It's not nonsensical at all. His friend is arguing that if we accept losses to disease then the following humans will be the more resilient ones.
however, I thought I would mention a rather fatal flaw in this argument:
There is no guarantee that humans that can survive diseases like the measles will be "stronger" than humans who can not.
For example, Sickle cell anemia, a genetic disease, is an ADAPTION to survive malaria. It's an intentional sacrifice.
Bacteria that adapt to anti-biotics arn't necessarily stronger than bacteria who did not adapt. Adapted bacteria make sacrifices to survive a hostile agent, they don't get it for free.
So attempting to immunize humans by breeding them to be resistant/immune has no guarantee to make humans stronger. It's possible the change required could be entirely benign, or it could be catastrophic.
It's not nonsensical at all. His friend is arguing that if we accept losses to disease then the following humans will be the more resilient ones.
however, I thought I would mention a rather fatal flaw in this argument:
There is no guarantee that humans that can survive diseases like the measles will be "stronger" than humans who can not.
For example, Sickle cell anemia, a genetic disease, is an ADAPTION to survive malaria. It's an intentional sacrifice.
Bacteria that adapt to anti-biotics arn't necessarily stronger than bacteria who did not adapt. Adapted bacteria make sacrifices to survive a hostile agent, they don't get it for free.
So attempting to immunize humans by breeding them to be resistant/immune has no guarantee to make humans stronger. It's possible the change required could be entirely benign, or it could be catastrophic.