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

Originally posted by Liberal1984
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?"

How would any of this result in less death? The 'deaths' from 'global warming' are going to be caused by what exactly? These temperature shifts a long time to occur, people will adapt, not drop dead because there's no snow in january.

Besides, the logic of the arguement is faulty. YOu are saying that overpopulation itself will result in problems, which is a fair enough statement, but then you are saying that we need to kill the excess population (more or less). So how is that saving any suffering? Insted of millions dying from malthusian reapers, they'll be executed by their fellow man.

There's no sense in it.

And its especailyl odd to state that merely living in horrible conditions is enough to justify killing millions, unless you are saying that people in the third world are the ones that need to be destroyed, which I doubt.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Nygdan]

Liberal - other points aside, you are basing your argument on a misunderstanding. H5N1 bird flu is not "long overdue" - it has been around for about 46 years, spreading through the world, and contributing to the planet's burden of chronic disease.

...and the economic and social burdens of chronic disease are far greater than the expected fatality rate from any 'new' strain of H5N1 bird flu.





sp

[edit on 20-11-2005 by soficrow]

Levelly you’re right that bird flu may only buy us time, but its time that’s needed, give politics a few more decades (maybe less) and I’m quite sure climate change will be taken more seriously. Even if its not as Bush points out technology is also improving (electricity generation is still about 34% efficient so there’s room for improvement there)
As for the deaths of children I know it’s tragic but think about the unborn too. Maybe it’s sadder that in the current direction bird flu may be a twist of fate which "saves the planet from mankind"? I’ve never argued that a virus delivers justice but I think its remarkable that it offers a better future.

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?
Would more people be alive? And if they were what about the quality of living? And what about the other living things, how much more would be extinct?
To be fair the world will never disappear, but those bits we thrive on can certainly do some serious shrinking.

Also if global warming continues there is an alternative available to the West one which deals with shrinking crop space….
If global warming EVER came anywhere NEAR threatening the food supply of the West; surely covert biological warfare will be the chosen answer? This could peacefully turn the third world into a food exporter rather than a food importer.

Few people would like this theory but I’m pretty sure there are people “evil enough” out there who would do it. And how far would the West’s public go if it came to the crunch-lunch? If England dropped to minus 50 we could still be rich and powerful as agriculture makes up only a few percentage points on the economy, so the West can survive so long as it’s to hell with everyone else as usual.

So even from a purely humane focussed perspective my acceptance of bird flu is no bad thing when you consider the possible (yet very real alternatives) available to own leaders to get our countries through climate change.

(If as you say) the population will continue to rise with or without bird flu then surely at the very least a par ell world without bird flu would have a shorter period of good environmental time? So you see that argument at least cuts more than both ways. What never changes is so that so long both mankind and our leaders have failed the environment; the need for bird flu won’t go away.
If you still disagree then all I can say is that I respect your opinion,

P.S I have thought this issue out.

Things like an over-growing population and birth control being a problem is due to today's attitudes in society. Hopefully bird-flu won't be something too big, but will as I said change the way we think.

Dear Nygden
Global warming is been caused by people emitting CO2, CO2 emissions are accelerating thanks to population growth but more to the point economic growth in the developing world.
However regardless if the C02 growth comes from population or economic growth when people are dead they no longer emit much C02, and it doesn’t matter if its Westerners, Chinese or Africans who are hit C02 emissions will be reduced-obviously much more C02 is emitted from the westerners.
Wipe out 20% of the global population and we would be in better standing to meet our Kyoto targets, possibly through a C02 reduction of 20 percent.

Mankind is also causing the extinction of millions of species of animal; the Brazilians recently destroyed a record amount of rainforests. The people who do this tend to be about as poor as you can get so a virus will hardly make much difference to the environmental destruction, with less demand for charcoal the rainforest situation would also be improved.
.
Obviously “people will not drop dead because there’s no snow in spring” but living in England and northern Europe is going to be a challenge without the Gulf Stream. If before that the artic shelf collapses (which it probably will and hence in part the streams closure) sea levels will also dramatically rise. Destruction of the countryside, more freak weather, crop destruction (you know the rest).

So basically I feel that a virus which can reduce the numbers of a species which has doubled since the 60’s is no bad thing.
Yes I obviously there are much nicer ways things like climate change could be solved but in the absence of these (and judging from the evidence we lack time and action) then I think bird flu could just be in time.
1. To sort the environment out
2. b sorting our emissions out
3. Through sorting our numbers out.

Surprised you didn’t see that logic but I’ll go into detail from the beginning next time.

Oh thanks for the info Soficrow, I should defiantly have put pandemic long overdue not bird flu.

Also somebody said at the start that viruses don’t have a purpose because they are only packets of DNA, well killer virus certainly have the job of keeping their hosts numbers down. Obviously its not a job, job (I think that would be going to far) but it fulfils a role.

Originally posted by Liberal1984

So basically I feel that a virus which can reduce the numbers of a species which has doubled since the 60’s is no bad thing.
Surprised you didn’t see that logic but I’ll go into detail from the beginning next time.

There is no logic in your argument. As I've already stated, Bird Flu will only remove the part of the population that is not responsible for pollution.

And as you feel that a virus is OK, isn't it only one small step to feeling that mass euthanasia is OK? What is the difference between these two when your argument is compared?

And who says that this will reduce either global pollution or climate change? A smaller population in no way at all guarantees a reduction of both and, in fact, there is evidence to prove otherwise. One glaring example is the US today - a tiny, tiny proportion of the planet's population, yet by far the most massive polluter.

You say that you have thought this through. You say that you have logic. I say that you have neither.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Leveller]

Liberal1984 you do like to inflate your numbers and exaggerate don't you. First it was "billions" who died from the bubonic plague and now its "millions" of species mankind has wiped out recently. Have you ever bothered to look anything up, or do you just wing everything? You're a real merchant of death aren't you, just full of gloom & doom for the human race. The problem is, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Your numbers are all screwed up, you don't seem to understand the slightest thing about viruses and you make blanket statements about global warming that are simply not true. Somewhere in your mind you have come up with the ridiculous notion that 26% of humanity should die just to get us back on target to meet the Kyoto accords. But you never mention that getting back on that target wouldn't solve the CO2 problem or really do a damn thing to lessen the amount of CO2 mankind is allegedly pumping into the evnironment. Further, you assume that mankind alone is responsible for global warming, yet the published evidence clearly indicates that is not the case. Moreover, when some of these inconvenient facts are pointed out to you, you just ignore them.

So tell me, do you just think it would be cool to wipe out a quarter of the planet's population? To make any real difference you really need to take out about half of us. The idea of eliminating around three and an eighth billion people ought to really get you salivating. Of course you'll want to be careful in who you take out--you can't just leave something so important to chance--heck, you might eliminate the very people who could lead the human race out of it's present dilemma and you wouldn't want that because it would deprive you the pleasure of being able to do it all again later.

You are a seriously ill person to publicly advocate such irresponsible nonsense.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Astronomer68]

Dear Astronomer68 thank you for the respectful tone of your last post (I hope it does something for you).
But with exception to the 26% increase in world pollution since 1990 you’re totally right that till now I haven’t given any authoritative figures.

Actually plague killed about a third of Europe’s population. The 730 million alive today are responsible for about 16% of world CO2 emissions. What you should remember is that most people living in America are from European descendants, and I guess the same is true for Australia, New Zealand and Canada (especially Australia as natives are only a percentage points of the population).
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? I know America has many Mexicans and Afro Americans who would probably be in about the same numbers with or without the plague as they were mostly sparred (of course if they weren’t mostly sparred there would be more of them to).
America alone is infamously responsible for 25% of global C02 emissions what do you think this would be if there were a third more people of European origin?

So like it or not from an environmental view point we probably really do owe a lot to the effects of the medieval plague. I'm sorry you find it “sick” that I think we may also owe a lot (from an environmental perspective) to next plague(s) (that being right now bird flu).
And please don’t insult me by stating I’m a “seriously ill person”. After all as I’ve already made clear to someone else I'm not suggesting that someone play god by wiping out 26% of the worlds population. I’ve already said I believe it’s the job the gods to play god.
But I am saying that in absence of action to deal with C02 emissions and mankind’s treatment in general the world may be a better place (in the long term anyway) for such a serious reduction population.
For those who aren’t so bright let me make clear the difference. Humans are alive therefore we should be able to find better ways than killing each other to solve issues like the environment and global warming ect (as I’ve in other words). We should be the masters of our own fate, and even when we are not we can contribute to what’s right.
But if we don’t do this, then regarding environmental welfare it is no wonder that the world could be a better place thanks to the population and pollution reduction caused by a virus. Obviously this depends on how much you value the environment and things like England not being minus 50. But also how much you believe in them; but if you don’t think mankind is much or any of a problem regarding global warming then look at my 5th source which goes into how about 24% of mammals, and 50% of forest wildlife as a whole could be extinct if deforestation continues at current rates.

Even if you don’t believe mankind is responsible for or any climate change, do you think we would be if there were a third more people of European origin in both Europe, America and the other countries mentioned? Of course Europe could have over a third more people without bubonic plague if we assume the descendants of those killed stayed more Europe than they immigrated. Equally and (more realistically) Europe could have less than third extra people and countries like America even more Europeans. I say “more realistically” because a third extra people would surely have meant even more reasons for immigrating to places like America.

I hope you find the last source interesting

1. encarta.msn.com...
On the black death “that struck Europe and Mediterranean area from 1347 through 1351”
Under “Effects of Plague” 2nd paragraph it states that overall European population declined by one third, although in some areas it was over 50 percent.

2. www.bbc.co.uk...
4th programme listing “A New Millennium” says 730 million people live in Europe.

3. greens.farnleyandwortleyward.info...
EU responsible for 16% of C02 emissions.

4. www.lowcvp.org.uk...
World C02 emissions up 26% above 1990 levels. (I first read about it in Newscientist magazine).

5. news.bbc.co.uk...
24% of mammals, 12% of birds and 14% of plants facing extinction if forest clearing continues at current rates. By 2050 more than half of forest wildlife species could be lost.

P.S It was smallpx not plague whose toll on the human race equalled or (at least) would equal extra billions of people. So sorry for getting the naming wrong.

Please stop with the personal snipes and sarcasm.

Thanks.

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 to reside.

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, certainly.

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?

Irrelevant.

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 rise

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.

Leveller
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.

liberal
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.

I will respectfully withdraw from this thread before I post something that gets me in trouble. The very thought of what you prattle on about angers me.

BTW were you aware that approximately 273,000 trees literally get flushed down the toilets of Europe every year?

I do hope that you and yours are the first cases. Maybe we can learn from your untimely deaths.
I dont know why some have such a low opinion of life, but since you do, why not start with you.!?

While it is true that this may happen and undoubtedly there will be some deaths, i dont think you have thought this thru.
You are taking something that has terrible consequences for mankind and making light of it. Its kind of pathetic, imho.

Is death appealing?

I can just imagine how you feel about nuclear bombs.

dgtempe
There is no way I have a low opinion of life. Human life maybe, but only when it threatens many more species of creation than it will ever be, when it thinks it’s some sort of cross bred with God and has little or no hope of changing before the consequences of its actions come home to roost.

Maybe you haven’t read through my replies (mind you there’s been a lot of them) otherwise I hope you would have understood the argument a bit better. But if bird flu is necessary because of the impending consequences of man’s worldly sins (and inaction towards them) then if I am the first, fine.
I love life; and would like to change it for the better. I hope to survive and I hope people like me survive. But my life is in gods hands as much as anybodies; and we all face the same risks, the same salvation, under the same conditions.

Oh you mentioned nuclear bombs? They destroy nature, not just nature but the ability for land to regenerate itself. I don’t like them because of that.

With respect to Nygdan’s his attitude sums up best what I hate most about current mankind thinking “if the planet is at war with mankind then destroy the planet” or “man is more important to man than the planet outside it being a place for mankind to reside”.

With respect; people like that and attitudes like these are in all conflict with all good spirits and all great shades of God and of course morality itself.
Because even from the most pragmatic perspective they are hardly cost effective towards the greater good when one remembers there are other things presides mankind which fur fill their lives. There are more of them to!!! If the purpose of man is pleasure then it is collectively outweighed, as it with existence and almost everything related to life on almost every front. The earth even posses dolphins who if more intelligent than humans would be by the logic of many peoples arguments worth more to.

SOME PHILOSOPHY
All technology is as old as the universe because the first caveman could have created a spear instead of a club, or an arrow instead of a spear, or a crossbow rather than a simple arrow. The same applies to books and literature (you could still have shot Orwell at birth and created his 1984 book by chance), and of course morality itself.
It’s within the context of what is and is not possible (which does not change what the environment can permit only what it will) that morality exists.
And so to does the worth of the human race, and other such questions. Whatever logic you use Nygdan there is only one which puts the value of the human race above nature-the planet; and that is “might is right” (coincidently “mans soles belong to whoever has the strength to claim them”). Nygdan I thought about that with the devil in mind, and gods only stronger if you’re closer to him. P.S I'm not Christian.

I will finish with this thread for now because it’s dominating the section way too much.


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

I don't think the possibility of my newborn getting infected and dying is a good thing.

I do believe that the oncoming pandemic is vastly over rated. For what it is worth!