well think about it - STDs don't actually (well, there are exceptions) disallow procreation. you can still have kids with the herpage or the clap.
BrokenVisage
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2005
- 24,771
- 14
- 81
Over-population is around the corner, China is doing what many countries should and limiting offspring.
If a disease is extremely good at killing its host, then the disease may be super-successful for a brief period but will then 'burn out' if it doesn't leave enough hosts alive to rebuild their population. Unless, of course, it can infect other species. Syphilis, for instance started out much more aggressive, hit you much faster, and killed more often.
Anthrax doesn't work this way because it needs to get out of the host and into the dirt to spread. So there's no reason for anthrax to hold back -- turn the host's guts into liquid anthrax solution and then leach into the dirt when the host falls over. STDs though often need to spread from live host to live host. Since boils and sores tend to limit sexual opportunities, the most virulent syphilis strains that had obvious symptoms (or dead hosts) didn't get to spread as much as less aggressive ones.
AIDS may have gone through something like this. I have no sources, but doesn't HIV seem to take longer to blow out nowadays? That would be a good move for HIV since if it can be undetected and spread to more hosts, it wins. Probably the most successful STD is one with no acute symptoms and little apparent indication of infection. HPV or some warts would qualify there.
I figure the best plan to get rid of humans would be to let us develop massively powerful technologies with which we could let some people gain great power and profit by despoiling our natural environment. Or maybe to have us tinker with viruses and see if we can build bioweapons that we can't defend ourselves against. Then we just wait for people to take advantage of this enough to render our planet inadequate for our civilization. Oh. Wait a minute...
Anthrax doesn't work this way because it needs to get out of the host and into the dirt to spread. So there's no reason for anthrax to hold back -- turn the host's guts into liquid anthrax solution and then leach into the dirt when the host falls over. STDs though often need to spread from live host to live host. Since boils and sores tend to limit sexual opportunities, the most virulent syphilis strains that had obvious symptoms (or dead hosts) didn't get to spread as much as less aggressive ones.
AIDS may have gone through something like this. I have no sources, but doesn't HIV seem to take longer to blow out nowadays? That would be a good move for HIV since if it can be undetected and spread to more hosts, it wins. Probably the most successful STD is one with no acute symptoms and little apparent indication of infection. HPV or some warts would qualify there.
I figure the best plan to get rid of humans would be to let us develop massively powerful technologies with which we could let some people gain great power and profit by despoiling our natural environment. Or maybe to have us tinker with viruses and see if we can build bioweapons that we can't defend ourselves against. Then we just wait for people to take advantage of this enough to render our planet inadequate for our civilization. Oh. Wait a minute...
I think the human race is much more likely to be wiped out from things other than STDs, so I can't agree with your theory.
TheSlamma
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2005
- 7,625
- 5
- 81
I was reading that when some animals get HIV the diesease never becomes AIDS because their immune systems do not bother fighting them. I just thought that was pretty neat research. How it can apply to humans I don't know.
Either way, your fear is of natural selection.. I'd get over it if I were you.
Either way, your fear is of natural selection.. I'd get over it if I were you.
I do not think that the effect all of today's STDs compare to the impact the Bubonic Plague had on Europe and Asia during the 14th Century.
The problem of over population would go away with the availability of proper health care, education, healthy environmental conditions, proper use of farm land, and the removal of barriers restricting the trading of food.
Anyone else tired of apocalyptsts?
The problem of over population would go away with the availability of proper health care, education, healthy environmental conditions, proper use of farm land, and the removal of barriers restricting the trading of food.
Anyone else tired of apocalyptsts?
TheSlamma
Diamond Member
- Sep 6, 2005
- 7,625
- 5
- 81
According to the flyer I got on my door a few weeks ago the final day is September 12th. I felt like showing up just to see what the guy wanted everyone to spend money on. If it was for his personal gain take him outside and make it so he never had use for money again.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
yes, you are crazy, because STDs rarely = a death sentence.
you should be dwelling on some kind of incurable plague if you want to talk armagedon.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,572
- 971
- 126
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
If STD's are the best that nature can come up with, I'd say it's doing a pathetic job of killing us off. The human population of the world is growing at an incredible rate.
Think of the death toll in Iraq - let's make it totally horrendously overblown, at 500,000 people. Based on a current world population of about 6.5 billion, that's 0.0077%. Conventional warfare isn't particularly efficient either.
Let's say terrorists get ahold of a bunch of hydrogen bombs and wipe the US off the map completely. ~300M people gone. That's about 4.6% of all humans gone. It's a start.
Even in the event of all-out nuclear warfare, some humans would likely survive somewhere. The population could drop significantly, but humans will probably live somewhere, unless we opt to exhaust all of our nuclear weapons and irradiate the entire planet very thoroughly.
Thus far, I'd say that nature sucks at killing humans. Until nature sends a large asteroid our way, which our under(un?)funded NEO search program wouldn't see in time to do anything about it. That is really the only threat I see to our species in terms of extinction.
Think of the death toll in Iraq - let's make it totally horrendously overblown, at 500,000 people. Based on a current world population of about 6.5 billion, that's 0.0077%. Conventional warfare isn't particularly efficient either.
Let's say terrorists get ahold of a bunch of hydrogen bombs and wipe the US off the map completely. ~300M people gone. That's about 4.6% of all humans gone. It's a start.
Even in the event of all-out nuclear warfare, some humans would likely survive somewhere. The population could drop significantly, but humans will probably live somewhere, unless we opt to exhaust all of our nuclear weapons and irradiate the entire planet very thoroughly.
Well sure, if you do all that, then yeah, eventually the living generation will age and die. That'll hold true for any life form. But STDs are far from that. Hell, look at Africa. HIV is thriving there, but people are still having babies.
Thus far, I'd say that nature sucks at killing humans. Until nature sends a large asteroid our way, which our under(un?)funded NEO search program wouldn't see in time to do anything about it. That is really the only threat I see to our species in terms of extinction.
Mother earth is always trying to kill us for our atrocious nature, it's only a matter of time.
If I thought I would accomplish anything, I'd take up the sword in Her name.
If I thought I would accomplish anything, I'd take up the sword in Her name.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Facebook
Twitter