How the world may end - seriously
-
i really can't be bothered about it since i won't be there to see it.
if this world ends in 100 years , most likely we'll all be in heaven. -
Ebola has high mortality but it will not achieve its purpose if it is to kill a large number of people. Yes, it kills quickly....too quickly. An outbreak is confined to a small area because people die too quickly before the virus has a chance to be transmitted far and wide.
Global travel can spread it around but patients develop symptoms quite quickly and would not be allowed to board the plane, especially when there's news of an outbreak.
So I seriously doubt that Ebola will be such a mass killer.. -
create a virus that changes people into zombies or use voodoo magic to make zombie slaves that spread the disease. with every fallen man, woman or child, a new zombie rises to accomplish its duty.
-
the problem arises when people geneically alter the ebola virus so that it better fulfills such a purpose.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Ebola has high mortality but it will not achieve its purpose if it is to kill a large number of people. Yes, it kills quickly....too quickly. An outbreak is confined to a small area because people die too quickly before the virus has a chance to be transmitted far and wide.
Global travel can spread it around but patients develop symptoms quite quickly and would not be allowed to board the plane, especially when there's news of an outbreak.
So I seriously doubt that Ebola will be such a mass killer.. -
The ebola virus has indeed been genetically modified as a biological weapon. However, it is far too lethal and kills too quickly for it to be an effective killing machine. A virus to end the world must have a long incubation period during which people can be asymptomatic but able to transmit the disease to others.Originally posted by HENG@:the problem arises when people geneically alter the ebola virus so that it better fulfills such a purpose.
Viruses mutate and the natural history is to mutate into less virulent forms that can co-exist with the host. It's a matter of natural selection. A virus that kills its host dies with its host. One that can live in some sort of harmony with its host will ensure its own survival as well. -
Originally posted by the Bear:
Gosh....to think that u can actually post this up..are u really free til u've got nothing to do..
this was published in The Citizen Scientist
it doesn't look fake.. and it sent chills down my spine...
there are mad and reality-divorced boffins out there who actually think like this...
---------------------------------------------
[b]Saving the Earth with Ebola
Professor Pianka said the Earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify this number, he asserted that the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.
He then showed solutions for reducing the world's population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.
Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets.
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, “We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.”
...
then this happened
When Pianka finished his remarks, the audience applauded. It wasn't merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers. It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause.
----------------------------------------------------------
read the complete article and the follow-up => The Citizen Scientist
[/b] -
u miss my point. Like u said, it has to have a long incubation period where the subect is highly contageous while having no visible symptoms.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The ebola virus has indeed been genetically modified as a biological weapon. However, it is far too lethal and kills too quickly for it to be an effective killing machine. A virus to end the world must have a long incubation period during which people can be asymptomatic but able to transmit the disease to others.
Viruses mutate and the natural history is to mutate into less virulent forms that can co-exist with the host. It's a matter of natural selection. A virus that kills its host dies with its host. One that can live in some sort of harmony with its host will ensure its own survival as well.
With enough funding and research, it is entirely possible to re-engineer the ebola virus into such a strain.
Or else, other means can easily be used to overcome this problem. A good case study would be that which appears in Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6. In it, a pharmaceutical company uses the Sydney Olympics to spread a newly engineered strain of the ebola virus. However, this is not meant to be the killing blow. Rather, its used to spread panic. The company then announces it happens to have been developing a live-virus vaccine against this new strain. It "kindly" offers to vaccinate millions of people around the world. Unfortunately for the world, this live-virus vaccine is actually not a vaccine, but the very virus itself. With this method, their plan would wipe almost 90% of the people on earth out, not thru a virus spreading by itself, but rather thru people allowing themselves to be injected with the virus, thinking that its the vaccine. This certainly overcomes the problems of ebola killing too fast. The virus's fast killing time factor becomes an advantage, because by the time people realise what's happened, they're all too weak to do anything about it. -
u miss my point. Like u said, it has to have a long incubation period where the subect is highly contageous while having no visible symptoms.
That's easier said than done...facts are often quite different from fiction..
With enough funding and research, it is entirely possible to re-engineer the ebola virus into such a strain.
A long incubation period indicates that the virus must multiply slowly and hide in some sanctuary sites to avoid detection by the immune system. During this period, it must not damage the host cells too much or symptoms will appear. Yet this virus has to be particularly virulent and lethal.
You have a paradox here: you want something that looks sufficiently benign not be be destroyed or to destroy its host during the long incubation period but yet able to destroy enough host tissues to be lethal. We have many organisms that satisfy the first requirement, but for the reasons I have mentioned they co-exist with the host very well and lead to disease only after a long period of time. Killing people slowly will not end the world, because people with disease can still reproduce..
The way to end the world is to target the reproductive system. If you render mankind sterile, you will eliminate mankind eventually. -
hmm what if the virus makes one sterile?? its not obvious at all and can take very logn if not forever to be found out, and if it can still spread by air..........Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That's easier said than done...facts are often quite different from fiction..
A long incubation period indicates that the virus must multiply slowly and hide in some sanctuary sites to avoid detection by the immune system. During this period, it must not damage the host cells too much or symptoms will appear. Yet this virus has to be particularly virulent and lethal.
You have a paradox here: you want something that looks sufficiently benign not be be destroyed or to destroy its host during the long incubation period but yet able to destroy enough host tissues to be lethal. We have many organisms that satisfy the first requirement, but for the reasons I have mentioned they co-exist with the host very well and lead to disease only after a long period of time. Killing people slowly will not end the world, because people with disease can still reproduce..
The way to end the world is to target the reproductive system. If you render mankind sterile, you will eliminate mankind eventually. -
well never underestimate the ingenuity of humans. its certainly not easier said than done. Who knows what is going on in the bioweapon labs of countries all over the world?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:That's easier said than done...facts are often quite different from fiction..
A long incubation period indicates that the virus must multiply slowly and hide in some sanctuary sites to avoid detection by the immune system. During this period, it must not damage the host cells too much or symptoms will appear. Yet this virus has to be particularly virulent and lethal.
You have a paradox here: you want something that looks sufficiently benign not be be destroyed or to destroy its host during the long incubation period but yet able to destroy enough host tissues to be lethal. We have many organisms that satisfy the first requirement, but for the reasons I have mentioned they co-exist with the host very well and lead to disease only after a long period of time. Killing people slowly will not end the world, because people with disease can still reproduce..
The way to end the world is to target the reproductive system. If you render mankind sterile, you will eliminate mankind eventually.
2ndly, I don't think making people sterile will guarentee mankind's elimination. With the current breakthroughs in cloning and non-sexual human reproduction, there is no guarentee that mankind will die out before they successfully reproduce humans using nothing more than DNA from donor parents. Someone looking to wipe out 90% of the human race, might want something with a better guarentee. -
ya...that would be a far more effective way..It will be more effective to target the female...Originally posted by hisoka:hmm what if the virus makes one sterile?? its not obvious at all and can take very logn if not forever to be found out, and if it can still spread by air..........
Devise a virus that attacks the ovaries...without eggs, you cannot even clone.. -
comon lo.. now the medicine so high tech liao.. ppl with ebola u can jus simply spray them with bygone.. the bugs sure die 1 la
-
Genocide virus
Designed just to attack a certain race due to their racial DNA
So that we can have only 1 race on this planet -
the goal of cloning ultimately is to be able to take 2 sets of DNA from donors and produce a new human. It doesn't have to be DNA from the ovaries or the sperms. If u want to produce a virus to wipe humankind out this way, it has to target the DNA of the individual itself. Unfortunately, there is a reason why nature has diversified itself in replicating so many diverse sets of DNAs, and that is to survive such an attack. To effectively attack DNA, perhaps we have to look to nanotech where the nanobots can attack the DNA strands itself without any regard for what DNA is written, unlike viruses which might encounter unexpected defenses.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:ya...that would be a far more effective way..It will be more effective to target the female...
Devise a virus that attacks the ovaries...without eggs, you cannot even clone.. -
I think if the world is going to end, it will end anytime.
It is beyond our control. -
When that day comes he will surface again to save mankind
-
Sounds like something which iveco would want.Originally posted by maggot:Genocide virus
Designed just to attack a certain race due to their racial DNA
So that we can have only 1 race on this planet -
yup King Arthur will rise from Avalon again, and bring forth the Keltic culture where it rightfully belongs.Originally posted by Komon:When that day comes he will surface again to save mankind -
aiya, during cold war, the soviets and US made enough nuclear warheads to destroy the entire eath 9 times i think..we could use em if their still around -.-
-
his usage of 10%, 2/3 and other terms make him seems more like a christian cult fanatic than a cold blooded scientist.
-
LOLOriginally posted by SixSentinels:Is Dr. Doom stupid or what? No logical or even sane person would think of killing 5 billion people just to conserve the environment which would eventually be destroyed by the survivors instead.
Rather, one should talk about sending those 5 billion people, thousands at a time, on monthly trips to a base built on the Moon, where overpopulation would be drastically reduced on Earth because the human species would be spread out on 2 bodies, Earth and Luna. Now, if NASA hasn't been so slow in its actions, we would already have a lunar base by now. Instead, I predict that a base on the moon would be built by the year 2022, with construction beginning in 2015-2018. Since resources on Earth are running out, it is only logical to assume that the next body we should mine for minerals and resources would be the moon. Instead of killing 5 billion people, we could send a few, maybe 2/5s of that number, 2 billion, to the Lunar Colony. From Luna, we would terraform Mars, and after a few centuries, or even decades, Mars would be made suitable for the rest of the 5 billion (which would have multiplayed by 3 times), to live on the desert planet. From Mars, we would be able to gather a large pool of resources to advance next to a suitable body in the Sol System to live in, for example, Iapetus, Ganymede, Europa, or Enceladus (of course, after terraforming). If this plan is taken into consideration soon, we would no longer fear overpopulation of Terra, or even the over-use of resources on this planet.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS STUPID!!! If it cost NASA billions of US dollars to send 5 astronauts to the moon, the cost of sending 2 billion people will collapse the world economic!!! And building base which can provide a suitable living condition on Mars cost millions of billions of dollars. Now you paying for it? -
Soon perhaps when Nuclear war erupts over the Middle East
Not to mention when the bird flu H5N1 mutates into the spanish flu H1N1 that kills 50 millions in a few months
Killed 25 million in 25 weeks how to beat that record -
Umm... guys b4 u're too worked up u might want to check the date of the article... one day b4 april's fool
-
bear attacks
-
sounds like something from the Bible, Revelations.