|
The idea that a disease is "nature's way of containing population" is utterly stupid, ridiculous even. It's the kind of thinking which is popular mainly with people who are looking for a replacement for a God and find that in nature. However, the implication that nature is in fact an anthropomorphic, conscious being or something of the sort displays the anthropocentric fallacy primarily found in the most basic of religions.
While it is true that things like overpopulation, poverty and very little education create circumstances which can make a population more susceptible to epidemics and such, speculating about a rational drive behind that violates the main principles of science.
Furthermore, combining this type of semi-religious talk with a prime example of the naturalistic fallacy leads only to a very random, unfounded and undefendable ethical position, which is so full of holes that one can only wonder how people can seriously believe it.
__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/
|