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.
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Originally posted by Mind1universe
The truth is, 90percent of the world could do with leaving this world. This reality is just not working any longer. The worlds needs cleansing from the bottom right up to the target.
The survival of the fittest is the answer to moving forward. I've come to this conclusion, because the majority of the people who are gullable to take the vaccine deserve it. They are not aware. Regardless of the mallacy and the plans that are proceeding
The balance and light will come to the end of the tunnel.
Did you know every man woman and child on earth could have two acres in Texas. It is not by killing of portions of the populous that humankind will endure, in fact this ecosystem is doomed with or with or without us. 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct!
The best hope the human race has to survive is to pull itself above the dependence on this doomed ecosystem, and looking at nature for answers the best method for this is a population which exceeds the resources found on earth, as the only hope for the human race id is to reach to the stars. It is not by the principles of humanity that mankind is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but simply by means of the most brutal struggle!
Save the whale’s and kiss a tree are the worst possible mindsets that the human race could have. Problems like the CO2 scare should be met with the technology to scrub it from the atmosphere, as regardless of our numbers we will undoubtedly have to deal with these issues in the future. The earth should be used for the single purpose of supporting human life, so that we may endure! Depopulation decreases are chances significantly. I don’t contend that we do not need the current ecosystem to survive, but we do posses the technology to completely manage our environment.
One not so popular answer to the CO2 problem is the fertilize the oceans to increase plankton levels, and harvest both the plankton overabundance and the increased bio mass like sardines and other plankton feeding creatures for processing into oil. One could imagine that this would also involve the removal of some predator species that may compete for our harvest.
To choose a tree over humans is just really screwed up! Some idiots will always maintain a notion that this world is somehow perpetual and unchanging, but this is not the case. All you see here is doomed including us unless we are forced to seek other means to our survival. It is definitely not by depopulation that we will endure, in fact it could doom us to failure!
Here is graph showing some changes that are right around the corner. It was compiled directly from composite data and the findings are not debatable.
[edit on 27-9-2009 by Donkey_Dean]
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Did you know every man woman and child on earth could have two acres in Texas. It is not by killing of portions of the populous that humankind will endure, in fact this ecosystem is doomed with or with or without us. 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct!
Originally posted by Teebs
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Did you know every man woman and child on earth could have two acres in Texas. It is not by killing of portions of the populous that humankind will endure, in fact this ecosystem is doomed with or with or without us. 98% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct!
I have been hearing variations of this statement for a long time, and my curiosity finally made me try and do the math myself. Now, I am not a math person, but after some time and patience I have to say that either I am really bad at math, or... you are even worse (or worse yet, you just heard this somewhere and passed it on as truth before confirming it yourself). Anyway, please correct me if I have made mistakes in my logic here:
Texas = 268,820 sq miles
one sq mile = 640 acres
world population = 6,706,993,152
268,820 sq miles * 640 acres per sq mile = 172,044,800 acres in Texas.
172,044,800 acres / 6,706,993,152 people = .025 acres per person
2 acres / 0.0256 acres per person = 78
That's about seventy eight times less than your proposed 2 acres per person.
Now, lets see if it works for the entire continent of North America!
__________________________________________
North American Continent = 9,540,000 square miles
9,540,000 square miles * 640 acres per sq mile = 6,105,600,000 acres
6,105,600,000 acres / 6,706,993,152 people = 0.91 acres per person.
Keep in mind that the square mileage for North America includes Central America and all of northern Canada, as well as Greenland (of which over 80% is covered in ice), and large amounts of other inhospitable territories.
So, in conclusion, according to my very basic math skills, you would need about 2.2 times the area of the North American continent of (hospitable) land in order to provide every man, woman and child on earth with 2 acres of land.
Deny (Spreading) Ignorance (and please correct my math if it's wrong!)
No mystery, no conspiracy, nothing much to talk about.
Originally posted by Outlawstar
Of course your not factoring in families, that would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the area you assert!
Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Did you know every man woman and child on earth could have two acres in Texas.
the 2009 viral sequences are evolutionarily widely different form the past few years' sequences.
Rather, the 2009 sequences are evolutionarily more similar to the most ancient sequence reported in the NCBI Influenza Virus Resource Database collected in 1918.
If the H1N1 viruses had been replicating in an animal host for 27 years [1950 vs. 1977], far more genetic differences would have been identified. The authors suggested several possibilities, but only one is compelling:
…it is possible that the 1950 H1N1 influenza virus was truly frozen in nature or elsewhere and that such a strain was only recently introduced into man.
The suggestion is clear: the virus was frozen in a laboratory freezer since 1950, and was released, either by intent or accident, in 1977.
indicates that infection with the 1918 pandemic virus or closely related human H1N1 viruses, but not infection with antigenically divergent human H1N1 viruses circulating in the 1920s to 1950s, and again since 1977, elicited neutralizing antibodies to S-OIVs [Swine Flu Virus).
The ability to infect deep inside the lungs is similar to that of other pandemic viruses, including the 1918 strain that killed tens of millions of people around the world, said the researchers.
It also bears other similarities to the 1918 strain in that people born before 1918 have antibodies that protect against today's pandemic strain.
Recombination in the Hemagglutinin Gene of the 1918 "Spanish Flu"
Mark J. Gibbs,* John S. Armstrong, Adrian J. Gibbs
When gene sequences from the influenza virus that caused the 1918 pandemic were first compared with those of related viruses, they yielded few clues about its origins and virulence.
Our reanalysis indicates that the hemagglutinin gene, a key virulence determinant, originated by recombination. The "globular domain" of the 1918 hemagglutinin protein was encoded by a part of a gene derived from a swine-lineage influenza, whereas the "stalk" was encoded by parts derived from a human-lineage influenza.
Phylogenetic analyses showed that this recombination, which probably changed the virulence of the virus, occurred at the start of, or immediately before, the pandemic and thus may have triggered it.
Division of Botany and Zoology, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia