X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham  	version=3.2.0-r431796
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <reeves-kalkman-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0N38iTK026714 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:44 -0500
Received: from ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.133]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0N38and015827 	for <dreeves &AElig eecs.umich.edu>; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:40 -0500
Received: FROM newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	BY ghostbusters.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45B57C32.C98AF.24252 ;  	22 Jan 2007 22:08:34 -0500
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (boston.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.61]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0N38Wb1015800 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:32 -0500
Received: from boston.eecs.umich.edu (localhost.eecs.umich.edu [127.0.0.1]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0N38VTK026708 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:32 -0500
Received: from localhost (dreeves &AElig localhost) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) with ESMTP id l0N38V1d026705; 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:31 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: boston.eecs.umich.edu: dreeves owned process doing -bs
X-X-Sender: dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu
In-Reply-To: <8d3580670701221841l5232faf1q5d57d381211e77f0 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701222143240.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701220237380.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>    <8d3580670701220800o1422fcaalf6e3793d09ec3482 &AElig mail.gmail.com>    <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701221126560.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>  <8d3580670701221841l5232faf1q5d57d381211e77f0 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:08:31 -0500 (EST)
To: Lisa Hsu <hsul &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu, reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: mea culpa: everything I've ever said about smoke-free workplace  laws
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 908

> the question it asked was something like, did saving people from 
> infectious diseases just leave us with longer lasting, more painful ways 
> to die?

If I got a fatal infectious disease I'd be willing to pay an arm and a leg 
(perhaps literally) for the cure.  QED, curing diseases = good.

Let's turn this even more philosophical and debate this fable about a 
dragon in the Journal of Medical Ethics:
   http://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html

> also, the benefit to the gene pool only really stands if the only people who
> die from lack of helmet have never had children before, whcih is highly
> doubtful, isnt' it?

Can't speak for Bethany but I meant the gene pool argument 
tongue-in-cheek.  Nonetheless, it's correct, in my understanding.  Not 
wearing a helmet reduces your expected number of offspring.  If stupidity 
is hereditary and manifests as helmetless (motor)cycling and that causes 
people (even sometimes) to die during their fertile years then allowing it 
to manifest should put selective pressure on less stupidity.


(thanks Lisa!)

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"