> 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"