[ta8645]

You're doing a lot of work to continue to miss the point. The point is not that we should embrace viruses in order to reap the benefits. Just that it is _POSSIBLE_ that a virus would turn out to be very beneficial to humanity, in the long run. We know this to be a fact, because of the article we're reading above.

The only point I'm hoping people will take, is that we shouldn't be so quick to make categorical statements about the future; like we know exactly how things will play out. I don't know for sure. You don't know for sure. The experts don't know for sure.

[vlovich123]

No, you’re assuming a counterfactual that isn’t necessarily true. If the virus hadn’t come along, humanity as it stands today may not exist but whatever animal was infected could potentially have kept reproducing / another virus would accomplish what happened anyway. Those are far more likely scenarios.

You’re taking an impossible to prove hypothetical that would require omniscient level reasoning and predictive powers to prove or disprove - it’s not a productive line of reasoning and you’re falling into the exact same trap you’re accusing others of doing. The WWII example is also highly flawed because that one was experts making strategically reasonable calls. Worrying about some hypothetical virus that in the distant future is critical is not strategically reasonable - it’s science fantasy.

[ta8645]

> No, you’re assuming a counterfactual.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the science as reported in the article above. That in FACT a virus lead to an important part of human development. And was in FACT beneficial. Those are true facts, if you trust the science.

> If the virus hadn’t come along, humanity as it stands today may not exist but whatever animal was infected could potentially have kept reproducing / another virus would accomplish what happened anyway. Those are far more likely scenarios.

You literally immediately launched into assuming a counterfactual (that didn't happen, you just made it up).

> You’re taking an impossible to prove hypothetical that would require omniscient level reasoning

Yes, and I made it clear that's what I was doing. And I explicitly said it was an imaginary situation that would never happen. I was using it for illustrative purposes for people who are flexible enough in their thinking. I'm sorry that isn't you.