That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that the things that we think of as harms (and I listed a few as examples) actually do interfere with reproduction (with obvious but completely understandable exceptions, such as when they happen to people who have already lost their ability to reproduce),
Most of the things we think of as harms also interfere one’s heartbeat, with one’s brainwaves, with one’s breathing, with one’s digestive systems, with one’s sleep patterns, etc, since we’re our biologies and every biological function is interconnected with the other.
Depending how you define your terms, your whole argument is either obviously false (we don’t perceive condoms and contraception to be “harm” though it interferes with reproduction, but we do perceive that being enslaved for breeding purposes is harm, even though it increases the probability of our reproduction) or trivially true (as everything done to us, both good and bad, interferes with every biological function in our bodies).
And for this reason, I fully expect that if we were to do a multi-generational study of meth-heads, we would find that they don’t do all that well in the reproduction department in comparison to a control group.
I also don’t expect they do well in the life expectancy or health or prosperity department, which is a more customary method of determining well-being and “harm” than “number of descendants” is.
Most of the things we think of as harms also interfere one’s heartbeat, with one’s brainwaves, with one’s breathing, with one’s digestive systems, with one’s sleep patterns, etc, since we’re our biologies and every biological function is interconnected with the other.
Indeed, and for this reason, we might be able to measure harms indirectly by looking at heartbeat. A doctor actually does this sort of thing—he looks at your vital signs to see how you’re doing.
Nothing I wrote should be interpreted as excluding these other ways of measuring harms. I was talking about one measure, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t others.
your whole argument [could be read as] trivially true...
Indeed, and I expected it to be read as trivially true, and therefore as the claim I was responding to as trivially false. I wasn’t expecting any pushback on such an obvious point. If drug addicts really are harmed by drugs, we should expect this to show up in lower reproduction. It’s really quite a trivial point.
I also don’t expect they do well in the life expectancy or health or prosperity department, which is a more customary method of determining well-being and “harm” than “number of descendants” is.
Indeed, but these other respects aren’t relevant to the claim I was addressing, which concerned the reproduction of drug addicts.
Most of the things we think of as harms also interfere one’s heartbeat, with one’s brainwaves, with one’s breathing, with one’s digestive systems, with one’s sleep patterns, etc, since we’re our biologies and every biological function is interconnected with the other.
Depending how you define your terms, your whole argument is either obviously false (we don’t perceive condoms and contraception to be “harm” though it interferes with reproduction, but we do perceive that being enslaved for breeding purposes is harm, even though it increases the probability of our reproduction) or trivially true (as everything done to us, both good and bad, interferes with every biological function in our bodies).
I also don’t expect they do well in the life expectancy or health or prosperity department, which is a more customary method of determining well-being and “harm” than “number of descendants” is.
Indeed, and for this reason, we might be able to measure harms indirectly by looking at heartbeat. A doctor actually does this sort of thing—he looks at your vital signs to see how you’re doing.
Nothing I wrote should be interpreted as excluding these other ways of measuring harms. I was talking about one measure, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t others.
Indeed, and I expected it to be read as trivially true, and therefore as the claim I was responding to as trivially false. I wasn’t expecting any pushback on such an obvious point. If drug addicts really are harmed by drugs, we should expect this to show up in lower reproduction. It’s really quite a trivial point.
Indeed, but these other respects aren’t relevant to the claim I was addressing, which concerned the reproduction of drug addicts.