The Justinian Plague (500s AD) estimated to have killed half the world's population

a reply to: ketsuko

Here in the UK birth rates are highest in poor areas.
Education standards are lowest in poor areas.
Muslim families tend to have more children than non-Muslims in accordance with some interpretations of Islamic law.
I don't think the UK is unique in this.

Aboloish, or at least significantly reduce poverty levels especially in third world countries whilst improving education and minimise the influence of religions like Catholicism and Islam.
I think then we would see birth rates flattening out.

It isn't going to happen any time soon.

Too many vested interests rely on exploiting the ignorance and misery of others.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Antibiotics don't help much with viruses.

They are strong medicines that treat bacterial infections.

Point taken though where the cleanliness of our medical professionals is concerned.

Without modern medicine, we would not even know how COVID 19 operates.

a reply to: Hecate666

They've openly stated that the vaccine will only protect 90% of the population.
Would a 10% cull be enough?

And then we have the 'mink mutation'.
Will that reduce the vaccines efficiency even further?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I’m logical/practical.

I agree with you.

a reply to: Freeborn

Again, it's not about poverty, but about cultural norms taking longer to catch up.

You can make those same people rich beyond the dream of avarice and they would still pop out 20 kids per wife and have three wives.

Give them some time to settle into first world life and culture and those attitudes begin to shift. It takes time -- generational time. Kids grow up less inclined to have as many kids than the adults. Their kids grow up less inclined to have as many kids, etc.

Until you get to Japan where the government is begging young people to just have even 1 kid.

Seems to me that mutation is the elephant in the room as far as COVID goes. With so many people in so many countries and with global trade and travel, a truly plague-scale-deadly mutation is far from unthinkable.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's always about poverty, if you are poor.

Only rich privileged people fail to comprehend that fact.

Poverty is inextricably linked to just about every and any social factor regarding the human condition.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 772STi

There's a book called Justinian's Flea that deals with it. My understanding is that they think it may have been bubonic plague, but they aren't sure. There isn't any real forensic evidence left, so they're only operating off of accounts left over from the day of what the disease was like.

Pretty sure it was caused by a Yersinia Pestis strain, as per other bubonic and pneumonic plagues. www.thelancet.com...(13)70323-2/fulltext" target="_blank" class="postlink">The Lancet

a reply to: Never Despise

I guess I sit on the razor edge of opinion regarding depopulation.

If 'Mother Nature' does it, that is the way it has always been (and the way it always will be!); so, I accept that. I mean: nature is nature, and it doesn't play 'favorites'.

BUT:

If we are talking about humans actively killing other humans and thus 'depopulating' ourselves; then, I really REALLY disagree with that.

Historically, we have always expanded our population to meet the capacity of our food production, and balance with predators of humans (such as viruses, other diseases, etc.).

Good times never last though, leading to the unavoidable predictable crash in resources and population to follow, because we live in a constantly varying environment.

We can ruin the environment, and 'crash' ourselves early, but if we live even in the most sustainable way imaginable, nature will crash us later anyway, with a micro-nova, impactor, volcanic activity, disease, or whatever. Our little sphere isn't very stable, to say the least, and mother nature is a cruel enough bitch already, even without us killing / culling each other!

During the plague of the 1350's over 85% of the worlds population died from it. Yet this one is worse because the media and certain political parties say it is. People could learn history, but the schools are all shut down. What cha gonna do?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Never Despise

im sure that folks aren't going to like what i type here....

....but we need a depopulation as would be provided through large scale disease. While it would be incredibly painful for humans in multiple ways, it would do many positive things:


- allow the remaining humans to reshape the future world in ways that were not intellectually available until the 18th century
- restore the potential for our river systems to recharge with glacial growth
- restore aquifer systems, which are closely related to the river systems
- save and reinvigorate countless aquatic creatures
- reforest the continents

No, none of us wants to die, or lose loved ones. But its a reality of life on this planet, one which our scientificcapabilities have seemed to over come in large part.

I think it is inevitable that the human race has to plan for this likely necessity in order to save both the planet and ultimately the human race. If you accept what I say as logical then I do not need to tell you that it is in the planning phase already and what is being developed or enhanced in labs is being done so with this pending and necessary requirement of the future and not so far into the future. This Covid19 tool is in my view one of those wip's that happen to get out early by accident before it was ready
and more mortally effective! Maybe in a year or two when perfected it would/could kill 1 in 2 people! Or maybe Covid19 is the base pathogen and the next the exterminating icing.

Ive got great news for you all!

There is already a plan to take care of this problem. It will begin in the US, then work its way around the planet. In fact we do a terrific job, and are super effective.

Matthew

For at that time there will be great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again. If those days had not been cut short, nobody would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, those days will be cut short.

Be the Elect

a reply to: Guyfriday

Can you link to that 85% figure? I heard up to 200 million for the 14th century black death, but it seems to have been more confined to Europe and parts of Asia. I could be wrong.

a reply to: andy06shake

Rich and privileged ... you know nothing about me or the circumstances I grew up in.

You honestly can't get more rich and privileged than a discussion about how most of the people in the world need to be killed off for the greater good. That's the voice of people for whom the hard facts of death by starvation, exposure, disease, war, and other brutal and bloody realities are just a mental exercise.

a reply to: ketsuko

Look before you leap mate.

Calm down. LoL

Its not all about you ketsuko.

The fact remains, what i said is true, despite your social circumstances.

Or even because of them.

Far too many, have nots, far too few haves, is the colour of societies day.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

I don't think anyone is advocating an organised and systematic human cull....at least I hope not.
If that was the case wouldn't they have just let Covid 19 run its course?

One thing this current pandemic has shown us is that we can't simply go back to 'the way things were', there has to be change.
Its no coincidence that people who do advocate just going back to 'normal' tend also to be Coronavirus deniers and those who can not see any alternative other than the current system along with its social injustices and inequalities.

But I fear I digress.

It may turn out to be that the only way to ethically argue for a mass dieoff is if one would volunteer to be among the victims.

I don't mean this in a snarky way. Millions of humans throughout history have willingly given their lives for what they see to be a higher good. Whether it be willingness to die for one's country, or to race into a burning building to save one's children.

So if one advocates for the death of billions as a higher cause, perhaps one should approach it in the same spirit...as a participant and not a sideline beneficiary. Just a thought.

a reply to: andy06shake

And I explained why you have so many in those poor countries. Because so many die as children. That changes as countries become wealthier, but the cultural imperative to have many children changes slower than the reality in the nation does. It does eventually change, but things get nasty and crowded first.

But you want to see things as rich and privileged, and I'm telling you this whole discussion smacks of it. If you watched your children die from starvation, disease, etc., because you lived in a third world nation. You wouldn't be sitting here discussing how we need a "good strong plague to wipe out half of us". You just wouldn't. That's already your day to day reality as it is.

a reply to: Never Despise

I don't think any of them would say it that way specifically, if it weren't for generations of people thinking their name is Adam or Eve & their job is to churn out baby after baby after baby. We can't have every family breeding like broodmares like the Duggars do (really, how is that a life) BUT until we start getting serious about how we procreate voluntarily, people are never going to like what's said regardless of HOW it's said.

My issue is simple. We put more thought & care into breeding animals for the best possible outcomes than we do with people. If you really drop biases and think about it, that's kinda ass-backward and kinda #ed up.

We need to start taking a more serious look at procreation as a method to kill off or control diseases, rather than pinning hopes on genetic engineering (though that's a certainty some day, some genetic diseases probably will never be bred out of existence entirely & new ones are always liable to crop up) The roadblock for that idea is the Nature Factor -- most people would never willingly raise a kid not their own genetic offspring. I understand why, but it really shouldn't matter, should it? If adoption is going to be held up and espoused as a noble way to be a parent to someone you have zero genetic ties to, then so should genetic matching to reduce proliferation of diseases. We already have a society full of half siblings and step-parents, we could build on that and really make a positive difference for innumerable generations, if we'd just stop gasping and screaming when someone brings the subject up.

We have a long way to go on that psychologically as a species, and frankly, I see the planet accepting manufacturing offspring to order in a test tube over the same end results less invasively, organically.

a reply to: ketsuko

Can't reiterate enough it's all about poverty.

Especially the control.

I call it how i see it, canny do much different.

The reality is one man's world is not the next, and the class war is raging, the disparity and divide only on the increase.

As to my day to day reality, just like yours, i imagine that varies, even if you do seem to presume to know what mine entails. LoL x