Pandemic Avian Flu discussion

DaShen

Lifer
Dec 1, 2000
10,710
1
0
Large pandemics and epidemics happen only because a group of animals have hit a peak point in overpopulation. Disease does not spread quickly unless the animal or group of animals reaches a point where they may need the epidemic to lower the population and only allow the strong and resilient to survive. If overpopulation goes past a peak point, that species can wipe out the whole ecosystem in which they live in and die off in larger amount than the pandemic/epidemic would have done.

Although tragic, having a worldwide pandemic may actually help humankind in the very long run. There is increasing overpopulation in the world. Look at the Black Plague, only the strong and resilient survived, and only now are we finding out that some Blck Plague survivors are resistant to HIV (their T-cells are resistent to attack), the Viral cousin of the Black Plague bacteria. Not only that but the Renaissance right after the Middle Ages and plague was a great time in human kind development, and had only the strongest, smartest people in its midst.

Why do you think land and housing is such a large moneymaking industry right now, even though financial consultants say that the bubble will burst. It is because of with a growing population, land becomes more a a commodity. Look at Tokyo, land there is terribly expensive. So even financially speaking, disease, global disaster, or a cosmological event are the only things that would be able to decrease an overpopulated species that has no real predators (and disease is the only biological form of doing it <an equalizer>).

What do you think? No politics here, I just want to know.
 

Phoenix86

Lifer
May 21, 2003
14,644
10
81
I think with today's modern medicine, it's more likely the haves will survive, and the have-nots won't. Sprinkle in the "if your strong enough to survive it you will" factor for the have-nots.

This would be demonstrated in upper vs. lower class and 1st vs. 3rd world country.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
All diseases are beneficial in macroscopic view. It's basically darwinism in action - survival of the fittest.

The only problem is that physical strength (ie your immune system) doesn't necessarily co-incide with intelligence, which humans tend to use as a leverage against environment. Our bodies might get stronger and more resistant over time, but we could possibly limit the intelligence in the gene pool. But assuming that itelligence is spread out evenly over the gene pool, it wouldn't be much of an issue.
 

DaShen

Lifer
Dec 1, 2000
10,710
1
0
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Perhaps if it hits India/China really hard, and effects Indian cows as well.

3 billion right there. Even taking a quarter of that away would give some breathing room in that part of the world.

*****************************************************

Originally posted by: halik
All diseases are beneficial in macroscopic view. It's basically darwinism in action - survival of the fittest.

The only problem is that physical strength (ie your immune system) doesn't necessarily co-incide with intelligence, which humans tend to use as a leverage against environment. Our bodies might get stronger and more resistant over time, but we could possibly limit the intelligence in the gene pool. But assuming that itelligence is spread out evenly over the gene pool, it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
I think with today's modern medicine, it's more likely the haves will survive, and the have-nots won't. Sprinkle in the "if your strong enough to survive it you will" factor for the have-nots.

This would be demonstrated in upper vs. lower class and 1st vs. 3rd world country.

Intelligent people will be protected by society as much as possible. Einstein was protected. Stephen Hawking would probably be dead already if society didn't take care of him. Not only that, intelligent people would protect themselves further.

Also, people who are more well off tend to marry intelligent successful people. A free stable economy in which the strongest survive, tends to bolster intelligent and resilient people to the top, who marry other successful people. And many families who are well off tend to have smart kids. The problem happens when they become so rich that they become complacent. Then the drive for Physical and Mental dominance gets cut off and they become "Blue-blooded" because Intelligence, Personality, and Physical dominance becomes less important. Rather only the wealth of their mates or their mate's heritage is important. Then their gene pool gets withered.

But for the most part, the lower-upper class, upper middle class, and middle class are quite mentally and physically strong.

Therefore, Physical resilience and Intelligence would both be bolstered in the case of a pandemic.
 

Modeps

Lifer
Oct 24, 2000
17,254
44
91
What do I think? I think that if people are scared, they're easier to control.
 

DaShen

Lifer
Dec 1, 2000
10,710
1
0
Originally posted by: Modeps
What do I think? I think that if people are scared, they're easier to control.

Hmmmm... you should become a politician. ;)

No, but seriously. A epidemic/pandemic if it hits, may not be such a bad thing.