Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

An uneasy thought?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 08:36:47

This is the second most scary thing in my life, sitting around trying to guess by what event Mo Nature will bring down human population. And I am sure she will, the house of cards is too improbably high.

The first most scary? Being here when it happens.

I have found that these conversations have a certain sick catharsis for me. But at some point they add to my depression.

I'm trying to train myself to think in "deep time" as some sage here suggested. Mo Nature will heal herself from this scourge. Humanity will most likely survive, we are adaptable. I hear this "hopeful" message in various guises here often. "Humanity will be OK, we will survive." Yeah, the gene string will survive, but we personally will not.

It would have been interesting to be around during the extinction of the dinosaurs, just to see how it happened, provided you were not a dinosaur.
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Fredrik » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 10:39:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ANewHuman', 'B')ird Flu will kill in the millions, maybe in the early 100s of millions, but really, it's nothing.


I'll have to agree with BigTex's response to your post.

So far, H5N1 has killed way over half of the infected, even though most of them got much better treatment than people would be able to get if a global pandemic hit us. Assuming that the bird flu goes pandemic, mortality is 50%, a third of humanity is infected (all of these assumptions seem reasonable to me), the disease would kill over a billion people - mostly children, teenagers and young adults. Factor in all the economic and social effects of this "culling", and I believe it's going to be more than a minor dent in energy consumption.
"Only scarcity and effort make life worth living."
"A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on [individual] desires." -Pentti Linkola
User avatar
Fredrik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun 05 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Location: Finland

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 17:04:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kaj', 'T')he most efficient way of slowing growth is through the education of women in the third world. It's maybe not a total solution but I am amazed this isn't discussed more on this site.


By the time we get through educating 2 billion mostly moronic females- and when they get the education, what next? A higher standard of living requiring more resources! They will discover that, by not having children they can command more money and resources toward their own self-gratification?

This is a non-solution, a pat, feminist propaganda, a fantasia about preventing future births. The only control locus in the population dilemma is in the imminent control of the DEATH rate. Morons in Universities that spew ideological pablum and reference sociological charts advocate controlling BIRTH rates. "Masters of the Universe" plan on controlling DEATH rates.

A biological weapon sits on top of ALL the other options for "top-down" population control stratagems. Nuclear war, even military-political sabotage fails, even remotely, to match the cost-effectiveness and benefits of a biotech "solution" to the problem. If any other option gets proffered, it only proves that this "elite cadre" of people are not smart enough by implication.

Once you examine the evidence and the possibilities, an engineered virus is the ONLY option. The disturbing thing is that this option is, frankly, inevitable IF the "cadre" is sufficiently intelligent.

Please don't pollute a perfectly good speculative thread with your Captain Obvious, book-trained intellect.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 17:47:26

"They" sure are taking their own sweet time about it.
Ludi
 

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby bodigami » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 21:06:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'T')his is the second most scary thing in my life, sitting around trying to guess by what event Mo Nature will bring down human population. And I am sure she will, the house of cards is too improbably high.

The first most scary? Being here when it happens.

I have found that these conversations have a certain sick catharsis for me. But at some point they add to my depression.

I'm trying to train myself to think in "deep time" as some sage here suggested. Mo Nature will heal herself from this scourge. Humanity will most likely survive, we are adaptable. I hear this "hopeful" message in various guises here often. "Humanity will be OK, we will survive." Yeah, the gene string will survive, but we personally will not.

It would have been interesting to be around during the extinction of the dinosaurs, just to see how it happened, provided you were not a dinosaur.


laugh away the negativity... and join those of us who are willing to evolve humanity's mind... we're not there yet, but it's possible.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby bodigami » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 21:10:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kaj', 'T')he most efficient way of slowing growth is through the education of women in the third world. It's maybe not a total solution but I am amazed this isn't discussed more on this site.


By the time we get through educating 2 billion mostly moronic females- and when they get the education, what next? A higher standard of living requiring more resources! They will discover that, by not having children they can command more money and resources toward their own self-gratification?

This is a non-solution, a pat, feminist propaganda, a fantasia about preventing future births. The only control locus in the population dilemma is in the imminent control of the DEATH rate. Morons in Universities that spew ideological pablum and reference sociological charts advocate controlling BIRTH rates. "Masters of the Universe" plan on controlling DEATH rates.

A biological weapon sits on top of ALL the other options for "top-down" population control stratagems. Nuclear war, even military-political sabotage fails, even remotely, to match the cost-effectiveness and benefits of a biotech "solution" to the problem. If any other option gets proffered, it only proves that this "elite cadre" of people are not smart enough by implication.

Once you examine the evidence and the possibilities, an engineered virus is the ONLY option. The disturbing thing is that this option is, frankly, inevitable IF the "cadre" is sufficiently intelligent.

Please don't pollute a perfectly good speculative thread with your Captain Obvious, book-trained intellect.


you're underestimating girl's minds just because they live in the "third world" and propose government's bioterrorism on the same post? wow, I thought you were not that clueless.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Homesteader » Wed 09 Apr 2008, 21:19:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kaj', 'T')he most efficient way of slowing growth is through the education of women in the third world. It's maybe not a total solution but I am amazed this isn't discussed more on this site.


By the time we get through educating 2 billion mostly moronic females- and when they get the education, what next? A higher standard of living requiring more resources! They will discover that, by not having children they can command more money and resources toward their own self-gratification?

This is a non-solution, a pat, feminist propaganda, a fantasia about preventing future births. The only control locus in the population dilemma is in the imminent control of the DEATH rate. Morons in Universities that spew ideological pablum and reference sociological charts advocate controlling BIRTH rates. "Masters of the Universe" plan on controlling DEATH rates.



FWIW, My posts had nothing to do with this type of thinking, from which I wish to distance myself from by a minimum of a million light years.

After education and informed choice the options get rather depressing.

That being said, I'm firmly in the doomer camp and realistically don't see a way forward that doesn't involve a steep descent.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Thu 10 Apr 2008, 16:23:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zensui', '
')you're underestimating girl's minds just because they live in the "third world" and propose government's bioterrorism on the same post? wow, I thought you were not that clueless.


You misunderstand me. I am postulating the rationale of a group of people who don't have to worry about "beat cops" busting their chops- thats for the middle, low, and lower classes.

If you look at the population problem as a global phenomenon, and want to get to strategies to reduce them, you look at what has worked, what hasn't, and what could be done about it.

If you are sufficiently "advanced", and look at the planet as a whole as a "Master of the Universe", or caretaker of a sort, you might not have the whiffling, simpering, Hollywood sentimentality about the "individual" that afflicts the lower classes. At the upper ranges of intelligence, the caveman-like neurosis of cultures and societies, and their boring, enthrenched, and mundane problems is a class of thought entirely beneath them.

A systems approach to population control regards the surplus of humans as a impersonal problem, not a snuffling, sniffling, snorting, Cry on Oprah and Everybody Hold Hands kind of problem.

This goes back to the inevitability of population control one way or another. If carrying capacity and dieoff models prove resilient, then all these glorious if disadvantaged people will die sooner or later. For the cabal it is like watching a horse race.

> IF CO2 levels (caused by population) threaten LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, then it becomes a problem approximately equivalent to the situation of a cop, where, seeing a suspect reach in his pocket must make a decision. We know what the cop would do.

I imagine the politically prudent thing has been to wait and see if liberal society can solve its problems via cultural or economic methods. Failing that, a cabal like the one I suggest isn't going to sit on its hands.

Its no one's fault. We're not smart enough, on the whole, to manage our populations or control our resource impact. We do not have that instinct.

Consider the 1st world. In the USA, women have been liberated and exalted. For a half-century women have controlled most of the wealth and have a lot of power socially and personally. Yet even as birth rates fall, resource use increases.

What evidence do I have of such a cabal? Zero. Yet the fact that I can come up with the idea means that others have, and my own knowledge of biotech suggests a biological control "weapon", or whatever you want to call it, is clearly the "tool" of choice for such a group.

Power distorts morality. The absolutes that the clueless lower classes revere are the social glue that keeps a postindustrial society going even as real returns reverse. At the top, I imagine the difference between killing 1000, a million, or 2 billion to be slight at best. Look at the regard held for human lives in the Iraq adventure by our conventional leadership.

These "caretakers", with their power and wealth, look at the debauched masses of humanity with a sympathy no "normal" person could even fathom. With higher levels of intelligence and capability, thier intuitons on the subject would only dazzle and confuse the masses.

Our best hope is that "they" pull the plug, push the button, or release the virus as soon as possible to save the planet from humanity. In a rarified place in the consciousness of normal people, in a place superceding their egos and tiny spheres of influence, in a place eclipsing their ridiculous narrowminded morality, I believe, would be complete agreement with that wish.

Our redundancy, as individual expressions of a common genome, is irrefutable. Our technocratic societial evolution calls into play the perception of the absolute irrelevancy and obsolescence of many. A new Alpha breed of humans are coming of age, and if they had any brains at all, they'd kill off every last one of the normally-capable people on the planet. Otherwise, the world will be a shithole, stocked to the gills with misery and suffering. At what point in this carnival of pain and destruction does the moral choice of genocide achieve parity with a conventional, bean-couting assessment of suffering, present and future?

In the final analysis, how many people must die to save the Earth? Most. And in some sense, All. I can imagine no less egalitarian a method of shifting population than the one described. Or would you prefer a slow, tortuous path taken by the elite and rich, by genetic and technological manipulation, over a longer period of time? Not enough time left. Our population is growing at a ridiculous rate.

At a certain scale we resemble r-strategists in a petri dish. The impersonality of r-strategists to a conventional mind is horrifying. This genetic set implies that a certain, very large proportion of individuated sets will be destroyed. This is a genetic set that, as a part of survival strategy, produces far more offspring than is necessary. It evolved because of an abundance of resources or competitors or predators. What is more moral, for the Masters of the Universe? Watching humanity devolve into a bunch of warring, squabbling tribal factions, with a die-off over decades with the side effect of complete destruction of the biosphere? Or pressing the "button" and not crying big crocodile tears about it?

Its just a conspiracy theory. It doesn't exist. Sleep well my child.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby bodigami » Thu 10 Apr 2008, 17:05:58

BlisteredWhippet, since it's a conspiracy theory do even you label all this ideas as bullshit? because bioterrorism will not evolve human mind. between such type of survivors and total extintion the later is prefered because such megalomaniacs are not worthy of life.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 15:11:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zensui', 'B')listeredWhippet, since it's a conspiracy theory do even you label all this ideas as bullshit? because bioterrorism will not evolve human mind. between such type of survivors and total extintion the later is prefered because such megalomaniacs are not worthy of life.


"All 'this' ideas"? What the fuck are you talking about?

"Megalomania" is a real English Word, its definition is in the "Dictionary"- Go look it up.

Until you can communicate a cogent idea using proper English, I have no reason to read your nonsensical blather. To wit: you prefer total extinction to to a cabal of highly intelligent "survivors", even if such a scenario actually moves baseline intelligence up a few notches, fulfilling the very aspiration that you alluded to earlier.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 16:12:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', ' ')my own knowledge of biotech



oooooooo!

*impressed*
8O
Ludi
 
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 17:22:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', ' ')my own knowledge of biotech



oooooooo!

*impressed*
8O


Okay, but what do you think of the theory? Jackass...
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 17:23:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '
')
Jackass...


Right back at ya. :)
Ludi
 
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby bodigami » Fri 11 Apr 2008, 20:45:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zensui', 'B')listeredWhippet, since it's a conspiracy theory do even you label all this ideas as bullshit? because bioterrorism will not evolve human mind. between such type of survivors and total extintion the later is prefered because such megalomaniacs are not worthy of life.


"All 'this' ideas"? What the fuck are you talking about?

"Megalomania" is a real English Word, its definition is in the "Dictionary"- Go look it up.

Until you can communicate a cogent idea using proper English, I have no reason to read your nonsensical blather. To wit: you prefer total extinction to to a cabal of highly intelligent "survivors", even if such a scenario actually moves baseline intelligence up a few notches, fulfilling the very aspiration that you alluded to earlier.


intelligence is a tool, which can be used for suffering or happiness. We need Wisdom, Insight more than we need intelligence. Such survivors that planned the annihilation of their fellow humans are not worthy of Life.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Kylon » Sat 12 Apr 2008, 02:57:27

I rather doubt the "Elites" will do anything to incur population reduction.

Rather it is inaction that will lead to mass deaths.

Sustaining life, especially in an ailing biosphere is a relatively difficult task.

By not providing the means of survival to other societies, they will effectively induce the greatest degree of culling.

Since the U.S and other First World countries are going to most likely die last due to having greater wealth, the elites can maintain their status.

So long as there isn't mass famine in the United States, there won't be a revolution. And if there is a revolution, there's the Patriot Act I, II and all the other bills which make any form of resistance a terrorist activity.

So the "Elites" have secured their place. Now all they have to do is wait.

With a massive population reduction due to starvation, there will be sufficient demand destruction to ensure their way of life a while longer, while simultaneously using the crisis as a means of inducing the mass hysteria needed to generate the political power needed to further remove any vestiges of what civil rights we have left.

Ultimate goal: Retain power, and acquire more.

The Upper Class is doing this quite nicely I must say.

The real question isn't what are the "Elites" doing, it's what we should be doing in order to advance the interest of the middle, and lower classes.

I say vote Barack Obama. He may not be the best person who could possibly run this country, but he's the lesser of the three evils.

He doesn't seem to have the greatest degree of administrative ability, but he seems to be far less corrupt than the alternatives.

I'd take a benevolent moron for a king than a cruel genius mastermind anyday.

A benevolent moron at worst will be benign, maybe a few screw ups here and there, but relatively benign as other members of the government can pick up the slack. A cruel genius at worst will result a second holocaust(and this time you might be the Jews).

----------


BTW Blistered Whippet, having the cruelty to exterminate billions of people just because they inconvience your pocket book isn't intelligence, it's just cruelty, pure and simple evil. That wouldn't make them superior, in fact they would be subhuman.

Any idiot with money can collect a horrible disease, grow it, and then mass distribute it.

Furthermore, any person who did this would suffer from the possibility of A) retaliation, MAD would most certainly ensue, and B) the possibility that the disease could come back to kill you.

When these two problems are factored in, using bioweapons from the point of a truely evil person would be potentially sucidal, if not plain idiotic.
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Kylon » Sat 12 Apr 2008, 02:57:41

Double Post, but going to use this to reply to Zensui.

I was just stating what Americans should do in this situation.

We tend to hold a disproportionate amount of influence, and I think it's pertinent that I argue for a path that will lead to the least possible misery for America, and the planet as a whole.

In response to Newfie,


The truth is I don't like any of the candidates available.

Barrack lacks both experience and specific policy ideas.

Mccain serves the same party that brought us the Patriot Act and wants to extend the policy of the United States policing the world, which undoubtedly will create more enemies, which in turn will create more fear, which in turn will provide more justification for eliminating even more of American civil rights.

Hillary day by day sounds more and more like George Bush. She seems competent, capable, and with a lot of good policy ideas, however she seems like she would protect, and promote the same system with a few new masters. I also don't like the idea of dynasties, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Clinton... To much power stays in to few hands for far too long.

Ultimately I see Barrack as potentially ineffective and incapable, Mccain supporting the same party with the same corruption, and Hillary supporting a different party with slightly different corruption.

Barring the corruption and possibility of a dynasty, I'd vote for Hillary, as she seems like she possesses the greatest hope for the future, if she used her powers to benefit the middle and lower class.

However, since those are major factors, and possibly the largest factors I'll vote for Obama.

I despise all three choices, but I have a vote, so I'll vote for the lesser of the three evils. Hopefully this will result in a slightly better outcome for the future of this country and the world.

I hope this better elaborates why I hold my position.
Last edited by Kylon on Sun 13 Apr 2008, 02:32:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby bodigami » Sat 12 Apr 2008, 18:20:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kylon', 'I') rather doubt the "Elites" will do anything to incur population reduction.

Rather it is inaction that will lead to mass deaths.

Sustaining life, especially in an ailing biosphere is a relatively difficult task.

By not providing the means of survival to other societies, they will effectively induce the greatest degree of culling.

Since the U.S and other First World countries are going to most likely die last due to having greater wealth, the elites can maintain their status.

So long as there isn't mass famine in the United States, there won't be a revolution. And if there is a revolution, there's the Patriot Act I, II and all the other bills which make any form of resistance a terrorist activity.

So the "Elites" have secured their place. Now all they have to do is wait.

With a massive population reduction due to starvation, there will be sufficient demand destruction to ensure their way of life a while longer, while simultaneously using the crisis as a means of inducing the mass hysteria needed to generate the political power needed to further remove any vestiges of what civil rights we have left.

Ultimate goal: Retain power, and acquire more.

The Upper Class is doing this quite nicely I must say.

The real question isn't what are the "Elites" doing, it's what we should be doing in order to advance the interest of the middle, and lower classes.

I say vote Barack Obama. He may not be the best person who could possibly run this country, but he's the lesser of the three evils.

He doesn't seem to have the greatest degree of administrative ability, but he seems to be far less corrupt than the alternatives.

I'd take a benevolent moron for a king than a cruel genius mastermind anyday.

A benevolent moron at worst will be benign, maybe a few screw ups here and there, but relatively benign as other members of the government can pick up the slack. A cruel genius at worst will result a second holocaust(and this time you might be the Jews).

----------


BTW Blistered Whippet, having the cruelty to exterminate billions of people just because they inconvience your pocket book isn't intelligence, it's just cruelty, pure and simple evil. That wouldn't make them superior, in fact they would be subhuman.

Any idiot with money can collect a horrible disease, grow it, and then mass distribute it.

Furthermore, any person who did this would suffer from the possibility of A) retaliation, MAD would most certainly ensue, and B) the possibility that the disease could come back to kill you.

When these two problems are factored in, using bioweapons from the point of a truely evil person would be potentially sucidal, if not plain idiotic.


Your USA-centrism is boring, so I didn't finish reading your post.
bodigami
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 1921
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 12 Apr 2008, 21:35:37

"BTW Blistered Whippet, having the cruelty to exterminate billions of people just because they inconvience your pocket book isn't intelligence, it's just cruelty, pure and simple evil. That wouldn't make them superior, in fact they would be subhuman.

Any idiot with money can collect a horrible disease, grow it, and then mass distribute it.

Furthermore, any person who did this would suffer from the possibility of A) retaliation, MAD would most certainly ensue, and B) the possibility that the disease could come back to kill you.

When these two problems are factored in, using bioweapons from the point of a truely evil person would be potentially suicidal, if not plain idiotic."

Kylon, I agree with much of what you wrote but with hold judgment on the Obama thing. That's a discussion for another day.

Relating to this later part of your post I think you miss the point. We are in a world where suicide is seen as an honorable act. And exerting your religious inclinations on others is seen as a just act. While it may take something more than an idiot to effect the kind of destruction you envision it is certainly within the capabilities of any number of extremist, religious or otherwise. It seems most likely to come from some Islamic group but it could as well come from some home-grown sect (think Waco or Guyana) or a lone malcontent (think Uni-Bomber) or even a environmental evangelist.

All it takes is for some relatively intelligent disaffected group with a will to change the earth to act.

My "uneasy thought" goes along these lines. :
We are doomed simply because the house of cards we call modern civilization is piled to improbably high to be sustainable. Something, intentional or not, will bring it down. As each day passes the pile gets higher and less stable.

We talk of the dot.com and housing bubble. Our grandchildren will talk of the population or urbanization or oil bubble.
When going through hell, keep going! Churchill
Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the the cheapest of pleasures, costs nothing, and conveys much. E Wiman
I know there’s no solution, so I just enjoy what’s here and I enjoy the journey G Carlin
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby BlisteredWhippet » Sun 13 Apr 2008, 05:05:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', '"')BTW Bli---blah


Look, this is a theory, not a fact, its not based on anything except an idea. The constraint is, how could a relatively small part of the population kill off relatively high numbers of the populace and not have anyone connect this outcome with the perpetrators. Physically there are a large number of ways this could be done. But far an away the most effective is a biological weapon. We could talk about Smallpox, since we're theorizing. But it doesn't have to be. The point is, this is the only technological method that mitigates the origin being tracked back to the source.

The labs produce weapon, THEN antibody or vaccine. Then, administer antibody to a controlled population, and release the virus.

Don't drag your silly romantic moralism into the discussion. As pure theory the strengths are significant. Only a better theory that fits the critera can beat it. Beat Biotech. While you're at it, I have a few windmills you might like to tilt at.

But who really wins an argument about conspiracy theories?? I humbly submit that this will be the method, if any, and God bless them and bless you all for reading. Press the button, now, please. Press it now.

Now.
User avatar
BlisteredWhippet
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 848
Joined: Tue 08 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: An uneasy thought?

Unread postby Ferretlover » Sun 13 Apr 2008, 10:14:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', 'T')he constraint is, how could a relatively small part of the population kill off relatively high numbers of the populace and not have anyone connect this outcome with the perpetrators.


Thinking out loud: If large numbers were killed off, would there be anyone left with the knowledge or resources to connect the perps to the crime?
"Open the gates of hell!" ~Morgan Freeman's character in the movie, Olympus Has Fallen.
Ferretlover
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 5852
Joined: Wed 13 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Hundreds of miles further inland
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron