Author Topic: Diseases......... good?  (Read 10809 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2003, 01:45:44 PM »
Ha ha.  Disease = funny.  Anyway, I can't believe you're arguing about population control and how we should kill people.  That sounds like a thing a heartless fiend like me would talk about.

Diseases are also good for building up immunity.  Whenever I get a cold or illness of some kind, I do my best to avoid taking medecine.  I go to the doctor maybe once every two years, on average.  Whereas the people that take advil every time they get a frikkin headache go basically bimonthly.

My friend's favorite STD is gonorrhea.
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline KnowsNothing

  • Babycakes
  • Score: 11
    • View Profile
RE: Diseases......... good?
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2003, 02:01:15 PM »
Yes, threads about DEATH are always my favorite.
kka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wakka wa

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2003, 02:09:13 PM »
Yeah, death and sex.  Mm.  Sex.
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2003, 02:09:46 PM »
I know you're just kidding, Hostile, but I do have a disclaimer at the end of my post.

And it's true that your immunity builds up if you reduce the amount of medical treatment you get. It's for that reason (getting medical treatment every time you sneeze) that humans are a very week species- we can't withstand even relatively weak diseases because our bodies aren't given a chance to develop and immunity. Humans get very weak as they get older, but with modern medicine people can live to be 80 or 90, despite the fact their very succeptible to diseases and viruses for nearly half that time.

However, once our species as a whole does become fairly immune to a particular disease, another one crops up to take over it's predecessors duties of maintaining our population.



Also, although this doesn't bear relevance to the particular topic at hand, I do think it's notable that when Europeans first came to the Americas mass amounts of natives died because of they had never come in contact with diseases the Europeans had been immune to for a very long time. In fact, most of the natives were killed not by European slaughter (although people like Cortez and Pizzaro executed incredible amounts) but by disease. This is an example of a super-plague but on a smaller scale. While during the Black Death of the 1300's the European population was never too close to extinction (a third the population is a huge portion, but not quite near dying out), the American natives came very close to completely being whiped out. I just thought that beared mention.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2003, 02:25:12 PM »
Yeah, kidding.  Except about the heartless fiend part.  I am one of them.

I'd take medecine, of course, if I got a really serious disease.  But still as little as I had to.  Being strong is very important to me.  Well, not strong, per se, but something. . .
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline Ocarina Blue

  • Posts: Blank
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Diseases......... good?
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2003, 06:49:49 PM »
Here is my opinion regarding the issue: Diseases don't only strike where there is over population though, they cause death and suffering in sparsely populated areas as well. Even then, population controls itself through other methods, like war and famine. If the black death hadn't of killed so many people in Europe, war or famine would have when resources were so scarce that people fought for them or there just weren't enough to support the population. In short, I’m trying to say that diseases aren’t needed for population control, and cause death and suffering in places where population is sparse. Therefore, I think that curing diseases is a good thing. Just as any other form of life will do when it is in conditions ideal for it, it’s population will rise and fall, humans will be no different.
Om mani padme hum.

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2003, 08:35:42 AM »
Ocarina: I've already adressed war and famine as a means of population control, and I think it's quite obvious that while they technically do play into keeping the population manageable, their effect is dwarfed by that of diseases and doesn't even warrant recognition, at least in this instance. Like I've said, malaria alone has killed more people than every war in human history combined- no natural disaster, no violent conflict, no famine can ever match that, and that's just one disease. I've also stated that influenza killed between 25 and 50 million people in one year- can you name any war that's killed that many people insuch a short amount of time? Or really any amount of time, for that matter. Yes, wars as a means of population control do come into play, but their effect is so negligible next to that of diseases it's pointless to even mention it.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline Ocarina Blue

  • Posts: Blank
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Diseases......... good?
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2003, 09:17:53 PM »
Yes, but if there were no diseases, the population would not just keep on growing and growing. War and famine would act if diseases wouldn't. Imagine a group of early settlers finding a huge valley, with fertile ground in the lower hills, and large amounts of vegetation filled with birds and boar in the higher parts of the hills. Running down the middle of the valley is a river, with many fish and clean water. This is ideal for the settlers to populate. As expected, the population grows very fast at first, with a mixture of hunting, fishing and simple farming methods used to provide food, each family in the population provides for themselves. One year, it doesn’t rain very much at all, but the people hardly notice as there is still a surplus of food and the river is large enough to support their farms by itself. As the population grows, more and more people begin to use the lower hills as homes, taking advantage of the fertile ground for farming, and using the river to help irrigate. As the population grows, more people must move to the higher hills, as there is no longer any room for farms on the lower regions. At this point, maybe a disease would have struck the densely populated lower hills, causing a massive decline in population. Once again, there is a surplus of resources to the survivors, and a similar pattern repeats. However, for some unknown reason, no disease emerges. The population will shrink anyway. As the upper hills are populated, the trees on it are cut down to make room for houses and the now favorable farms, destroying hunting as a major source of food. By this point, about 50% of the population are providing food, as there is demand for craftsmen, and especially engineers, because it is more difficult to irrigate further away from the river. This means that people are relying on efficient means of farming to support the population. As there is too much irrigation, the river shrinks, this coupled with over-fishing in the river eliminates fish as a major food source as well. As happened when the population was small, once again there is little rain one year. This time, there is not enough water in the river to support many farms, and there is a severe shortage of food. People from the higher hills group together, raiding and taking land from people nearer the river. Any domesticated animals have been culled, as there is no water, or already have been killed for food. As the irrigation techniques are useless if there is no water, the farms are no longer efficient. This means that only a small portion of farms are having to provide for both the rest of the farms, and the craftsmen and engineers. Because the land on the hills is now useless, and there is no longer any demand for craftsmen and engineers, only the farm-owning people have any sort of wealth anymore. There is a famine, and this coupled with the widespread wars over good land kills a large chunk of the population. Once again, there is another surplus of resources, as the river grows again, so does the fish population. The forests slowly grow back, it will be several years until these are sustainable sources of food again, but until they are, the remaining farms can provide. The pattern eventually repeats itself again.
Om mani padme hum.

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2003, 06:31:11 AM »
God, don't we all just love xenocide

Famine and war may have something to do with population control, but I would really have to disagree if someone believes it is caused intentionally. I especially disagree when population control is pointed out to be a direct reason for war. Agreed, it has been topics of some wars, but rarely, RARELY, is it the only reason. The fact that politics and groups will never agree has little to do with controlling starvation, or controlling world population, it is almost always about power. Genocide, mass executions, are a sign of great power, which is why people do it. You want to scare the crap out of people? Kill a bunch of them.

the fact that virii mutate to exploit the weaknesses of cells has very little to do with controlling populations. Virii only exhist to find new weaknesses, and even without humans screwing with our ability to fight them off, we would still be attacked by them.

The human body shortened it's life to fight off disease and famine, look at sical cell anaemia.

The disease made it near impossible for virii and bacteria to spread to other cells because the cells were already severly damaged. This disease destroyed the life of the human slowly, but allowed more time to reproduce than bacteria allowed.

The fact that we are able to prolongue life now, instead of increasing the pace in which life exhisted, doesn't show that it will have to reverse, it just shows a different pattern.

Another thing, just because life for humans has been so short term, does not mean that it cannot maintane homestasis.

Look at the species that have already reached homeostasis. It took cockroaches nearly  800 million years. It took sharks 500million. These are species that have relatively few natural enemies, or have hardened themselves to enemies. How many natural enemies do we have? How many are we extremely vulnerable to?

The fact is, even if superdiseases emerge, we have the resources at this point to control, if not erradicate them before they are capable of greatly dimenishing human population.

Lets look at SARS and West Nile Virus. Both are fast moving, they have many catylists, and can be deadly. How many people have they killed? A few thousand. Both of these virii could under the circumstances of the plague, done far worse to europe than the plague did. Times have changed and virii that potent no longer have the power that they once had.

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2003, 07:58:31 AM »
I agree on pretty much every point with manunited.  Very well said.

Others may have said it before, but their posts are too long, and me is lazy
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2003, 08:29:31 AM »
"the fact that virii mutate to exploit the weaknesses of cells has very little to do with controlling populations. Virii only exhist to find new weaknesses, and even without humans screwing with our ability to fight them off, we would still be attacked by them."

Not consciously, no, but some of the deadliest afflictions around today are virii. Just because THEY think they only exist to explot weaknesses in our cells and reproduce through them doesn't mean in the process they're weeding out the sick of our species and keeping out population manageable. It's like germs think "Oh, I have to kill 50 humans today if I'm going to meet my quota." Just because they're not making the choice themselves to control our population doesn't mean through their actions that's exactly what's hapenning. The same goes for wars with humans- humans, and pretty much all animals, are naturally violent in order to make sure the strongest survive and they don't starve themselves with too many mouths to feed, but at the time they're thinking "I need to take this fort", etc. We choose to fight for political and moral reasons but we fight period as a means of population control and weeding out the less strong. Diseases just do a much better job of it.

"Another thing, just because life for humans has been so short term, does not mean that it cannot maintane homestasis."

I said reach homeostasis, not maintain it- once we get there, it shouldn't be difficult to maintain it, but the problem is actually reaching it, which, through evolution, takes hundreds of millions of years. And what's your point that sharks have no natural enemies? Neither do humans, and you yourself said it took 500 million years for sharks to reach homeostasis, so why should humans reach it in 30,000 years? Plus, there's nothing that's trying to become sharks' natural predators, so they have nothing to counter evolve to, while humans have diseases and virii constantly plaguing them, so we really should be constantly evolving to the point where we are not affected by diseases and virii, and that's quite obviously not the case right now.

And cockroaches do indeed have natural predators- many bird and mammal types eat them.

"The fact is, even if superdiseases emerge, we have the resources at this point to control, if not erradicate them before they are capable of greatly dimenishing human population.

Lets look at SARS and West Nile Virus. Both are fast moving, they have many catylists, and can be deadly. How many people have they killed? A few thousand. Both of these virii could under the circumstances of the plague, done far worse to europe than the plague did. Times have changed and virii that potent no longer have the power that they once had."

SARS and West Nile Virus are NOT potent diseases. Neither are that deadly- in fact, most healthy people don't even realise they have West Nile Virus because it's symptoms are akin to the common cold. The only people that are really at danger are those with weak immune systems, such as children and the elderly. And SARS would never have been much of a problem even if it hadn't been contained as quickly- the only reason either of these disease got so much news time is because people like to hear about death and destruction. Like I said, picture an airborne disease that is impossible to cure and kills in only a few days- what would be the only way to "contain it"? To isolate yourself from the world of course, but as I've stated innumerous times, there are fates worse than death.
 
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline yellowfellow

  • I have become comfortably numb.
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Diseases......... good?
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2003, 10:14:38 AM »
i  have to agree with mouse_clicker on this one... it's more of a direct consequence of an infection that disease and often time death are the result... and the sad truth is that viruses are a TYPE of population control.  

Additionally, West Nile and SARS are simply overhyped afflictions the media used to capture/divert the public's attention.

however, an airborne virus able to kill in a few days would not pose too much of a threat as quarentine conditions would be imposed and an agent killing that fast would quickly kill itself out of viable hosts.
procrastination and masturbation are fine, until you realize you're only screwing yourself

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2003, 12:03:52 PM »
It could only be quarantined fast enough if it originated in a technologically advanced place, like the United States or Europe, and only if it were quarantined fast enough would it exhaust it's stock of hosts. Besides, you can never truly quarantine a disease- it would only take one infected person to slip through with a highly contagious disease to spread it elsewhere- it was only a few boats from the east that spread the plague to Europe.

You're right, though, that for a disease to truly spread well, it would have to keep it's host alive long enough for it to come in contact with other potential hosts, so maybe killing in a few days is impractical to the parasite, but a week would be fine, especially if symptoms didn't start showing up until close to death- you can't quarantine a disease you don't know is there, and once you do know it's there, it's already been unknowingly spread to many other hosts. If a disease such as that originated in a poor 3rd-world country, maybe in Africa, it could quite quickly spread across the continent and into other continents before it could be contained. I think you guys put too much faith in the doctors of today- yes, they have made incredible advancements, especially recently, but they've only erradicated a few diseases, of which smallpox is the most notable.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2003, 02:06:47 PM »
Mouse you lost me here.

A lot of countries in europe ARE in homeostasis now, their population hasn't moved since the 1950s.

My point about homeostasis in sharks is that the cockroach took x years shark x-y years, shorter times.

Time is very relative in species.

Mammals have been around for only about 80 million years and in that time have spawned the most advanced species.

Dinosaurs exhisted for 400 million years and in all reality did not spawn advanced species. They spawned species that could exhist in different conditions, never a species that could exhist in nearly every environment.

What I am referring to there is possibilism, a belief in current Human Geography that humans can live in nearly every environment. We are a species very different from all. You may say virii are similar, but that is just untrue. Virii cannot live in many temperatures, under many conditions, and require extremely favorable conditions to survive.

Blah, brain fry, I will continue later.

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2003, 03:07:15 PM »
I'm not referring to countries in homeostasis- that's irrelavent.

And your point about dinosaurs and mammals isn't a very good example- dinosaurs WERE very advance, and for roughly 200 million years they ruled the planet. It took an asteroid impact that killed off almost every animal species on the planet to finally whipe them out. Mammals during that time period were the under dogs, constantly on the brink of extinction since they couldn't compete with the dinosaurs. Only after the dinosaurs themselves went extinct did mammals finally take over. Yes, mammals are very advanced, but that in no way means they've reached their equilibrium.

And humans *can't* live in nearly every condition- even if the temperature is just barely over 100 degrees or barely below freezing, humans can die of heat exhaustion and hypothermia. And humans adapt to different temperatures- there was recently a huge heat wave that rolled across Europe killing quite a few people- even though where I live in Kansas temperatures are higher almost every day of the summer, they weren't adapted to those temperatures and even with such things as air conditioners people died. The only reason humans are so widespread is because we've learned to shut out the environment, and even then we have our limits.

You want to see something that CAN live in almost any conditions, diseases are the key. It's even believed life on Earth originated from a group of single celled organisms from a different planet that braved the near absolute zero and vaccuum to crash into Earth on an asteroid- humans can only survive about 30 seconds in a vaccuum, not to mention near absolute zero temperatures.

My point is that since humans have so many diseases intent on killing them, we are constantly evolving to negate the effects of these diseases. Besides that, the simple fact that our population does fluctuate so much- huge increase followed by a huge decrease followed by another huge increase, etc, would imply we have not reached our homeostasis and have a very long way towards achieving it.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2003, 06:15:00 PM »
The fact that humans die in a heatwave doesn't mean squat. There are 6 billion people on earth. Even under a cataclismic event such as a strike by an asteroid, in all probability, if it was even possible, humans would survive.

I am not saying all mammals are at homeostasis, far from it. I am saying that mammals are capable of reaching homeostasis at a much greater rate. Mammals will grow into another race, who knows maybe humans will eventually brake away from mammals, but the fact is, they are the most likely phylum to maintane homeostasis. And of that group which is most likely to be able to maintane it? The one that is nearing maxing out its usable space, the one that is most advanced. That happens to be us.

The fact that pockets of places have reached homeostasis is significant, and far from irrelevent. When pockets of an event start, one of two things will happen, they will be quickly closed, or will slowly expand. In this case it is unlikely, less somekind of doomsday plot were to happen, that it would suddenly close. The most likely event would be that it would continue growth, spreading to other places, and very slowly, to the rest of the planet. Granted this could take thousands of years, but what's a thousand years to 10 million? Even if we do expand into outer space, the planet of earth would most likely remain near the same population.

I am getting off topic, but the fact is that humans are a far more adapt species than others.

I will compare it to a virus in a computer system.
If a virus was given free reign, it could forseeably destroy basically every computer networked on the planet earth.
Yet, virii no matter how potent can never have this free reign because the same exploits they use are seen to all who look. And often enough before the virus strikes the cure is already known.

Look where we are in knowledge of dinucleic acid. We have completed the strain for mice, which is very similar to ours, and we are closing in on finishing the human. How long will it be until the double helix is unravelled? Once it is genetically feasible to discover what can happen who knows what can be done.

Again, all of this takes time. but so does a superstrain. They don't suddenly appear out of the blue and annihilate thousands of people. They either explode and die quick, or slowly seep.

Blah, now that I have written all that I really don't have much else to say oh well.

Mouse: You should read up on possiblism though. If it is possible take AP Human Geography.

brief link on possibilism

Offline Ocarina Blue

  • Posts: Blank
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Diseases......... good?
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2003, 07:51:01 PM »
When I said wars are more likley with a higher population, I meant that because resources were stretched further than they normaly would have been, people are more likley to squabble over them.
Om mani padme hum.

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2003, 03:29:51 AM »
I've got to go to school in a second, but expect a reply later today, manunited.

And I completely agree with what Ocarina blue just said.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline yellowfellow

  • I have become comfortably numb.
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2003, 09:23:25 AM »
Quote

Look where we are in knowledge of dinucleic acid. We have completed the strain for mice, which is very similar to ours, and we are closing in on finishing the human. How long will it be until the double helix is unravelled? Once it is genetically feasible to discover what can happen who knows what can be done.


can you explain what you are talking about here?
procrastination and masturbation are fine, until you realize you're only screwing yourself

Offline Hostile Creation

  • Hydra-Wata
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2003, 12:16:57 PM »
DNA strands, I believe.  I think he's making a point about how smart humans are, and what sort of paths we can take when we understand our genetic make-up.  I think.  I just skimmed through his post.
HC: Honourary Aussie<BR>Originally posted by: ThePerm<BR>
YOUR IWATA AVATAR LOOKS LIKE A REAL HOSTILE CREATION!!!!!<BR><BR>only someone with leoperd print sheets could produce such an image!!!<BR>

Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2003, 12:25:44 PM »
"I am getting off topic, but the fact is that humans are a far more adapt species than others."?

Are you kidding? Humans get uncomfortable unless the conditions are exactly how they like them- between 70 and 80 degrees faranheit. Anything even remotely beyond those boundaries make us very agitated, and we can't survive long if you go just a little further. Just because humans are so widespread doesn't make them very adaptable- we have houses and air conditioners and heaters to simulate the exact conditions we like- without such products humans would be restricted to a very small amount of locations.


And the point I was making with the heat wave was this- humans aren't very good at adapting, but once they do, they're locked into that adaption and changing again is a very painful process. In places like France and the UK, they're adapted to the conditions that are present there, but even when there's a moderate change people drop like flies, even if that "moderate change" is still cooler than it is every day where I live. If humans were so good at adapting, it wouldn't matter what the temperature is tomorrow because you can handle it no matter what- however, that is not the case.



If he meant DNA, I think he would have said deoxyribonucleic acid- I'm guessing he's referring to something else.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill

Offline manunited4eva22

  • Got 1337?
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2003, 01:41:10 PM »
My bad, early bird screws with my brain. Yes I was refferring to DNA. (My biology teacher would shoot me, I'm sure)

Yes that is true humans do not always live in some conditions. But living in 70-80 only is far from the truth. Humans on their own are a very feeble species. We have never been a species that can physically do much. But to say that housing and all that we do does not count is a pushing it a little. True enough we cannot live everywhere, but how many species are able to live at the south pole? Very very few, I can't even think another one.

I really can't continue with this debate though. Over the summer I could do these fine, but school really takes everything out of me.

Unless anyone else has something to say I concede.


Offline mouse_clicker

  • Pod 6 is jerks!
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
RE:Diseases......... good?
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2003, 01:47:57 PM »
No animal can live at the south pole besides penguins and a few insect types ( a large, wingless one inch fly lives almost in the center of Antarctica), humans especially. Do you realise what conditions are like in Antarctica? Even with dozens of layers of clothes and huge heaters, humans can only survive down there for a short time. In fact, one of the first parties to attempt an expedition to the south pole DID die, and what a horrible death it is. The team they were competing with didn't fare too much better, although they did make it out alive. The simple fact is without things like air conditioners, heaters, and houses, humans would barely be able to live anywhere, and are very restricted even with those machines.
"You know you're being too serious when Mouse tells you to lighten up... ^_^"<BR>-Bill