We eradicated smallpox in the 1970s and to this day it exists in only two known repositories in the world. The global health community has been working on polio for some time and has made some inroads but still has some ways to go.
But the question is, do we have a right to deliberately cause the extinction of these viruses in the interest of humanity? What about non-viral means of infection, such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa or parasites?
Yes, yes, and yes. Also, disease-spreading mosquitoes and US senators.
Who gives us "rights" anyway? We do, when we take them, and since we don't support belief in gods here, then there is no entity which would object. The decision regarding ultra-simple life forms which are nothing but malevolent to other life forms, especially when they are a threat to sentient forms is therefore a no-brainer, unless you can present a case worth hearing on why anybody would miss Smallpox, polio, flesh-eating bacteria which attacks living animal life, or the like. As the most powerful species on this earth, we are its gods, and we decide what our rights are as a species in the phylum Chordata according to our collective self-interests and our conscience. With our position at the pinnacle species comes certain responsibilities, but among them are not "do nothing and let all be". Most evil is done by those which are capable of doing something about evil and instead do nothing. Therefore, we should not even risk preserving those remaining two vials of smallpox, they should be safely destroyed before some militaristic sociopath tries to weaponize them.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2015, 01:39:59 PM
Yes, yes, and yes. Also, disease-spreading mosquitoes and US senators.
Starting with the senators as top priority!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 02, 2015, 02:21:58 PM
Starting with the senators as top priority!
All right now, people. Let's not confuse mosquitoes which are a vital part of the food chain in many ecosystems with the blood sucking parasites occupying the halls of congress in DC.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on November 02, 2015, 02:37:09 PM
All right now, people. Let's not confuse mosquitoes which are a vital part of the food chain in many ecosystems with the blood sucking parasites occupying the halls of congress in DC.
My apologies to the mosquitos!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 02, 2015, 02:20:54 PM
Therefore, we should not even risk preserving those remaining two vials of smallpox, they should be safely destroyed before some militaristic sociopath tries to weaponize them.
We're essentially in a Mexican standoff there because the U.S. and Russians both don't exactly trust each other. Hell, I'm American and I don't even trust my government to destroy something like smallpox even if it says it will. Also keep in mind those are the only two
known repositories.
I think it's easy for us to say that scourges like smallpox and polio need to go, but to me the line starts to blur at distinct, unquestionably alive organisms.
Smallpox was easily eradicated because it only infects people and rarely mutated, and thus no natural reservoir of virus could exist in a population of monkeys or pigs or something like that and it couldn't mutate into something that could easily circumvent vaccines like influenza and HIV can.
Not many people seem to think it's ok for us to wipe out rhinos or tigers but why? They play a role in ecosystems sure, but so do things like tapeworms and tuberculosis. Tapeworms and tuberculosis may kill people, but so have rhinos and tigers.
It's an ethical question I struggle with because I ardently support modern medicine and vaccines and I'm not the sort of asshole that would tell a mother whose child was wasting away from Naegleria fowleri that "all life is precious, even the lives of brain eating amoebas..." I don't think all life is equally precious but that comes from a very human viewpoint. The best I can say is that all life is relevant in its own way.
To me, there is a significant difference between species that essentially prey on humans and species that more or less leave us alone or are only harmful when encroached or provoked. This might seem like a strange moral stance, but if I had to choose between the welfare of Plasmodium malariae or millions of human beings, I would choose the humans every time.
I've got a fly swatter. Somebody invent a senator swatter.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2015, 05:28:18 PM
To me, there is a significant difference between species that essentially prey on humans and species that more or less leave us alone or are only harmful when encroached or provoked.
Everything comes down to predator/prey parasite/host interactions. It's not about being evil, it's just business from a biological standpoint. It just so happens that for many diseases, humans have a place in their life cycle. Moreover, you make that claim in how these species interact with
you, a human. If you were to ask a wild pig if tigers should go extinct, I imagine most would say those fuckers need to go.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 02, 2015, 05:28:18 PMThis might seem like a strange moral stance, but if I had to choose between the welfare of Plasmodium malariae or millions of human beings, I would choose the humans every time.
It's not really about welfare per se, it's more about how we look at and respect life. All life has value. It's just as a human, human life tends to have the most value. Human beings imagine it revolves around them. We can make that claim because largely we have conquered the natural world. But smallpox is the only disease we've successfully eradicated, and tuberculosis, HIV, and so many others remind us that maybe we should be a little more humble.
When you consider all life on a spectrum, we're at the far end of one spectrum and next to us stands things that look, feel, or act sort of like us (chimps, monkeys, whales, dolphins) and then come the rest of the mammals, then maybe warm blooded things, then cold-blooded things, insects maybe, plants are probably in there somewhere and then we come to bacteria and protists. We draw weird lines all over the spectrum for all kinds of reasons.
People will be vegetarians but still squash bugs that wander into their house, or will be a vegetarian and support abortion (I am!), or think that it's ok to eat pigs but not dogs when pigs are more highly intelligent and social creatures. Even now, I find myself questioning why I wouldn't take qualms with taking antibiotics to wipe out a strep infection but feel strange about causing the extinction of all streptococcus bacteria that harms humans.
When you consider what causing the extinction of an entire species of bacteria means, simply because it inconveniences humans, it moves more from self-defense and more to a level of superiority that I think humans have just become famous for.
Do we have the right to build infrastructure that forever changes the micro- and macroenvironment? The right to eat animals? The right to pump carbon into the atmosphere? We do it without thinking whether or not we have the right.
It's all relative. I think we give ourselves the right to do these things, often without any thought if we have the right to do it or not.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 02, 2015, 02:20:54 PM
Who gives us "rights" anyway? We do, when we take them, and since we don't support belief in gods here, then there is no entity which would object. The decision regarding ultra-simple life forms which are nothing but malevolent to other life forms, especially when they are a threat to sentient forms is therefore a no-brainer, unless you can present a case worth hearing on why anybody would miss Smallpox, polio, flesh-eating bacteria which attacks living animal life, or the like. As the most powerful species on this earth, we are its gods, and we decide what our rights are as a species in the phylum Chordata according to our collective self-interests and our conscience. With our position at the pinnacle species comes certain responsibilities, but among them are not "do nothing and let all be". Most evil is done by those which are capable of doing something about evil and instead do nothing. Therefore, we should not even risk preserving those remaining two vials of smallpox, they should be safely destroyed before some militaristic sociopath tries to weaponize them.
If you knew the classified stuff, you would know that you are too late. Of course these have been weaponized. The Chinese have a very active germ warfare program ... the US and Russia need to be very very afraid!
Quote from: Baruch on November 02, 2015, 07:21:49 PM
If you knew the classified stuff, you would know that you are too late. Of course these have been weaponized.
And you know the classified stuff?
Quote from: Mermaid on November 02, 2015, 07:24:29 PM
And you know the classified stuff?
I can put two and two together, from the public record ... and I ain't even an accountant ;-) The investigations regarding these bio-events have dug up a lot of dirt over the years. Like house cats are carriers of bird flu ... which gets increasingly close to "natural" epidemic propagation. Also all the dead farm animals in China. The Chinese are very big into bird flu. What takes to stop it is dual use ... one side tells you how to stop it, but the other side tells you how to weaponize it. And the Nato guys went so far as to dig up a dead Englishman ... to recover intact Spanish flu pandemic samples from 1919. Worst flu epidemic of all time. This dead Englishman (Sykes) was responsible for the broken division of the Middle East after WW I. This was openly discussed on-line for awhile a couple years ago ... and then the researchers were told to STFU.
I follow it in the online press ... and stuff has gotten out ... about "civil" research. And how do you like your unresolved anthrax attack? No sane nation won't have these weapons ... they may be doomsday weapons ... and this is probably what happens in private session between heads of state ... "I know that you know that I know" or some such. Back in the day, in the Cold War, I knew stuff that would make your hair fall out. Things haven't gotten better, they have gotten worse. The same people who ran things then, are still running things, maybe even more crazy than before.
Oh for corn sake.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 02, 2015, 07:24:29 PM
And you know the classified stuff?
I don't know the classified stuff, but the guy that wrote
The Hot Zone also wrote a nonfiction book called
Demon in the Freezer about smallpox. It's scary stuff. For example, scientists bioengineered a mousepox virus using pieces of mouse DNA that make a mouse's immune system incapable of responding to the virus. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3341563/ns/health-bioterror_news/t/bio-engineered-superbug-stirs-debate/#.VjgCPtappFI
It's extremely lethal, and the failure of the immune system to respond also renders a vaccine impossible. Now imagine that with smallpox, which naturally has a mortality rate of around 30%.
Tomfoolery ... just the kind of public info and rational speculation I am talking about. Now I am not saying that the Rothschild family has a plan to selectively exterminate all Gentiles ... but we will soon have the technology to do just that ... or selectively kill all Jews etc. Just kill off their immune systems (oh ... like Aids?) and let ordinary germs to the dirty work. Or develop a targeted or indiscriminate super-germ. Whoever has this ... if only one nation had it ... can demand the surrender of the whole planet ... even if they don't have a Mini-Me.
Quote from: Baruch on November 02, 2015, 07:50:58 PM
Now I am not saying that the Rothschild family has a plan to selectively exterminate all Gentiles ... but we will soon have the technology to do just that ... or selectively kill all Jews etc.
Um, no, we won't soon have a plan to bioengineer viruses that can tell a Jew from a Gentile.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 07:40:39 PM
I don't know the classified stuff, but the guy that wrote The Hot Zone also wrote a nonfiction book called Demon in the Freezer about smallpox. It's scary stuff. For example, scientists bioengineered a mousepox virus using pieces of mouse DNA that make a mouse's immune system incapable of responding to the virus. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3341563/ns/health-bioterror_news/t/bio-engineered-superbug-stirs-debate/#.VjgCPtappFI
It's extremely lethal, and the failure of the immune system to respond also renders a vaccine impossible. Now imagine that with smallpox, which naturally has a mortality rate of around 30%.
I read that, Michael Crichton was a physician.
I am actually worried that with melting of arctic land, that bodies of people who died of smallpox will surface and become infectious again.
Quote from: Baruch on November 02, 2015, 07:50:58 PM
Tomfoolery ... just the kind of public info and rational speculation I am talking about. Now I am not saying that the Rothschild family has a plan to selectively exterminate all Gentiles ... but we will soon have the technology to do just that ... or selectively kill all Jews etc. Just kill off their immune systems (oh ... like Aids?) and let ordinary germs to the dirty work. Or develop a targeted or indiscriminate super-germ. Whoever has this ... if only one nation had it ... can demand the surrender of the whole planet ... even if they don't have a Mini-Me.
This conspiracy theorist stuff annoys me. I put it in the same category as those who can't explain natural phenomena, so they credit God with creating it.
Are you actually suggesting that AIDS was engineered?
Quote from: Mermaid on November 02, 2015, 08:12:44 PM
Are you actually suggesting that AIDS was engineered?
Of course it was: by apes. It was the original storyline to Planet of the Apes, but they didn't want anyone spilling the beans before they could wipe out all the gays. Naturally.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 02, 2015, 08:12:44 PM
Are you actually suggesting that AIDS was engineered?
Well Duh... Gawd did it to kill off the fags.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 08:15:14 PM
Of course it was: by apes. It was the original storyline to Planet of the Apes, but they didn't want anyone spilling the beans before they could wipe out all the gays. Naturally.
Blasphemy. This was the best movie ever. (well, maybe second best). The story line was so perfect it makes me weepy thinking about it.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 07:40:39 PM
I don't know the classified stuff, but the guy that wrote The Hot Zone also wrote a nonfiction book called Demon in the Freezer about smallpox. It's scary stuff. For example, scientists bioengineered a mousepox virus using pieces of mouse DNA that make a mouse's immune system incapable of responding to the virus. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3341563/ns/health-bioterror_news/t/bio-engineered-superbug-stirs-debate/#.VjgCPtappFI
It's extremely lethal, and the failure of the immune system to respond also renders a vaccine impossible. Now imagine that with smallpox, which naturally has a mortality rate of around 30%.
And more importantly, no one being able to stop it if it got out. Not even your own borders, or nationality, or releigion. Such a thing is not a "weapon." It's a doomsday device, pure and simple.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 04:33:30 PM
Not many people seem to think it's ok for us to wipe out rhinos or tigers but why? They play a role in ecosystems sure, but so do things like tapeworms and tuberculosis. Tapeworms and tuberculosis may kill people, but so have rhinos and tigers.
It's an ethical question I struggle with because I ardently support modern medicine and vaccines and I'm not the sort of asshole that would tell a mother whose child was wasting away from Naegleria fowleri that "all life is precious, even the lives of brain eating amoebas..." I don't think all life is equally precious but that comes from a very human viewpoint. The best I can say is that all life is relevant in its own way.
I'm very glad you're not one of those assholes, in a world where there unfortunately is no shortage of those who are. On that I am quite serious, because there are laws that subject victims of accidents with uncurbed animals to danger by requiring them to seek out the dead animal's owner, who is as likely to be unstable and armed as he is negligent. One asinine rule of many created by those who think we actually owe something to the animals, and it should be other people (not themselves) who should pay it.
It makes perfect sense to weigh the value of different life forms from a human perspective because we are human, the next several generations are likely to be closer to being the same than to our closest ape relative or even the most recent intermediary human (Neanderthalensis?). So what that it's selfish, as if any other species would behave differently? There is some reasonable degree of responsibility which goes with the power which we wield over our planet, but we are no more our cousins' keeper than the dolphins are ours, and if we decide and agree by overwhelming consensus that this earth is better off without viruses, certain bacteria, insects, or even some four-legged creatures such as rats, and it can be done so, then let it be done - the word "right" should not even come into play.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 08:03:53 PM
Um, no, we won't soon have a plan to bioengineer viruses that can tell a Jew from a Gentile.
Doesn't have to be accurate ... terror weapons are indiscriminate ... but false claims ... marketing! Actually Cohens are genetically unique. But one can choose any of many actual genetic markers. That would be a good way to mask a partial attack.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 02, 2015, 08:12:44 PM
This conspiracy theorist stuff annoys me. I put it in the same category as those who can't explain natural phenomena, so they credit God with creating it.
Are you actually suggesting that AIDS was engineered?
Could have been. Most of Africa thinks so. Back then it might have been a challenge, but trivial now what we can put bacterial DNA in goats. AIDS aka is a virus ... this is more challenging, but not impossible.
I feel sorry for optimists ... who believe that a Hitler or Stalin can't happen again ... or who even believe that neither Hitler nor Stalin happened, it was just propaganda to control allied populations. Any real dick-tator would get a woody over this stuff.
Any scientist able to engineer a virus like that would also be able to appreciate that viruses don't play favorites. Even if you were to somehow engineer a virus that did, it would quickly evolve in the wild into something that didn't.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 03, 2015, 03:54:14 PM
Any scientist able to engineer a virus like that would also be able to appreciate that viruses don't play favorites.
Maybe the classic notion of a scientist as an old guy with a bunch of PhDs, whatever grant money he wants and his own lab at the CDC maybe. But would it surprise you to know that that's not even expert-level stuff? All it would take is a few thousand dollars to buy the right microscopes, bioreactors and other basic lab equipment and working knowledge of viral genetics and lab techniques that a reasonably intelligent person could learn from the Internet.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 03, 2015, 03:54:14 PMEven if you were to somehow engineer a virus that did, it would quickly evolve in the wild into something that didn't.
Not all viruses mutate quickly, and some mutations actually render the virus harmless to humans. Ebola Reston virus is a mutated form that is airborne in monkeys but unable to infect humans.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
We eradicated smallpox in the 1970s and to this day it exists in only two known repositories in the world. The global health community has been working on polio for some time and has made some inroads but still has some ways to go.
But the question is, do we have a right to deliberately cause the extinction of these viruses in the interest of humanity? What about non-viral means of infection, such as bacteria, fungi, protozoa or parasites?
Oh, yeah - might (in this case) makes right. Nature doesn't care about any supposed "rights" we may or may not wish to bestow upon ourselves. If we can make extinct such microbes as those of smallpox or rabies or polio, then our ability to do it gives us the "right" to do it. So-called "rights" exist only in our own (human) heads, not in nature.
Quote from: Unbeliever on November 03, 2015, 05:19:41 PM
If we can make extinct such microbes as those of smallpox or rabies or polio, then our ability to do it gives us the "right" to do it. So-called "rights" exist only in our own (human) heads, not in nature.
I don't disagree that rights are a human construct, but I would urge moral caution under the guise that "might makes right" because that's the same argument that large corporations (and some individuals) use to decimate rainforests, pollute oceans, and drive numerous (cuddly) species to extinction.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2015, 06:56:06 AM
Could have been. Most of Africa thinks so. Back then it might have been a challenge, but trivial now what we can put bacterial DNA in goats. AIDS aka is a virus ... this is more challenging, but not impossible.
I feel sorry for optimists ... who believe that a Hitler or Stalin can't happen again ... or who even believe that neither Hitler nor Stalin happened, it was just propaganda to control allied populations. Any real dick-tator would get a woody over this stuff.
There is nothing trivial about designing a virus to infect T cells. You give current technology way more credit than it is due. Your example of our ability to insert bacterial DNA into goats is a clear sign that you have no idea what scientific technology is capable of. Or what biology actually is.
Do you know why conspiracy theories and spreading this sort of bullshit pisses me off so much? Because stupid people believe it. Then they don't vaccinate their kids. And then there are disease outbreaks. With preventable diseases.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 03, 2015, 05:49:36 PM
I don't disagree that rights are a human construct, but I would urge moral caution under the guise that "might makes right" because that's the same argument that large corporations (and some individuals) use to decimate rainforests, pollute oceans, and drive numerous (cuddly) species to extinction.
Well, sure, but it's a matter of perspective - from the perspective of a microbe mankind is an evil monster dedicated to its eradication. But we have a different perspective...
Quote from: Mermaid on November 03, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
There is nothing trivial about designing a virus to infect T cells. You give current technology way more credit than it is due. Your example of our ability to insert bacterial DNA into goats is a clear sign that you have no idea what scientific technology is capable of. Or what biology actually is.
Do you know why conspiracy theories and spreading this sort of bullshit pisses me off so much? Because stupid people believe it. Then they don't vaccinate their kids. And then there are disease outbreaks. With preventable diseases.
Yea, there's a big difference is making glow in the dark tomatoes and designing a virus to only infect a specific type of cell. If we could do the latter cancer would be cured.
There are more unclassified species in a square foot of soil in my back garden than there are know species in Africa and the Amazon. Of the known species in that foot of soil the vast majority the only thing we know about them is that we can identify them by name.
Given that the thought of releasing a biological agent into the environment that could remove an undesirable species is pure madness.
Because we have no idea what other species might be susceptible to that agent, and therefore what effect it could have on the ecosystem of the soil. Without the soil we have no food. It won't be a mad scientist that destroys the world, in all probability it will be some pillock that manufactured a bio-spray to keep spiders out the bath.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 03, 2015, 03:54:14 PM
Any scientist able to engineer a virus like that would also be able to appreciate that viruses don't play favorites. Even if you were to somehow engineer a virus that did, it would quickly evolve in the wild into something that didn't.
Yes, politicians are like viri .. they don't stay bought ;-)
Quote from: Mermaid on November 03, 2015, 05:51:25 PM
There is nothing trivial about designing a virus to infect T cells. You give current technology way more credit than it is due. Your example of our ability to insert bacterial DNA into goats is a clear sign that you have no idea what scientific technology is capable of. Or what biology actually is.
Do you know why conspiracy theories and spreading this sort of bullshit pisses me off so much? Because stupid people believe it. Then they don't vaccinate their kids. And then there are disease outbreaks. With preventable diseases.
You deduce from my posts that I am an anti-vaxer? That is pretty infectious humor you have ;-))
Quote from: jonb on November 03, 2015, 07:15:59 PM
There are more unclassified species in a square foot of soil in my back garden than there are know species in Africa and the Amazon. Of the known species in that foot of soil the vast majority the only thing we know about them is that we can identify them by name.
Given that the thought of releasing a biological agent into the environment that could remove an undesirable species is pure madness.
Because we have no idea what other species might be susceptible to that agent, and therefore what effect it could have on the ecosystem of the soil. Without the soil we have no food. It won't be a mad scientist that destroys the world, in all probability it will be some pillock that manufactured a bio-spray to keep spiders out the bath.
Ecological follow on consequences could be severe ... and we have even less knowledge of that, than we have of the microbes themselves. People may want to exterminate all flora in their gut ... but it will make you sick if you do, and deny your ability to process salad. But there are always bacteriaphobes like Howard Hughes ... who would release such a kill-all agent.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2015, 07:41:40 PM
You deduce from my posts that I am an anti-vaxer? That is pretty infectious humor you have ;-))
No.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2015, 07:41:40 PM
You deduce from my posts that I am an anti-vaxer? That is pretty infectious humor you have ;-))
I'll be honest, I would have made the leap, and it would have been a logical one.
After your other conspiracy theory posts, some of which relate to GMOs and Big Pharma, the idea that somehow you could imagine vaccines to be full of nothing but mercury, AIDS, aborted fetal cells, and LSD as a way for the Illuminati and Big Pharma to control the population doesn't seem that crazy. I mean, the
idea itself is crazy, but the idea that you might advocate for it isn't.
And hyperbole is how the real conspiracies are covered up. There were no WMD in Iraq ... therefore if I were of that type, I could claim that the Iraqis had their alien allies from Roswell cart the stuff into hiding. And actually at the time, there were neocon suggestions that it had been carted off into Syria by Assad ... because Baathists will be Baathists. But the reality is that the neocons just can't admit that they were wrong ... or worse. If Assad had nukes, he would have used them by now ... he wouldn't need all the help he is getting recently. Syria did have a nuclear program a couple years ago, thanks to N Korea ... but the Israelis took care of that, as they earlier took care of the Iraqi program. But if we then are accused of claiming that Obama is a reptilian transvestite ... even though we didn't say that ... then any accusation that Syria had an actual nuclear program ... can be discounted as mad raving. Basic psyops in the CIA/KGB handbooks.
I watch Alex Jones, only to see what the CIA is using to debunk what is really going on.
OK, GMOs are not a plot by reptilian aliens. And Big Pharma isn't overcharging the bejesus out of everyone in general, and the Americans in particular ... but then what if you (and you know who you are) are an apologist for those very organizations. Such people are all over the Internet.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 03, 2015, 04:49:27 PM
Maybe the classic notion of a scientist as an old guy with a bunch of PhDs, whatever grant money he wants and his own lab at the CDC maybe. But would it surprise you to know that that's not even expert-level stuff? All it would take is a few thousand dollars to buy the right microscopes, bioreactors and other basic lab equipment and working knowledge of viral genetics and lab techniques that a reasonably intelligent person could learn from the Internet.
At best, such a person would be able to create a very nasty bug that will likely boomarang back on them before being able to deploy it, but it would not discriminate based on race, nationality, or religion, because no virus capable of infecting humans currently
does that in the wild â€" you would have to create that genetic machinery from scratch.
And if you had the resources to create that kind of machinery from scratch, why aren't you buying conventional weapons for a conventional army who can already do that right out of the box?
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 03, 2015, 04:49:27 PM
Not all viruses mutate quickly, and some mutations actually render the virus harmless to humans. Ebola Reston virus is a mutated form that is airborne in monkeys but unable to infect humans.
A virus's mutability depends on how vital the particular bits of machinery are to infecting a host, and host spillover is likelier to occur when the new hosts are genetically related to the old ones. A super-specific virus will tend to find (a) that the specificity of the proteins it binds to are not necessary for infecting the host, and (b) there are many populations ridiculously closely related to that population to spill over into. The virus will very quickly lose specificity in this situation. You'll notice that we still have the original Ebola strains to worry about.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 02, 2015, 01:33:15 PM
We eradicated smallpox in the 1970s and to this day it exists in only two known repositories in the world.
I remember that both repositories were supposed to be destroyed in the late 1990s, a deliberate and welcome extinction of an organism. But then they decided against it. Stupidly.
Quote from: Atheon on November 04, 2015, 05:15:35 AM
I remember that both repositories were supposed to be destroyed in the late 1990s, a deliberate and welcome extinction of an organism. But then they decided against it. Stupidly.
Not stupidity ... machiavellian. This was only the US/USSR at the time ... but China is looking over their shoulder. Then there is the problem of getting a general UN ban, and how to make sure it is carried out. There is no way to verify it is carried out ... there are always forgotten closets that people leave anthrax in (this happened I think, this past year). And not necessarily genetic modification, just processing of spores ... as happened in the anthrax attacks.
Quote from: Atheon on November 04, 2015, 05:15:35 AM
I remember that both repositories were supposed to be destroyed in the late 1990s, a deliberate and welcome extinction of an organism. But then they decided against it. Stupidly.
I disagree. This repository can be used in case of an outbreak, which is a small possibility, but a possibility nonetheless.
Quote from: Baruch on November 03, 2015, 08:02:37 PM
I watch Alex Jones, only to see what the CIA is using to debunk what is really going on.
If you have time for that nimwit, then you really should spend more of it paying attention to what wiser people say here and less posting the trash from inside your own head. Everything which you have demonstrated misunderstanding of has been clearly explained at least 100x since I've been around this site, which is no more than you have been here.
Some time today I know it's going to happen - the pattern with you, whenever you lose an argument and at last you know it, is that you still cannot acknowledge the fact, and still you haven't the good sense to shut up. So what you do is post something completely unrelated which nobody can make sense of and it's not worth pursuing - thereby you get the final word, and the wall between you and reality remains intact. It will either happen within the next couple of days, or you will at long last open your head to actual reason, possibly for the first time ever. I am of course betting on the former, understanding how you have demonstrated complete indifference to any honest or sensible discourse.
I am not an Alex Jones regular ... nor do I agree with him. There are many sources of information and disinformation. One has to compare and contrast ... one learns by experience to distinguish bullshit from roses. But you can't do that ... with only roses. And the bullshit is useful for fertilizing the rose bushes. But I knew if I mentioned Alex Jones, I was more likely to get a rise out of someone, than I would if I had mentioned a more obscure source ;-) Thanks for taking my bait ... I just need to reel you in .. don't spit out my hook ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 12:54:10 PM
I am not an Alex Jones regular ... nor do I agree with him. There are many sources of information and disinformation. One has to compare and contrast ... one learns by experience to distinguish bullshit from roses. But you can't do that ... with only roses. And the bullshit is useful for fertilizing the rose bushes. But I knew if I mentioned Alex Jones, I was more likely to get a rise out of someone, than I would if I had mentioned a more obscure source ;-) Thanks for taking my bait ... I just need to reel you in .. don't spit out my hook ;-))
Were you expecting me to go on? You aren't worth it. I only argue these days with those who show a higher interest than throwing bullshit at other people's thoughts, pounding their chests and pretending they are the wiser for it.
Saw this today and thought it was oddly and appropriately timed:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/t0j5nm.jpg)
The graphic above was created using information from a study that looked at host-pathogen relationships and their worldwide distribution. Each dot represents a different species. The larger the dot, the more types of pathogens each species interact with. The closer the dots, the more microbes the species have in common. The microbes in the graphic include bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasitic worms and single-celled organisms called protozoa.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/mapping-out-pathogens-we-share-animals0
So when we talk about deliberately exterminating from the planet a particularly bad pathogen for people, what do we end up doing to the ecosystem?
This graphic is amazing. Interesting that the species that man created share the most pathogens with us.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 04, 2015, 07:57:33 PM
This graphic is amazing. Interesting that the species that man created share the most pathogens with us.
That shouldn't surprise. When people first domesticated animals, they lived with us ... even after we lived in villages, the animals were brought inside (there were no separate barns). So under those conditions, humans and their animals shared a lot of bugs back and forth, and needed to develop immunity to each others favorite bugs. Today we usually start getting an intestinal ecology by swallowing dirt as small children .. and getting worms from the feces of our cats and dogs.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 04, 2015, 07:08:06 PM
Saw this today and thought it was oddly and appropriately timed:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/t0j5nm.jpg)
The graphic above was created using information from a study that looked at host-pathogen relationships and their worldwide distribution. Each dot represents a different species. The larger the dot, the more types of pathogens each species interact with. The closer the dots, the more microbes the species have in common. The microbes in the graphic include bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasitic worms and single-celled organisms called protozoa.
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/mapping-out-pathogens-we-share-animals0
So when we talk about deliberately exterminating from the planet a particularly bad pathogen for people, what do we end up doing to the ecosystem?
Which ecosystem? Is there one which has viruses in its food chain? If so, is it more important than human life, and who are you to decide whether it is? See, there's a "gotcha" with every hypocritical whine against human "arrogance", where you think you smell the cleaner for doing nothing and "letting nature take it's course", as if you weren't ass-deep in the nature yourself. There really is no such thing as "man" vs. "nature" - we are part of nature, and we should do what best serves humanity and the world which we wish to live in, because doing nothing for our future generations is no better and is usually worse. We don't want a world full of smog and no forests, and the forests need their diverse species of frogs and plants, so lets protect that - but why should we give a flying fuck about viruses which only fuck up everything which they can get their hooks into? I do
not think we are talking about rabbits in Australia, for fuck's sake, but if you actually have a case to present to the contrary, I'll listen.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 04, 2015, 09:40:21 PMSee, there's a "gotcha" with every hypocritical whine against human "arrogance", where you think you smell the cleaner for doing nothing and "letting nature take it's course", as if you weren't ass-deep in the nature yourself.
We stopped being ass-deep in nature when we started exploiting it for things we didn't need to survive. I had an argument ages ago why people needed to resurrect mammoths because we helped lead to their extinction 10,000 years ago. Sorry, but 10,000 years ago were just competing for resources just like everyone else. There weren't assholes at Exxon trying to dig up the tundra for more oil for our insatiable lust for the automobile: we were just trying to put food on the table. If you can't see the gross amount of human arrogance behind things like slash and burn farming and pollution so we can have cheap chocolate, clothes, oil, coffee, and rubber and a handful of humans can accumulate vast wealthy empires then I don't know what to tell you. We're not ass-deep in nature at all: we're floating on top of it on a raft made from the remains of ecological abundance and every so often just a few of us fall off when something like a tsunami or Ebola comes along.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 04, 2015, 09:40:21 PM
We don't want a world full of smog and no forests, and the forests need their diverse species of frogs and plants, so lets protect that - but why should we give a flying fuck about viruses which only fuck up everything which they can get their hooks into? I do not think we are talking about rabbits in Australia, for fuck's sake, but if you actually have a case to present to the contrary, I'll listen.
Because viruses are parts of ecosystems that keep populations in control? We are talking about rabbits in Australia for fuck's sake, because rabbits, like viruses, are part of the ecosystem.
If you are talking about viruses, a virus requires a host to live in. Eradicating a virus does not eradicate the host body. A virus is one of the simplest and smallest of life forms. I don't see how eradicating a virus could do anything other than remove an unwanted organism. It is not in effect part of the food chain. The host body would be. If you are talking about microorganisms that feed algae for example, that is a different issue. But if a microorganism (in the generic sense) works contrary to or damages some aspect of the food chain- from protozoa to algae etc. to us, then removing it would not damage the food chain but protect it.
Quote from: stromboli on November 04, 2015, 11:19:10 PM
If you are talking about viruses, a virus requires a host to live in. Eradicating a virus does not eradicate the host body. A virus is one of the simplest and smallest of life forms. I don't see how eradicating a virus could do anything other than remove an unwanted organism. It is not in effect part of the food chain. The host body would be. If you are talking about microorganisms that feed algae for example, that is a different issue. But if a microorganism (in the generic sense) works contrary to or damages some aspect of the food chain- from protozoa to algae etc. to us, then removing it would not damage the food chain but protect it.
But without knowing how closely related or biologically similar the pest organism is to other species you cannot be sure any means you use would only effect that one species. Without knowing how species within an ecosystem relate to each other.
Little fact
QuoteHow much bacteria do people carry around?
Enough to fill a big soup can. "That's three to five pounds of bacteria," says Lita Proctor, the program coordinator of the National Institutes of Health's Human Microbiome Project, which studies the communities of bacteria living on and in us. The bacteria cells in our body outnumber human cells 10 to 1, she says, but because they are much smaller than human cells, they account for only about 1 to 2 percent of our body massâ€"though they do make up about half of our body's waste.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/fyi-how-much-bacteria-do-people-carry-around (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-09/fyi-how-much-bacteria-do-people-carry-around)
Given that you could see yourself as an ecosystem, many of these microbes are essential to our life. We are moving towards being able to use biological means to kill species, but as yet our knowledge of how ecosystems work is desultory, as such if we master the ability to kill, but not the knowledge of how that action could effect the systems around the dead species then there is danger that such an action could spiral completely out of control.
For me, the moral part of the problem is based in human welfare. If eradicating a virus will be of overall benefit to humans then we should do so. The practical part at the problem is we don't always know the consequences of removing an element from a complex system. If we had the ability to eradicate mosquitos and chose to do so because they are disease carrying pests the consequences would be extensive because there are a lot of creatures that eat mosquitos and their larva. We also don't have the ability to create mosquitos and reintegrate them into biological systems after they are all gone, so once we eradicate something we can't undo it. Getting rid of mosquitos might appear in the benefit of human welfare but end up being worse for humans and our ecosystem overall. I would rather viruses and other harmful creatures be contained rather than made extinct because we can't replicate them and if these can somehow be of future human benefit they are available to us.
I have big feet. I probably kill a zillion life forms every time I go for a walk.
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 04, 2015, 10:54:44 PM
We stopped being ass-deep in nature when we started exploiting it for things we didn't need to survive. I had an argument ages ago why people needed to resurrect mammoths because we helped lead to their extinction 10,000 years ago. Sorry, but 10,000 years ago were just competing for resources just like everyone else. There weren't assholes at Exxon trying to dig up the tundra for more oil for our insatiable lust for the automobile: we were just trying to put food on the table. If you can't see the gross amount of human arrogance behind things like slash and burn farming and pollution so we can have cheap chocolate, clothes, oil, coffee, and rubber and a handful of humans can accumulate vast wealthy empires then I don't know what to tell you. We're not ass-deep in nature at all: we're floating on top of it on a raft made from the remains of ecological abundance and every so often just a few of us fall off when something like a tsunami or Ebola comes along.
Because viruses are parts of ecosystems that keep populations in control? We are talking about rabbits in Australia for fuck's sake, because rabbits, like viruses, are part of the ecosystem.
We are no longer part of nature since when? Is it since we started making tools? There are animals in nature which make tools, and they aren't primates! Is it since we developed larger brains that we became no longer part of nature? There are whales which have larger brains than humans. Was Neanderthalensis, with its uncanny ability to learn through imitation, and also a larger brain than H. Sapiens more natural? How is what we do truly fundamentally different from the digging of holes or the building of nests and dams by other animals?
Quote from: TomFoolery on November 04, 2015, 10:54:44 PM
We stopped being ass-deep in nature when we started exploiting it for things we didn't need to survive.
Are you really serious? Those who harvest coffee, cocoa beans and tea aren't on survival wages? It's how human industry works, somebody was facing starvation and then he started a new industry when he exploited opportunities which he could take advantage of because he was the naturally-arisen animal H. Sapiens.
I'm not fucking with you, and I do believe that the word "nature" is itself an expression of human arrogance because it sets us apart from the whole which we are part of. We manipulate and alter our environment, as do many animals - ask any landowner who wants his stream and trees back from the beavers who turned it into a marsh in just a few years! We are of course no less guilty of arrogance than other creatures, and the example of rabbits in Australia was one such example - rabbits do NOT belong in the ecosystem there, or they weren't part of it before some very arrogant Brits introduced them <strike>as a means of curbing a different pest</strike> just because they felt like hunting rabbits! The result was disastrous. However, I've still not seen a good case presented by you that the targeted removal of specifically harmful viruses and bacteria would harm the food supply of anything that we want to keep around.
I like my chocolate, my coffee, my rubber tires which allow me to travel safely and fast, and then I like the Internet which allows us to have discussions such as this. While I believe strongly in doing as little harm as possible to maintain the life standards which we are used to, with strong consideration to preservation of anything which would be beneficial to future generations of sentient beings, I absolutely refuse to buy any misanthrope's guilt trip over the loss of life forms which we know do more harm than good to others. It's on account of our high intelligence and the power which it gives us that we do have certain responsibilities in managing earth resources and life ecosystems as well, somewhat like the long-abandoned Xtian philosophy of "stewardship". To just leave it all alone isn't possible anyway, and it would be irresponsible to try.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 05, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
We are no longer part of nature since when? Is it since we started making tools? There are animals in nature which make tools, and they aren't primates! Is it since we developed larger brains that we became no longer part of nature? There are whales which have larger brains than humans. Was Neanderthalensis, with its uncanny ability to learn from imitation, and also a larger brain than H. Sapiens more natural? How is what we do truly fundamentally different from the digging of holes or the building of nests and dams by other animals?
I'm not fucking with you, and I do believe that the word "nature" is itself an expression of human arrogance because it sets us apart from the whole which we are part of. We manipulate and alter our environment, as do many animals - ask any landowner who wants his stream back from the beavers who turned it into a marsh in just a few years! We are of course no less guilty of arrogance than other creatures, and the example of rabbits in Australia was one such example - rabbits do NOT belong in the ecosystem there, or they weren't part of it before some very arrogant Brits introduced them as a means of curbing a different pest. The result was disastrous! However, I've still not seen a good case presented by you that the targeted removal of specifically harmful viruses and bacteria would harm the food supply of anything that we want to keep around.
This post very much looks like it is made by a simple worshipper of the gawd of technology.
The modern epoc is now considered by most the Anthropocene.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene)
This is because humans are now significantly effecting the environment. As such it can clearly be seen that as we are to a greater or lesser extent controlling nature we might well be seen as separate from it. Much like A president has a vote but also has a separate position from the rest of the voting body.
basic math
1+X=Y
If this is the only equation you have and you do not know the value of X or Y then the value of Y cannot be solved until you know X.
Since we don't even know what lifeforms there are in an ecosystem it is impossible to predict the result of adding a new biological agent to it.
To advocate an action such as the removal of a species without doing the science, is the position of the most ignorant christard.
Read it again.
Human can be seen as separate from nature, because of the new caricaturisation of the Anthropocene.
A good argument for not introducing a new biological agent into an ecosystem is that we do not know how that ecosystem works so the effect is unpredictable.
Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 12:31:52 PM
Human can be seen as separate from nature, because of the new caricaturisation of the Anthropocene.
A good argument for not introducing a new biological agent into an ecosystem is that we do not know how that ecosystem works so the effect is unpredictable.
What's that have to do with removing a bad life form when we do know how the system works? Nobody's talking about doing it today!
Why kill bad pathogens? For the same reason we would kill these dudes:
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11115/111153770/3786684-0333629178-dalek.jpg)
You could make the exact same argument of daleks keep the human population in control as well as pathogens keeping animals under control. Killing an endogenous dalek population of a planet would also mess up the ecosystem of that planet; the populations are sure to change.
But, of course, you kill the damn daleks at each opportunity. This is because your base instinct as a living being is to preserve your own life even at the expense of others, and if the daleks have to die to free you from the suffering they incur, so be it. Same with disease organisms. Their survival comes at the expense of human life and comfort. Fuck that noise and kill the bastards.
(Besides, is not as if there aren't plenty to take their place.)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on November 05, 2015, 10:49:31 AMIf we had the ability to eradicate mosquitos and chose to do so because they are disease carrying pests the consequences would be extensive because there are a lot of creatures that eat mosquitos and their larva.
Not exactly (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html). Only a few mosquito species spread disease to humans, so it wouldn't be necessary to eradicate all mosquito species. But even if they were all wiped out, it would cause some ecological problems, but not especially severe ones.
"Given the huge humanitarian and economic consequences of mosquito-spread disease, few scientists would suggest that the costs of an increased human population would outweigh the benefits of a healthier one. And the 'collateral damage' felt elsewhere in ecosystems doesn't buy much sympathy either. The romantic notion of every creature having a vital place in nature may not be enough to plead the mosquito's case."
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on November 05, 2015, 01:57:07 PM
But, of course, you kill the damn daleks at each opportunity.
I am a Dalek. I am a DALEK. I am alive. I am your enemy.
Mercy. MERCY! MERCY. I show mercy.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 05, 2015, 01:59:39 PM
Not exactly (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html). Only a few mosquito species spread disease to humans, so it wouldn't be necessary to eradicate all mosquito species. But even if they were all wiped out, it would cause some ecological problems, but not especially severe ones.
"Given the huge humanitarian and economic consequences of mosquito-spread disease, few scientists would suggest that the costs of an increased human population would outweigh the benefits of a healthier one. And the 'collateral damage' felt elsewhere in ecosystems doesn't buy much sympathy either. The romantic notion of every creature having a vital place in nature may not be enough to plead the mosquito's case."
Interesting article! Sounds like it would be better for humanity if we eradicated the mosquito.
You know it is only the female mosquito that takes blood for a limited time when she is growing eggs the rest of the time male and female mosquitoes are major pollinators.
Things in the natural world are far more complex than a few cogs in a clockwork toy.
Who needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.
Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
You know it is only the female mosquito that takes blood for a limited time when she is growing eggs the rest of the time male and female mosquitoes are major pollinators.
Things in the natural world are far more complex than a few cogs in a clockwork toy.
I'll take 'things everyone already knows' for $100, Alex.
QuoteWho needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.
Mad scientists in action:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk
Stop these madmen before it's too late!
And no, it's not all that interesting that new technology would be leveraged to wipe out longstanding diseases or disease vectors. Only a sociopath would look at mass human suffering and not want to alleviate it.
Sorry got interrupted halfway through posting.
The article says that mosquitoes are not significant pollinators and would be replaced by other species with little or no effect. However the female mosquito in taking blood allows the mosquito to both be small in size and also very active. This can be very important especially in colder climates, sure there might be other pollinators but if they are only getting their energy from pollination they are going to be more limited in number and less active. In the less diverse ecosystems of the northern hemisphere that could on its own represent a significant problem over time.
Also given the fact of the number of diverse ecosystems there are I wonder if the article is talking about actual tests on all of these with and without the presence of mosquitoes and the effects of that over time which would be hugely expensive, or is only resting its case on the fact there are other pollinators.
It does not look like good science to me.
Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
Who needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.
But they do allow you to use the Internet ;-)
Don't worry our governments are keeping tabs.
Quote from: Baruch on November 04, 2015, 08:20:05 PM
That shouldn't surprise. When people first domesticated animals, they lived with us ... even after we lived in villages, the animals were brought inside (there were no separate barns). So under those conditions, humans and their animals shared a lot of bugs back and forth, and needed to develop immunity to each others favorite bugs. Today we usually start getting an intestinal ecology by swallowing dirt as small children .. and getting worms from the feces of our cats and dogs.
It doesn't surprise me. It's just interesting.
Quote from: jonb on November 05, 2015, 02:57:52 PM
You know it is only the female mosquito that takes blood for a limited time when she is growing eggs the rest of the time male and female mosquitoes are major pollinators.
Things in the natural world are far more complex than a few cogs in a clockwork toy.
Who needs mad scientists, is it not interesting that the prospect of a new technology straight away brings out thoughts of what can we destroy with it. That to me just shows how a lot of people are not ready to be trusted with scissors.
Some of the people posting here ... are Daleks ;-) Davros after all, was a mad scientist. Also the Daleks stand in for the Nazis in an era when the Germans are our allies.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 05, 2015, 03:38:06 PM
But they do allow you to use the Internet ;-)
I must suck Feynman's %&%^$ to be allowed on the Internet? Where do I line up? No ... the NSA allows you on the Internet. Otherwise they wouldn't let you self-expose all you meta-data for their benefit.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 05, 2015, 05:17:50 PM
It doesn't surprise me. It's just interesting.
Early animal husbandry ... lord of the flies ;-)