It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Created on the premise that scientists can overcome complex societal issues by re-imagining the “design rules” found in nature, the institute’s researchers are addressing an expansive array of global challenges by creating “bio-inspired” solutions, including: new vaccine discovery and delivery; early detection and treatment of cancer and infectious diseases; techniques for detecting and removing contaminants from air and water; and the application of nanotechnology for biomedicine and electronics.
The scientist quipped: “Has anybody seen ‘Contagion’? That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus… 25 percent of the population is supposed to go in Contagion.”
originally posted by: manna2
Dude, your apology for this makes you sound like a sociopath. I would feel better if you got some professional help before you act out your craziness on others. It aint funny.
a reply to: ArdenWolf
To think one has the right to determine the fate of another, wild life included, is the height of human arrogance and elitism. The main issue I have with your principle is those that think overpopulation is a problem never seem to want to lead the way by depopulating themselves. Problem being, who in their right mind is going to off themselves and their loved ones because an area they live is too densely populated?
originally posted by: Urantia1111
Actually it's the same principle as deer hunting. Overpopulation of deer is detrimental to the health of the species, so the herd is thinned out via hunting season. When this simple concept is applied to humans, though, everybody gets their poor feeling hurt. Is it more humane to allow millions to slowly starve and succumb to disease because there are just too many people for a particular area to support?