NEWS: Ecologist advocates use of Ebola to exterminate 90% of Earth's Population

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by SFRemmy
I wonder....if it's supposed to be airborne, how would the spread of the ebola be stopped from getting to the other 10%. What's going to stop it from ruining our plans and taking out 100% instead of 90%?

Remmy... it's not that 10% of people aren't exposed, it's that 10% of people (estimated) are immune to the virus.

But how are they immune? From the little knowledge I have on the virus itself, currently there's no way to protect against it. I may be wrong, just saying what I know.

But still like the bird flu, what's stopping it from mutating in those 10% and becoming deadly to them. Surely it can't be permanently effective?

Originally posted by mattison0922I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

let me help you with that. this doctor eric sounds alot like a present day hitler, trying to wipe out a large number of people because he thinks its getting crowed... thats the hitler way to do things, how he brainwashed those people to support him? i have no idea.

Originally posted by SFRemmy
But how are they immune? From the little knowledge I have on the virus itself, currently there's no way to protect against it. I may be wrong, just saying what I know.

But still like the bird flu, what's stopping it from mutating in those 10% and becoming deadly to them. Surely it can't be permanently effective?

As far as the mechanism for Ebola immunity, I can't really say... I would speculate that it's just a fortituous recombination resulting in an effective antibody. The antibody will protect as long as it isn't lost and as long as the virus is recognized by the antibody. This is the basis of immunity. Once you're immune to something you're immune to it for... well a while at least.

Hitler tryed to compleatly exterminate certain groups, and fill the world with the ayran race.

What proffesor doom thought of is somewhat equality, that he didn't specify a spesific eithic group would be eliminated. And it is not total extermination, its culling. Its like wildlife managment on people.

Speaking of which I think docter doom stole his idea from the twelve monkeys (movie with bruce willace), and various other proporsed senarios or oddball ideas that populate fiction.



[edit on 5-4-2006 by jazz_psyker]

Now the FBI is investigating the good professor. More erosion of freedom of speech for Americans.

www.statesman.com...

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]

MORE GAYS!!!!!! LESS BABIES!!!!! No breeding restrictions or mass genocide is needed to control this population. It is already trying to do it itself through homosexuality. Don't stifle gays, they are our natural population controllers!!!!!!!!

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.

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?

Originally posted by Greeneryrocks
MORE GAYS!!!!!! LESS BABIES!!!!! No breeding restrictions or mass genocide is needed to control this population. It is already trying to do it itself through homosexuality. Don't stifle gays, they are our natural population controllers!!!!!!!!

While I see your point, a lot of homosexual men and women still wish to be parents. They just have to go the planned route. I'm not sure some states allow homosexual individuals to be able to adopt babies, or become parents. I read in some news-source some time ago that a clinic employee refused to artificially impregnate lesbian women, because it was against her religion/belief.

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]

The above postings illustrates ( however offensive concerning the alleged quote from the Doctor) a major problem with our human society. That is the last major "Holy Cow" of our society in which the vast majority of human beigs refuse to discuss in any rational way is the limits to our population growth. When the subject is rarely brought up the discussion is always emotional rather than rational. Unfortunately our culturel deems that that growth is good and the basis our economic systems. Just look how excited people get when a new housing estate goes in in your neighborhood or a new factory. This is further suported by most religious belief systems that God has told us to populate the planet probably a good idea two thousand years ago but not so applicable these days.I would remind the readers that it is estimatedthat up to 50% of all species could be eliminated from this planet in the next 50 to 100 years due the pressure of human population growth. Nature may a find a way to curb our excesses but I hope we we have the concience to activly reverse this population trend.

The question is though, do we reduce the pressure by taking it upon ourselves to kill people quite literally for the crime of living, or do we simply stop reproducing at such an alarming rate. Keep in mind that the population of Earth could be reduced to any number we care to reduce it to within a trifling 70 years without ever killing anyone. People have this nifty way of dying all on their own. All you've got to do is stop them from building replacements.

IF it is absolutely necessary to the survival of our planet and our species to take violent action which is necessarily repugnant to any notion of democracy or liberty, then the intelligent means to advocate is the spread of a disease or chemical which will render the victim infertile, not kill or torture him.

The only motive for resorting to an airborne rapid killer is efficiency. Efficient killing. This exceeds the requirements for saving whatever it is that this ecologist believes he will save and therefore must be serving other motives: the motives I have described above.

Even if I did not think the very concept was assenine, I would consider proponents of ebola to be incorrigible half-wits at best and the most dangerous of sociopaths at worst. Were I in their camp I would be ashamed of them and would encourage them to sit in the corner quietly while the A students found a way to solve the problem without gratuitous carnage.

Well, I guess one way to take out a few hundred million people is to just quit making flu vaccines. The flu right now takes out more humans per year than any other desease on the planet. That, and pneumonia.

Stick with the winners I say.




Also, the idea of planned pregnancies is iffy. indigenous population growth in the Americas and Europe are already at all-time lows. Where we need population control the most, the population doesn't listen. How do you convince those of Islamic or hardcore Christian beliefs that planned parenthood is crucial?

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Toelint]

Originally posted by Toelint
How do you convince those of Islamic or hardcore Christian beliefs that planned parenthood is crucial?

Careful study of televangelism has shown me the secret to influencing the religious: Money. Tax the hell out of them for having kids. Hardcore christians are big on abstinence, right? I don't necessarily want them to use birthcontrol if they are uncomfortable with it; they're welcome to just stop having sex. It's not as if anything truly exciting happens in the bedrooms of religious fundementalists anyhow, and you can bet your last nickel that "circumsized" muslim women will be missing even less than anyone else.

As an added bonus, my international relations prof jokingly assures me that the problem with both sides of the conflict in Palestine is that they need to go out and get laid, so we can expect increased violence there to further aid population control if the fanatics choose abstinence over birth control.

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.

I concurr with Dr. Pianka on certain points, such as the unsustainability of our life style. I think he has done a marvellous job to make the voice of science heard no matter the consequences.

I disagree however with the probibility that the best solution for overpopulation is extermination.

What has driven every industrial revolution is population growth and invention. Look at the cotton gin, the railroad, and the automobile. And in each case we were able to take more territory.

Today we are on the verge of a global industrial revolution. I call it the First Global Industrial Revolution (GIR I). As four billion new pairs of feet land on this planet the infrastructure will have to be bolstered to support the new arrivals. And in order to bring the rest of the world up to the standards of the First World, the infrastructure of the FW will have to be bolstered porportionally...

Which translates to more strained resources, etc. So, the obvious solution is expansion into space. In one single leap both the overpopulation problem will be solved as well as the one with resources. Energy will be abundant as solar power, and there are plenty of heavenly bodies to inhabit starting with the Moon.

We who dreamed about the future wished for this day, and now we stand on the edge of greatness. Let us unite together and build a tower to the Sun and let Dr. Painka's children inherit the Earth and all the lizards therein.

If the government were working hand in hand with scientists of this nature you begin to wonder how effective a disease really would be. Wouldnt it make more sense if the US used the war as a means of De-Population? What if the plan all along was simply to save the United States before the world dies.

Would it be wrong to beat everyone else to the punch to ensure the survival of America and its people? If we get rid of everyone else than we not only have ensured safety but we also have a living planet in which humanity can survive and advance technologically. If the illuminati is on our side then this would be the PERFECT Plan and an UNDERSTANDABLE one. This is just my opinion.. let me know what you think.

We need all of the other groups of people out there right now. Our DNA pool is small, at best. Without what limited variety we currently have, we'd be so inbred by 2300 that we'd not even be the same creatures. I can't see that happening, and again, I still can't believe anyone could follow in this line of thinking.

Purely amazing.

TheBorg

Originally posted by nukunuku
well that inhumane scumbag can step up to the plate and take a shot of ebola first just to show how good he is

Amen!