, thinking/development, etc etc...the natural direction we are in is always positive/evolutionary, so although more people means more Hitlers, it means more Ghandis, and the effect of the Ghandis always turns out to outweigh the Hitlers in the long run and is the reason we have progressed).

 

I'm not so sure that eradication is "nothing but an improvement." Theoretically speaking, eliminating a disease simply opens up an evolutionary niche that something will seek to fill. Hell, look at antibiotic-resistant infections. That's evolution at work for you. Stronger drugs end up breeding stronger diseases.

 

I don't take vaccines, for good reasons. I value my health. I also don't trust mainstream media's spin and pushing of vaccines either.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027956_H1N1_vaccine_CDC.html