Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Your comments please:
Billo_Really said:Corporatism!
Billo_Really said:Corporatism!
George_Washington said:I would think global warming would be. I didn't know bird flu was really that big of a deal, I guess at least not in the industrialized world.
Che said:THat's the first thing that popped into my head when I clicked on this thread.
Bird flu is more dangerous presently, but global warming will kill us all in the long run if we don't stop it now
alphamale said:How will it do that? Just more open-ended stream of consciousness blather from you?
Lets say it kills off 1% of the Earth's population before we all have immunity. 60-70 Million people. The other 5.9+ billion people will still do fine.Kandahar said:It has the potential of mutating into a more transmissable form and killing millions of people worldwide. And all indications are that it will.
steen said:Lets say it kills off 1% of the Earth's population before we all have immunity. 60-70 Million people. The other 5.9+ billion people will still do fine.
steen said:But if global warming messes with the crop adaptability of food supply, leading to dessertification etc, then what do we do with a halving of our food supply? And lack of water. Do we see wars over water supply and shared rivers? How far does GW take us before we all hunker down and shoot at the other users of resources?
alphamale said:ABC News quoted some group doing a simulation which said if the virus mutates to a form that could go from human to human, and ten people are initially infected, then half the country will be infected in 3 months.
Kandahar said:I saw that in Wired Magazine. Bird flu definitely has all the characteristics of a major pandemic.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Except for that minor little detail of not being transmitted person to person.
It may become a problem if it evolves in that direction. Until it does, it's not a real threat.
And relatively, it was a small number that didn't threaten the species existence. Neither did the Chinese famines under Mao or the Stalinist purges. Nor did war and pestilence at other times. We are talking about threats to the species here.Kandahar said:So 60-70 million dead is OK since it's a small percentage of the world's population? The Holocaust killed less than 1% of the Earth's population too...![]()
Ah, so you can grow wheat in a dry desert?This ignores the fact that worldwide crop yields have continued to increase for several decades, despite the warming of the earth, and there is every reason to believe that they will continue to do so since technology gets better every year. In fact, the rate of improvement will probably improve itself, since we're just beginning to reap the fruits of biotechnology. The relatively slow drag of global warming is no match for the breakneck speed of our agricultural technology.
Why? How is this subjective invention of yours a "fact"?This also ignores the fact that long before global warming makes people fight massive wars over survival resources, nanotechnology will almost certainly enable the reversal of global warming.
And then we will ALL die, just like with the Spanish Flu. Oh, wait, most people DIDN'T die, they developed immunity :dohKandahar said:...and a small child trapped in a den of grizzly bears is in no danger, until they get hungry. :roll:
It's virtually inevitable that bird flu (or something similar) WILL mutate into a more transmissable form sometime in the next few years.
Kandahar said:...and a small child trapped in a den of grizzly bears is in no danger, until they get hungry. :roll:
It's virtually inevitable that bird flu (or something similar) WILL mutate into a more transmissable form sometime in the next few years.