It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bird Flu is a Good Thing and Long Overdue...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Loads of people are going round and they all say is: “Ah! Bird Flu? How terrible?”
Sorry but I think it’s a necessary evil. You look at the virus and you think what does it do? Well its sole purpose more or less seems to be to prevent species from over breeding.
If you weren’t human and you looked at wild pigs or something else that was destroying its natural environment you might also think that viruses are good things. Well not good, good, but good enough for the world to be a better for their existence than without. After all if it weren’t a virus that killed a whole lot of wild pigs then after they did lots damage to the forests it would be starvation.

Virus's and bacteria are an excellent invention on the part of God-evolution.

Of course the human race is supposed to be different. We are supposed to be able to control our numbers as well as our actions. Which we do, and we don't.
Trouble is the human race isn't just over breeding, but where it isn't (namely in the West) it is destroying the environment through C02 emissions. Can we sort these things out? Sure. Are we? No.
Apparently we need to cut our CO2 emissions dramatically, possibly in the next ten years or runaway global warming will start (if it hasn’t begun already).
Trouble is that according to “New Scientist” the world is collectively emitting 26% more CO2 since 1990. This is despite the Kyoto “Agreement” which aims to freeze Co2 emissions at 1990 levels. Worse still the Kyoto agreement is supposed to be inadequate even if all countries did sign and abide by it.

Therefore because of our leaders, because of our actions I hope natural events manage to kill about 26% of the world’s population. Frankly unless the world governments were to sort themselves out soon it’s our only hope.
Also frankly my only complaint to the gods is that they did not let something like this happen 10 or 20 years ago, because then life would be in a whole lot better form now.

Is it not the case that human race deserves no mercy against such natural disasters? We think we’re created in Gods image because of creations like the bible, when in actual fact, throughout history our leaders have mimicked the shadow of the devil. We think we’re so damn important that we are prepared to cut into the brains of 250 fully conscious cats in a single medical experiment (without anaesthetic).

I'm sorry but I'm fed up with this proletarian society, over bred and to often uncaring. It’s self-righteous, self-centred and too happy to pass the buck. It’s the place of the man with a baseball bat, and the old age pensioner whose vision of a better world is demonstrated by voting one way or the other, because it’s what they’ve always done.

Well I'm sick of it all, and privately say “hail to its destruction”. I wish it were murders and rapists we did our medical experiments on, but apparently we are too “sacred-important” for that. And though man’s leaders could take away the viruses justification for acting against us it is something they have clearly yet to do.

Who agrees with me? Would love to know how you disagree.




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Nature does have a way of keeping things balanced, but I cannot say this is a good thing. It will kill children who never asked to be here. We have done the planet wrong and it is going to get us back.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
And let's see how good you think it is if your family and friends are among the ones who die. It is well and good to say something is needed on paper but you have to think how you would feel if it hits your personally.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
look, i think depopulationists should start with themselves, really, 'over-breeding' what a load of trans-fascist *** (Bravo Sierra) i mean this kind of talk leads directly into eugenics ie. some control freak decides who breeds and who doesn't, who lives, who dies and so on.


IF people start putting down others like pets, the result will be endless cruel wars without a single tear shed, desroying trust among humanity will lead us to our doom. yours included.


edit: turned sig back on, try to understand why

[edit on 22-10-2005 by Long Lance]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by justme1640
And let's see how good you think it is if your family and friends are among the ones who die.



My thoughts exactly
.

Liberal1984, will you be telling your surviving family members that bird flu is a good thing when there is no more room to bury loved ones?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Dear Liberal, Good sir, by all means you and yours first.

Don't be shy step up and walk the plank- the world would in deed be a much better place if all the "over populationists" stepped up and did to themselves what they say every one esle should be doing or suffered the fate they wished upon others.

Have you at least got the ol' snip-snip to ensure you don't further burden the planet with offspring? Oh i see you are one of the elite and should be one of the few to pass on genetic material. Ain't got the guts for the ol snip snip huh? let alone taking a razor to your wrist since the world is sooooo over populated.


yeah, over populated with "over populationists"



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Somewhere between blatant trollism and bonkers-level insanity lies Liberal1984.

He might end up getting it anyways. Karma can be a real b***h.

Honestly, though, I think he's just a troll.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by launchpad
Dear Liberal, Good sir, by all means you and yours first.
Don't be shy step up and walk the plank- the world would in deed be a much better place if all the "over populationists" stepped up and did to themselves what they say every one esle should be doing or suffered the fate they wished upon others.

yeah, over populated with "over populationists"

so is that your solution for a world that does'nt have enough resources
to feed humans ever increasing demands, make all the ppl who give a dam
disapear, so that the profane can be left to screw everything up.

deny ignorance,



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian



so is that your solution for a world that does'nt have enough resources
to feed humans ever increasing demands, make all the ppl who give a dam
disapear, so that the profane can be left to screw everything up.

deny ignorance,


yeah, less resources - > harder to get by, less growth, unless you spoon feed them via 'development aid' (even then you can only dely the inevitable), some things

DESPERATELY

need to be LEFT ALONE, pls. it's not up to us to decide not me not you, no one, make your decisions, but if you decide to meddle in the affairs of others don't be surprised if they return the favor soon. really, if our models and predictions are off it's one thing to eg. curb the use of fossil fuels by coercive (read´: ultimately violent) means (bad enough, since climate changes happen, see 'Greenland' once was NOT an icy desert not so long ago, not much human interference back then), tendentially impoverishing many for the profit of a few, namly those who get to cash in on this air tax, but it's completely another to advocate what is essentially a holocaust.

if people really have to die on such a scale and let's pretend it's really inevitable (which i doubt, just like i doubt a weather forecast for the next decades), why not in war? i'd consider war the most honest way, since it potentially gives the intended victims a chance (which you'll probably hate because you most likely believe you'd survive for some undisclosed reason)

let me issue a final warning: serious believers in 'depopulation' are seperated from commiting genocide only by a lack of opportunities, should an ominously 'elite' clique of perpetrators ever achice such a goal and be uncovered, mainstream perception will change form 'somthing's amiss' to 'they wanna kill us'. can you imagine that? i can't but it would be literal hell, lives are not to be toyed with, the consequences would dwarf the XXth century slaughter, and no i don't need to be a prophet to say that.

PS: i know it's probably just a case of trolling, but as a former lurker i know there's a potentially huge audience and they should, imho get to know that anti-life collectivism is widly recognised as such.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Wow.
This is not the first time I thought that maybe a spokesman for the One World Order bunch was here with us, but this has got to be one of the best examples.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian

Originally posted by launchpad
Dear Liberal, Good sir, by all means you and yours first.
Don't be shy step up and walk the plank- the world would in deed be a much better place if all the "over populationists" stepped up and did to themselves what they say every one esle should be doing or suffered the fate they wished upon others.

yeah, over populated with "over populationists"

so is that your solution for a world that does'nt have enough resources
to feed humans ever increasing demands, make all the ppl who give a dam
disapear, so that the profane can be left to screw everything up.

deny ignorance,


Wasn't that what you (sickos) were suggesting? That we kill off a good portion of the population? Oh wait- you mean everyone EXCEPT YOU (sickos.)

Well sure then. "over populationists first" show you really care about our world and off yourself- leave a note though- maybe even a video- I think a DVD ought to hold enough of your diatribe to let everyone know why you did it. At least that way you might convince a few people you truly believed the caca that keeps coming out of the wrong end on you folks.

I find it sad really that the "over populationists" think that everyone else should be killed off before them- and most have more than one offspring (!!!!!). Sounds a lot like the caca the extremist Muslim clerics preach- "everyone else go blow themselves up (try to get an infidel)- but as for me I am too important and my family should avoid it as well." (One can only hope that someday the morons drive themselves to extinction)

I still can't gather what makes anyone think the world is OVER populated. Must be the use of fossil fuels- which is about all we seem to be in short supply of and there are numerous ways around that if we just had the balls to say no thanks to OPEC. Food wise- you got to be kidding if you think we don't have enough!!! Sure there might be people starving in places on this world but that is a mater of logistics NOT that we do not have the food or the ability to grow enough food! Last I checked the US is still paying farmers NOT to farm the land due to surpluses. (A whole other sick problem). Even with the very little of the worlds surface used for farming- there could be many thousands of square miles more! Instead of a new football stadium- convert the land for farming and supply a neighborhood with bread for a year.

I am all for a place on the drivers license for the "over populationists" to be labeled much like an organ donor. If they get into an accident - like breaking an arm or something (anything requiring medical treatment) we just go ahead and put them down. At least it will lesson the wait for some poor folks in the Emergency Room.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
First off liberal,

C02 emisions are not causing global warming. the warming trend actually preceeded the rise in emisions and such emissions have been much higher in the past. The more we study the climate, the more we really see just how difficult it is to predict. The effects upon the earth's climate are many and we are now seeing a solar system wide warming trend which would mean the culprit or cause is our own sun. To think we humans can have any effect and worse yet, can actually preserve anything in a dynamic environment such as earth is rediculous.


Secondly, the earth's popluation is not anywhere close to being at dangerous levels or "out of hand". True we have many countries whom produce way more offspring than they can care for which causes increased poverty but such "cultures" of starvation and desease are among the only one's you liberal's seem to want to preserve...all from the cozy confines of your civilized lifestyle. Hows about this, we industrialize and help modernize these backward countries so they can sustain themselves and clean their polluted water and we'll build a mock third world island for you and the rest of the "nature lovers" to fly over and ooh and ahh at? It'll be like disney land only no one has to starve for you all to see their "culture" the way it once was. Ted Danson, Susan Sarandon, and Babs can wing over, spend a week with the "natives" and then fly back with a renewed sense of self-righteousness and the people can get a paycheck and go home everynight to electricity, medicine, food and water.

Aside from that, I'm glad you see this desease as such a wonderful planet saving entity. As usual, I guess your view is from your ivory tower safely away from the death and dying masses..or at least you think it is.



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Let me plz respond to the statement i made earlyer,
launchpad
I am pro life, i would not and could not choose who has the right to live,
your retrick is the only source that is spreading an unplesant armor, i dont mind a debate, but calling ppl sicko's isnt conjusive to your opinion that ppl who are aware of, or who discuss overpopulation want to wipe out a third of the world,
not me mate, i just know this is a big issue, dabated over by the ppl of power, you see thats what worrys me the most, if the powers at be, have decided that overpopulation is a problem,
What will they do about it?

Prince Philip, Deadly VirusPrince Philip, deadly virus?
Deutsche Press Agentur (DPA), August 1998
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus,
in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
--Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, as reported by Deutsche Pres Agentur, August
1998



posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Sorry but I think it’s a necessary evil. You look at the virus and you think what does it do? Well its sole purpose more or less seems to be to prevent species from over breeding.

Thats not its purpose. The 'purpose' of a virus is merely to make more copies of itself. People dying by the millions is not a good thing. How do you figure its going to change things and make things better?


If you weren’t human and you looked at wild pigs or something else that was destroying its natural environment you might also think that viruses are good things.

Not for the pigs.


Well not good, good, but good enough for the world to be a better for their existence than without.

A world without humans is a bad world for humans.


After all if it weren’t a virus that killed a whole lot of wild pigs then after they did lots damage to the forests it would be starvation.

So? Then they'd die of starvation and you'd say that the starvation was a good thing that was necessary. Heck, millions of people are starving and children are dying from it now. Is that a good thing?


Virus's and bacteria are an excellent invention on the part of God-evolution.

They're not an invention, they're organisms that do what organisms do, reproduce.



Apparently we need to cut our CO2 emissions dramatically, possibly in the next ten years or runaway global warming will start (if it hasn’t begun already).

People aren't talking about runaway global warming, they're talking about an increase in temperature, not venus like global warming. They're talking about, at absolute worst, eliminating ice at the poles and extending tropical forests to the higher lattitudes. I agree that this isn't something we want to do, but, whats the problem with it? It'll kill people? Whats the difference between that and a virus then? By the same logic, global warming is 'good', as the virus.


TrTherefore because of our leaders, because of our actions I hope natural events manage to kill about 26% of the world’s population.

Thats pretty senseless.


something like this happen 10 or 20 years ago, because then life would be in a whole lot better form now.

No it wouldn't. Indeed, why would it? Kill a few million people and what is so much better about the world exactly? Nothing.


Is it not the case that human race deserves no mercy against such natural disasters?

Who cares what is deserved? What might seem like justice to one person need not bear any relation to any sort of ultimate 'good'.


We think we’re so damn important that we are prepared to cut into the brains of 250 fully conscious cats in a single medical experiment (without anaesthetic).

Boo frickin' whoo. Hurting kitty cats is bad and evil, but hurting thousands of people is aok? Sorry, but, no.


It’s self-righteous, self-centred and too happy to pass the buck.

You mean like thinking that a virus killing everyone around them is a good thing?


And though man’s leaders could take away the viruses justification for acting against us it is something they have clearly yet to do.

These viruses don't have any justification for anything. Don't look to nature for moral justification, why think nature is moral? Its not. Those same viruses that can kill millions of humans would, given the chance, kill all their hosts until they drove themselves extinct, if the could and if evolution didn't prevent them from doing so. There's no justice in the natural world, and its far far more 'cruel and evil' than man if moral ideas can be applied to it.


Who agrees with me?

Sickos?

Would love to know how you disagree.

I'd love to see, if this avian flu virus is as wildly destructive as many fear, what history will think of posts and writtings like yours, hopping for such destruction.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Wow for a moment then I thought my opinion or article might be the cause of bird flu-maybe it is.
But people ask how I would feel if I or my family died thanks to bird flu; well of course I would not be happy nobody would be. But how about if I died thanks to global warming or lived an almost third world existence as a result? How about if in exchange for the RISK of dying now all this could be averted?
Is it bad judgment to think the risk of dying from bird flu today provides a more useful death than the ones caused by the legacy of this generations actions? Because right now in a future without bird flu it is the consequences of today’s human living which will severely reduce living standards for man and animal alike possibly for thousands of years to come.

Nobody denies that there are better solutions than dying which would solve issues such as climate change and man’s treatment of the environment in general. It’s better for our earthly leaders to follow the many, many possible solutions in front of them which would take away the need for bird flu.
Trouble is that our leaders aren’t e.g. (as previously mentioned) despite the Kyoto treaty global CO2 emissions have still gone up by 26% since 1990.
And I argue that as long as our leaders don’t follow the better solutions the need for bird flue will remain. It is our generation’s embarrassment that we have a need for bird flu, and if I'm right it is our embarrassment all the more that the world would be better of with bird flu than without it.
After all today’s generation like every other living thing and almost every generation before owes their standard of living to the tragedy of others. There have been great wars but more importantly plagues like the Black Death and smallpox which together killed untold billions. Imagine what the world would look like if none of those things had ever happened. Do you think we might need a bigger world just to feed?

It would have been nice if medieval Britain had, had the knowledge of modern agriculture or birth control. We have those things but ether we are not using them enough (birth control) or we are lacking something (say to suddenly end C02 emissions-the extinction of God-natures creation). But as long as we continue to lack or not use the solutions to the problems in front of us I argue the need for bird flu remains.
Somebody said bird flu will children, but who says the life of a child in a unsustainable world today is worth so many times more the life of a child in a sustainable world in the coming future. We were all unborn once, and the fact the world might be better without one in five of us (or something in that order) is our disgrace not that of my opinion.

In the name of the greater good I appreciate the spread of better solutions, and in the absence of those I will appreciate the spread of bird flu. Because if through: the fault of our leaders, ourselves, or even the times we live in; our future is reduced to facing misery over misery I hope for the most useful misery and therefore the least destructive-the most beneficial.
If you understand that bird flu can be a solution to things like climate change, find that the other better solutions are (for whatever reason) not being used enough to cause prevention; then how in the name of the greater good do you think something like bird flu is not more of a good thing than a bad thing?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   
If we were to apply your reasoning, the following would have to be accepted:

* we screwed up when we stopped Hitler
* Stalin dying was the worst thing that could have happened to humanity
* every dollar spent on medical advancements is a dollar invested to our demise
* we should be developing communicable diseases, not trying to get them under control
* we're short-sighted idiots for incarcerating murderers
* drought is our friend
* when we get to an optimal, limited number of people willing to live by mandated population controls, not eat meat, and farm with a hoe, who will be willing to murder any one they think might foul the system or the air, we'll be in Eden revisited.

* OR - because there will always be tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes, famine, floods and pestilence and just your basic bad weather patterns...we should just turn and shoot each other right now... because any risk of adversity and/or "misery" means we should end it all now.

I think you missed your calling when you weren't at the Jonestown kool-aid stand when last round was called.



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Is it bad judgment to think the risk of dying from bird flu today provides a more useful death than the ones caused by the legacy of this generations actions? Because right now in a future without bird flu it is the consequences of today’s human living which will severely reduce living standards for man and animal alike possibly for thousands of years to come.



Actually, I would think that your argument is the self-focused one. People die now so you have a better future? Please. Less of the smugness and less of the pomposity.
Maybe when you grow up and have children yourself, you will see what a stupid statement you have made.

By all means, things are not perfect. But we should concentrate on better harnassing and using our resources long before (and if ever) we think of birth control and never should another human being advocate the death of another. Take that as religion or morality or whichever way you want, but I call an urging for the death of your fellow man as being just plain sick.
I'd be pretty sure, judging by your posts, that you live in the West. You happen to be a member of a society that wastes more of this Earth's resources than anyone else. If you're American, you happen to be a member of a society that wastes the vast proportion.
And I'll bet you're no different than anyone else. You live a prefab, throw-away life where waste is on the menu.

Before you whine at others and try to deny them their God-given right to have children, why don't you try living a life where you are no more wasting this planet's resources than the average Third World child. So try taking your share only. I guarantee that you will find this impossible to do.

But until you can do that, I'm afraid to say that you're nothing but a hypocrite with a nasty little mind.
"In the name of the Greater Good" my ass. There isn't one single ounce of Goodness in your proposal.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Leveller]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I think mankind deserves it...not because I'm evil or sadistic, but it will control the population maybe change society and cause us to think about things differently.

Who knows 'eh?

[edit on 20-11-2005 by mashup]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Dear Leveller what is so smug about saying people die now so we all have a better future? I'm no exception to bird flu so how can I be smug? Yes of course I’m in the west and though I try to be good I use electricity up too-see I’m on a computer! Yet what's smug about questioning if the future of this world would be richer or poorer with or without bird flu? It’s hardly stupid when you consider what Britain at minus 50 would be like, in fact go back about ten thousand years and your there.

Also who said anything about DENYING people the right to children? I did make a passing reference to the need for birth control but pleases don't put words in my mouth (it did seem like that).
Did you know the world population has doubled since the early 1960's? So yes maybe I am wrong about the need for greater birth control, maybe you think it should double again? Is that why you think bird flu is bad even if through the current state of affairs it ends up preventing more deaths than it causes?



Yalhall you seem to want a world where none of those things happened? Maybe you would like a world where nobody had ever died at all? Well good luck to you and your world because it would be a pretty full one, a pretty hungry one and what I would define as hell.
Could this scenario be real? Well without the black death of medieval times there may be (I guess) twice as many people around today. In the west that would translate to more than twice the rate of climate change and half the time to sort it out. Even without climate change think of all the stuff which would probably be extinct. Some people don't value nature much but I think every species is worth at least a million human lives as humans can be replaced and extinct things can not.

But I don’t say we "screwed up" every time we killed some mass killer; for a start they all entail their own brutal regimes. Though yes I do ask if the world will STILL be richer for saving those people if it turns out that their descendants are so destructive towards the environment that they seriously reduce its ability to harbour life in the first place?
Till this has happened the lives saved are still even against hindsight unquestionably part human progress and the same goes foe medicine as well.

Before using more "time travel arguments" let me put this to you: Under my argument if I had a time machine I would be distributing fuel cell technology, knowledge of certain pesticides and other such things, in fact I would even give them fusion power if I could. Only in the absence of all those things could it cross my mind to extend the life of the plague. Personally I would never do something like that as I don’t advocate playing god, to me that’s the job of god.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Did you know the world population has doubled since the early 1960's? So yes maybe I am wrong about the need for greater birth control, maybe you think it should double again? Is that why you think bird flu is bad even if through the current state of affairs it ends up preventing more deaths than it causes?






I'll tell you why I think you're being smug. It comes out in the statement above.

"Is that why you think bird flu is bad even if through the current state of affairs it ends up preventing more deaths than it causes?"

It's the assumption that Death can be a good thing for other people.
I also feel that the use of the word "dear" when addressing me shows a certain attribute.

And yes, you did mention birth control. It's OK your stating that I put words in your mouth, but the Truth is that you had already said them. And how can you whine anyway? It would seem to even the most dippy reader of your words that birth control is probably far better an accusation to make against you than what you are openly advocating - the death of children.

But let's get back to the topic.
Bird flu is more likely to kill the young and the old. It's comparison to Bubonic Plague epidemics is therefore tenuous. It will hit only two specific areas of society. Now who makes the most pollution in this world? The young? The old? I don't think so. The people who will survive are the very people who create the majority of the mess in the first place.
And let's assume that Bird Flu wipes out a major proportion of humanity. You said yourself that the World Population has doubled in the past 20 or so years. What is to stop mankind reverting to it's present status in another 20 years time after an epidemic has hit? Nothing.

You are wishing people dead merely to buy yourself more time.

You clearly haven't thought this through.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join