Originally posted by Liberal1984
in the current direction bird flu may be a twist of fate which "saves the planet from mankind"?
Why in the world would anyone want to say the planet over mankind?
If the planet is 'at war' with mankind, then simply destroy the planet. If the ecosystems of the world are in conflict with the continuing
existence of man, then those ecosystems are going to loose. Man is far more important, to man, than the planet, outside of it being a place for man
Say we cloned the world and ran out two separate versions of history (one with bird flu and the other without) would you really think yours
would be the better one in say a hundred years?
Better based on what? In your scenario millions or billions die horribly from bird flu and other diseases. On the other world, things continue on
much as now but in larger numbers.
Would more people be alive?
There'd almost certainly be more people alive on the naturally developing planet than on the one where the population is kept under control,
what about the quality of living?
So do you also suggest that on the Culling World that the first people to be executed are the poor and those in the third world?
And what about the other living things, how much more would be extinct?
If global warming EVER came anywhere NEAR threatening the food supply of the West; surely covert biological warfare will be the chosen answer?
As opposed to......irrigation???
If England dropped to minus 50
There will be no such change on any recognizable human time scale.
so the West can survive so long as it’s to hell with everyone else as usual.
Your entire idea is 'to hell with everyone else' anyway.
at the very least a par ell world without bird flu would have a shorter period of good environmental time?
No, it would have the same time. Climate change of the type you are talking about takes a very long time. In the time span you are talking about,
where disease can have an impact on global population, there will be no relative difference in terms of the 'good environment time'.
Wipe out 20% of the global population and we would be in better standing to meet our Kyoto targets
You're going to say its worth killing over a billion people in order to meet the target emissions of the kyoto accord?
but living in England and northern Europe is going to be a challenge without the Gulf Stream.
England is at the same lattitude as Nova Scotia, more or less. It will be different, but hardly worth killing a billion or more
people to keep
it nice and warm in england.
If before that the artic shelf collapses (which it probably will and hence in part the streams closure) sea levels will also dramatically
Yes, this is a possibility, but it can hardly be said to be such a likely danger that we can justify murdering a billion people.
Even if we could be fairly certain that it woudl happen, we'd just have to evacuate and abandon the coastlines.
well killer virus certainly have the job of keeping their hosts numbers down
A viruses only 'job' is to make more copies of itself. Somtimes this means being a very virulent infection and killing the host, other times this
means that the less virulent strain is fitter and the host doesn't die off in large numbers. A virus does nothing more than that.
Bird Flu will only remove the part of the population that is not responsible for pollution.
Actually, if you think about it, by making medicine and treatment for all sorts of diseases very expensive, you ensure that the poor wretches of the
world are the ones that die, and they are the ones, right now, who pose the greatest danger to the environment, because they are in the greatest
numbers and they have the lowest environmental regulations and are the worst, per incident, polluters. As their economy grows they will far far
out-pollut the west.
Not that I think its worthwhile killing people to reduce pollution anyway, but in that detail the rich, who can afford the expensive anti-pollution
measures, will also be able to afford treatment for disease, and thus survive a pandemic, whereas the poor polluters won't.
Therefore is it fair to assume that pollution from all these countries would be about a third higher if it had not been for the plague?
Because a third of europe's population was destroyed so many years ago? No, its not fair to assume that. If that third hadn't died and had lived
and reproduced at the same rate as the rest of it, there'd be much more than three times as many europeans in the first place, and who knows what
else would've happened to keep the population down. Neverminding that we have no idea if any of those people might've come up with better
technology to reduce pollution or have cleaner energy.
But if we don’t do this, then regarding environmental welfare it is no wonder that the world could be a better place
Who cares if there is less pollution if you've had to sit by and let billions die. The only problem with pollution is that it might kill people.
Hardly makes sense to start killing people before there is the pollution. And as far as killing humans or permitting humans to die just to preseve
biodiversity, there is absolutely no reason to do that.