NEWS: Ecologist advocates use of Ebola to exterminate 90% of Earth's Population, page 7
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 6-4-2006 @ 11:51 PM by Toelint
Originally posted by desert rat
Now the FBI is investigating the good professor. More erosion of freedom of speech for Americans.

www.statesman.com...


Why shouldn't the "Hecklers Veto" apply to professors shouting, "You should all...just..DIE!!" in a crowded convention hall??

What if I (as a politician) said, " I truely think the world will be better off if I kill 90% of the population." And then went on to explain how I can do this, perhaps through nukes.

Would you stick up for a Republican politician who said this? Better yet, a Bush-Administration Cabinet member? If it doesn't work for them, it shouldn't work for the "good professor".

[edit on 6-4-2006 by Toelint]


reply posted on 7-4-2006 @ 07:46 PM by jazz_psyker
The reason people wouldn't support the thing though nukes (but for that matter on average don't support the whole 90% reduction anyway) because that wouldn't just be distroying humanity, but just about everything on the surface of the planet.

It defeats the whole perpouse of saving the planet and all the wildlife and crap if the surface of the planet is turned into mars : ) Then everyone loses in a big way, probably would be better to just leave things going the way they are.

As to homosexuality, it is random and usualy happens olny one in every ten people. A consistant ratio sience the dawn of whatever. And it doesn't relay prevent procreation (a woman is for making babys, but a man is for love and sex).

Probably if people will allowed to live out their lives, but olny one in ten couples were allowed to have a single child then people would be a bit more cooperating to the idea of population reduction.

Also, people who do not procreate due to the restrictment get their genetic material (blood, sperm whatever) preserved for genetic stockpile. If some big disaster happens, or if their is a lack of fresh new genetic material the preserved stuff can be distributed into the genepool.

That way everyone wins instead of losing, but this kind of goes into utopian ideas that might never become actualized like living in space on 'craft worlds'. So we don't make to much of a negative infuence here.



reply posted on 7-4-2006 @ 08:47 PM by 2manyquestions
First of all I would like to apologize for not having read every last page ( I got up to number 4, and I plan on getting to the rest soon).

I'm not sure what Dr. Pianka is really advocating (I'm not trusting the media NOT to make it a spectacle. I found this article a couple of days ago:
Professor criticized for population talk ), but I will say this; Population control may be a good idea. In no way do I agree to killing people off through war, or disease. That would be terrible, and I know I would not want to watch those close to me die from some horrible disease.

What I would advocate is planned pregnancy. There are a lot of people in the world who are not ready to be parents,....not only financially, but also lack the responsibility to raise their children properly. We can look at the many foster homes, and see that it is true. We can look in our prisons, and see that it is true. If there was a way to steralize everyone at birth, and then reverse the process once two people were ready to become parents, we 'might' acquire a more responsible population of people. Does this sound too drastic?
The question is; Would we still have enough people to run this planet? Although at first I would say no,.... eventually, with a smaller population, we would require less resources, hence, less workers. Now that I think about it,....maybe this world would eventually turn into something like the movie "Gattaca".
Killing off people to reduce the population is far too harsh, and I would never come to agree to such a thing. Problem is,.....the bigger the population, the easier it becomes to spread disease, and the easier it is to run out of vaccines and resources. We are more territorial, and conflicts between clashing countries/races/religions cause war and destruction. (Of course such conflicts have been around since the beginning of the human race, when there were few of us, so population control may not be the answer to that).

What do all of you think? Do you think planned pregnancies (as I've described it) would do the trick?


reply posted on 8-4-2006 @ 01:23 AM by The Vagabond
Isn't the obvious answer, rather than killing people, just to non-forcibly deter pregnancy through tax policy?
This restricts intended pregnancy to what is supportable by the economy, which cannot exceed the availability of vital resources, including food.

All that's left to do then is prevent unintended pregnancies, which can be accomplished quite readily so long as our governments do not continue to legislate religious morality which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would have to outlaw um... how do you put this politely... um... intrapersonal romance.

With growth thus slowed, the next logical step is to increase our resource efficiency inorder to raise Earth's carrying capacity.
Renewable energy, improved irrigation, recycling, synthetics, and when technology permits, the harvesting of resources from planets not supporting life would all be preferable to killing off humanity.

And if we can't handle that- nature has its way of dealing with species that um... over-do it. It doesn't take a man-made ebola epedemic. I'm sure Earth will have no qualms about killing us the same way it kills everything else that overpopulates its ecosystem.

So why does a prominent doctor advocate circumventing the NATURAL way of doing this? Elitism. The self-apotheosized gods of academia would take it upon themselves to decide in leiu of Nature who is useful and shall live and who is useless and should die. They themselves obviously will not be chosen to die, and they will see that a few yeomen survive, (as a necessary evil in the eyes of the elites) if they will sell their souls to the service of the power structure in exchange for their lives (and not a penny more).

If they can bring this to fruition without being caught and killed, then they can have their dystopia, and I'll take my chances with the ebola, though I'd make one heck of an effort to survive on my own and stay outside of whatever society emerged on the other end.



[edit on 8-4-2006 by The Vagabond]


reply posted on 8-4-2006 @ 05:52 AM by fritz
Firstly let me say, that I was a Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical Warfare Instructor for over 30 years.

I keep 'current' by searching the web for updates in the field of Biological and Chemical Warfare Agents and by doing my own research, through published papers and by talking to the 'experts', as and when I can.

Certainly, I have heard of this 'Dr Doom' and, whilst I do not subscribe to his philosophy or rhetoric, he does have a point.

We humans DO infect the earth. We rip the very heart and soul out of her, with little or no regard for her wellbeing.

Now don't get me wrong. I am no tree hugging ecologist and I have certainly done more than my fair share to hurt mother Earth. But there will come a time when Gaia or Mother Earth says, enough is enough. As it is, she does seem to have this in built ability to cause we humans harm in many, many ways.

One of these is infectious desease. Forget about man made deseases or lab rats and men in white coats. Think of Mother Earth as the men in white coats and ourselves as the lab rats, then and only then, do you start to see the problem.

Ebola or Haemorrhagic fever is a desease which is 9 times out of 10, fatal to humans. There are 3 main strains of Ebola - Zaire, Congo and Ivory Coast. The desease has been given the name of the country of origin where the Sub-Strain was discovered. There is a 4th sub-strain, the Ebola-Reston, but this only effects primates and is not thought to be transmissable to humans - yet!

Ebola in Nature

Ebola is found almost exclusively on the Continent of Africa. The exact origin, locations, and the natural reservoir of the virus remain unknown. In other words, you cannot go to a particular place in Africa and know for certain that you will find Ebola present.

Ebola-Reston has been found in The Phillipines in Green Monkeys. These were imported to the UK, the USA and Italy and resulted in several minor outbreaks within the research communities, non of which were fatal.

How is the Virus Spread?

Because the natural reservoir has (to date) not been found, scientists have not been able to isolate how the virus first appears in humans at the start of an outbreak. Having said that, scientists believe that first contact can only come from an infected animal, probably a primate.

People can be exposed to Ebola virus from direct contact with the blood and or the body secretions of an infected person; through contact with objects, such as needles, that have been contaminated with infected secretions; the spread of a disease within a health-care setting, such as a clinic or hospital, is refered to as a Nosocomial transmission/outbreak and is common place in the poor health standards of many African communities.

Although Ebola-Reston is transmitted by airborne particles between primates, some scientists do not believe that the Ebola HF can be transmitted between primates and humans by airborne particles only. Others dispute this, siting the recent outbreak (1997) of Ebola Ziare, where it appeared the disease had Sub-Mutated, whilst others persist that if the desease can be transmitted by airborne particles in a lab setting, then the same can be said for 'real life'.

Symptoms of Ebola HF

Incubation will vary drastically from patient to patient and because of this, it is often mis-diagnosed, but incubation may be as little as 1 to 2 days or up to 3 weeks, depending on age, health and exposure.

Symptoms vary but will include all or some of the following:

Fever, headache, joint and muscle aches, sore throat, and general weakness. This may be followed by diarrohea, vomiting, stomach pain and severe stomach cramps. A rash, red eyes, hiccups with both internal and external bleeding may be seen in some patients. (This is caused by the breakdown of internal organs and tissues to a pulp-like fluid)

You may be surprised to learn that not everybody who is exposed to Ebola HF dies. In fact those patients who display a well develloped immune system often make a full recovery and demonstrate no side effects.

Thanks to my friend Caroline at CMR, for her help in producing my post.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 113 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 11 hours ago, 98 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 14 hours ago, 50 replies