Thread: Swine flu.

http://bouncewith.me.uk/europe/8027043.htm

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

http://bouncewith.me.uk/europe/8027043.htm

We are so fucked.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

I think the swine flu is exciting. I love it when nature stands up and smacks man across the face. I hope it grows to an uncontrollable devastating level.

Yeah, mass tragedy is so cool. Let's blow up some continents.

That's not really the sickening part, really... the sickening part is the excessive level of arrogance and ignorance required to make such a statement without realising that you are just as responsible as everybody else.

The logical consequence of your philosophy is to commit suicide, so please, do us all a favour... and commit to that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, mass tragedy is so cool. Let's blow up some continents.

hehe.
My school is asking money to by hand sanitizer with.

Its fake,the media is just using it to install fear into us causing martial law...etc

Even worse, Egypt has ordered the slaughter of ALL 300.000 pigs in the nation. Pig holocaust - for no reason at all.

Yeah sorry, it was Egypt I was thinking about. Apparently it's because the country is controlled by the Muslims and only Christians own pigs. Wonderful.

I thought it was Israel?

...

and, No. It won't. But it might make your night more interesting if you walk into a police station smelling like that and claim that you haven't had a drop.

...

and, Yes, it's safe to eat pigs. Or so says authority. But I don't trust them.

Hey people don't be greedy, share some info.

What way does it transmit itself?
Is it safe to eat pigs?

It's human to human, via air, contact, etc. No, you can't get it from pork.

and, Yes, it's safe to eat pigs. Or so says authority. But I don't trust them.

It was the relevant authorities who warned you about swine flu in the first place.

For God's sake, whatever happened to common bloody sense?

Originally Posted by dajo

So why would it be natural to want others of the own species to die,
just that oneself would survive? If you look at animals, dolphins for
example, they never leave a wounded behind.

Ahhhh, because we group together. Think about it for christs sake.
Would you care more if your family member died or some random you've never met?
I guarantee you dolphins leave dolphins behind that aren't part of their pack. Although it's not a great example since Dolphins are known for great empathy, for lack of a better term. Like when they save humans drowning/stranded at sea etc. But humans are different.

Originally Posted by dajo

But if by 'change' you mean you want to get others to think, then I
could get on board.

That is what I mean and that is what I said. Give them my input but then encourage them to think for themselves and search deep, taking everything into account.

Originally Posted by dajo

There is a fine line between telling others what to do and encouraging
questioning. The difference usually means admiration vs alienation.

I know.

Originally Posted by dajo

I sometimes feel a strong urge to 'tell others what they're doing wrong',
because I know they don't have all the information on a certain topic, so
I know where you are coming from. But, this might lead down a bad road,
not only will you alienate people, you will also alienate yourself.

That's why I said encourage them to take what I say only into consideration, not as instruction or gospel. Just think of the different sides.

Originally Posted by dajo

Be the change you want to see in people.
I honestly think, this is more efficient and also better for yourself.

Yes this is good advise. Love thy enemy. Because they can teach you what you hate about yourself and can therefore change.

Originally Posted by Xei

What on Earth are you talking about? By the time we do what exactly??

What do you think?
You said if we overpopulate bla bla bla I said "If we do that...."
What else could I be talking about?

Originally Posted by Xei

-Why do you think oxygen is going to spontaneously disappear
-How do you think it's biologically possible for humans to survive when the only food is other humans
-Why is everything going to die?

- Did I say spontaneously? No I didn't. Clearly we are going to eradicate all the trees eventually if we continue on this path. Trees make oxygen you know?
- I'm not sure if you're asking me if I know about cannibalism or not.... The only thing I mentioned about eating was that there would be no more animals coz we would have eaten them all.
- Because we have no food, clean air or water.

Originally Posted by Xei

You seem to have an extremely bloated sense of the importance of the human species. Yet again: humans are organisms. Humans do not transcend biology. This planet has easily survived extreme natural events which are more devastating by anything we have ever done by an order of magnitude.

I FUCKING know that!!!! Stop saying it likes it's a revolution!
I never said humans are important. But as sandform said above

Originally Posted by Sandform

I think the idea is that humans are extremely destructive, and we harm whatever ecosystem we inhabit

You don't even know the extent to which we are fucking up the Earth. And if you want the human species to survive you have to learn that and do something about it.

Originally Posted by Sandform

I think the idea is that humans are extremely destructive, and we harm whatever ecosystem we inhabit, so lowering our damage to the planet by having less humans will cause human society to last longer.

To put it another way, I think the idea is people are afraid of an overpopulated world that destroys the planet to such a point that we can't recuperate, so, as long as whatever disaster that occurs doesn't put us in danger of extinction, the lowering of a population is a good thing.

Personally I don't know what numbers would be perfect for human life, but I don't think that the numbers we have now are really so destructive to our way of life that we need a massive death count.

I agree with everything here. But I feel I should add on that our very way of life IS destructive to our way of life. We can't sustain like this. If countries stopped trying to be the richest countries with the best economy etc. etc. And just looked at quality of life, this population level would be OK. For example Sweden, Denmark have very calm ways of life. They aren't like the U.S which are just corporate slaves. Shoving fucking hamburgers into their mouths by the kilo. This is why I think the economic meltdown is good. I hope we never get back to how it used to be and have to learn to live like this.

Originally Posted by Sandform

It is likely that there is a wide population range where human life can best exist and have a high quality of life, but because of disorganization the world is probably better off with a number that is easier to direct.

I do advocate keeping population stable, but not by means of mass death. I would like to see a world where there is more of a supply than a demand. I want things to be abundant for our usage. If we can keep the population below the point where quality of life suffers, I am all for it. But surely there are other ways than huge death tolls to do this.

I agree and also the fact that humans nowadays aren't very willing to change. Mostly in the Western culture. Which is why I'm saying mass deaths is good because I really don't see us making any real effort to change when there's so many people just looking out for their money.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Sometimes things should be done simple..

1/3 of the worlds population use more of 2/3 of the earths ressources. In most, if not all global catastrophes, who will be the ones to survive? Yes thats right, probably those with good healthcare, not starving, not homeless, not poor etc.

I disagree. Think about if this Swine Flu WAS bad. The scientists said it was going to take about 6 months to make a vaccine. Heaps of the developed world would get wiped out as well. And as I mentioned, less people visit the poorer nations which means less chance of it spreading there.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

You probably cheered when the 2004 tsunami happanded right? You know, hundreds of thousands died, but what did this change? Will the rate of humanity use of irreplacable ressources go down? No it will not. We will continue on the path.

That was 2004? Hmmmm. Seems like it was not that long ago.
I didn't cheer. I thought it was funny some of the photos, but that's irrelevant. I just don't pretend to care about people I've never met.
No this didn't decrease the use of resources. Because billions of dollars went to rebuilding those places. But if this flu was widespread and killed a lot of people. We'd have to seriously think about our way of life so as to not end up in this mess again. As sandform said, this would be more organised and easier to do with less population.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Other than that I think UM and Xei summed it up pretty well, I also find it hillarious that tommo agreed with this : "I think I understand the logic. Mass death is a great thing because it goes against the tendency to overpopulate, and overpopulation is terrible because it results in mass death, which is an awful thing. Mass death kicks ass because mass death really sucks."

Why is that hilarious? It makes perfect sense. You just have to think about it. I'm 90% certain he was being sarcastic. But it does make sense.
Think about it with this wording.
Mass death is a good thing because it stops overpopulation. Overpopulation is bad because it results in mass death. Mass death from overpopulation would be MUCH worse (more people die) than mass death from a flu or such thing.

Originally Posted by arizonalipo

Hi, We have question please give answer...
Swine Flu potential of a pandemic.
what about the regular flu.
It kills a a lot of people every year yes or not.
What about tuberculosis.
Swine flue is dangerous virus.

Every regular Flu every year is a pandemic, yes.
Regular Flu has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu has. It has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu will.
Tuberculosis and AIDS and Malaria etc. All kill way more people than any Flu ever has. So do car crashes, alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and paracetamol.

- Did I say spontaneously? No I didn't. Clearly we are going to eradicate all the trees eventually if we continue on this path. Trees make oxygen you know?

You seem to have an extremely distorted view of how the world works.

You realise that the number of trees has actually increased over the last few decades? Because, you know, if the timber merchants were to cut them all down without planting any more, they wouldn't have anything left to sell? They're not bloody idiots.

And I hope you also realise that there used to be no oxygen at all in the atmosphere until bacteria in the oceans began photosynthesising. Even if we cut down all the trees for some bizarre reason, photosynthesis will still continue in huge quantities, in bacteria, algae, and of course all of the other plants such as grass.

- I'm not sure if you're asking me if I know about cannibalism or not.... The only thing I mentioned about eating was that there would be no more animals coz we would have eaten them all.

Are you completely mad? Have you no concept of farming for God's sake?

It's not as if there are a finite number of animals out there in the wild which the human race is slowly eating. Animals give birth to other animals. Farmers take control this process so that they have more animals to sell. This has gone on for more than 10,000 years to no ill effect.

- Because we have no food, clean air or water.

Oh yes of course. Even though civilisation has so far had no discernible effect on the air outside of the confines of cities, nor has it caused a cessation of rainfall or the disappearance of the oceans.

Every regular Flu every year is a pandemic, yes.
Regular Flu has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu has. It has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu will.
Tuberculosis and AIDS and Malaria etc. All kill way more people than any Flu ever has. So do car crashes, alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and paracetamol.

You completely misunderstand the issue. Scientists are not concerned about how many people have died from swine flu. They are concerned about the emergence of a new, novel virus, which could potential mutate and kill millions of people. The flu of 1918 started in exactly the same way and that killed more than World War I.

Originally Posted by Xei

You realise that the number of trees has actually increased over the last few decades? Because, you know, if the timber merchants were to cut them all down without planting any more, they wouldn't have anything left to sell? They're not bloody idiots.

False. In a lot of places, they don't care. I know Australia's statistics and they're not pretty. We have cut down 97% of the trees we used to have. 3% is left and they have to only cut down 1% and sustain that 1% as well.

Originally Posted by Xei

And I hope you also realise that there used to be no oxygen at all in the atmosphere until bacteria in the oceans began photosynthesising. Even if we cut down all the trees for some bizarre reason, photosynthesis will still continue in huge quantities, in bacteria, algae, and of course all of the other plants such as grass.

Yes I do realise. Trees still account for a lot of the oxygen we breathe. Especially since there's more trees near the majority of civilisation then bloody algae!

Originally Posted by Xei

Are you completely mad? Have you no concept of farming for God's sake?

It's not as if there are a finite number of animals out there in the wild which the human race is slowly eating. Animals give birth to other animals. Farmers take control this process so that they have more animals to sell. This has gone on for more than 10,000 years to no ill effect.

Ok and what happens when that land is completely fucked. I'm talking about if our population keeps growing! We will have to inhabit this land that is used for farming. There will be less and less land available for farming. And if the trees are gone the soil is fucked, they do more than produce oxygen. Also the birds will have no home. Some birds anyway. Which means whatever animals eat birds and birds eggs will die out. Etc. You seem to have a very distorted view of how animals and environment work!

Originally Posted by Xei

Oh yes of course. Even though civilisation has so far had no discernible effect on the air outside of the confines of cities, nor has it caused a cessation of rainfall or the disappearance of the oceans.

LOL.... just, lol
Wherever there is pollution and less trees there is less rainfall.
Also, you're not gonna try and deny global warming now are you?

After reading Tommo's posts in which he shows blatant disregard for the value of human life, I label him my enemy.
Humans don't destroy ecosystems - we change it.
Other species do the same thing you know.

Yes, we make other species go extinct. That's just the way it is, and not everybody agrees with this by the way.
Yes, of course I'll be sadder if my brother or something died of the flu than a complete stranger.
But still, unlike you; I have a sense of empathy and feel bad about it nevertheless.

Did you read my arguments?
If the population doesn't get a good culling, MORE people will die than they would from a disease or some such thing.
It's simple, it will happen if we don't slow our population growth. And I don't see that happening very soon.
I'm not less humane, just more logical.