148 replies to this topic

[Infernity]

Elrond.. wow wha you? what? how? were? are you immortal already and didn't tell us?

[modelcadet]

I chose #1. Not that I necessarily agree that I will live forever. Honesty, I believe that I am living forever.

Even if I 'die,' I will be revived. Cryonics isn't even necessary. Though my individual and biological identity dies quite often already, I have a strong enough continuity of consciousness to select numero uno. The question is... Will I continue to play an active conscious roll in my self-identity (if I even have free will to begin with).

So yeah... the point is moot. But biologically speaking, we'll find cures for aging in the next couple decades, unless something really catastrophic happens, like the Rapture

I'm surprised there are so many death-ists on these forums. I do worry about the prospects for biological research, given that there's just so much "vaporware" in the research community. But IT's humming along nicely, so I think we'll be alright.

I chose #1. Not that I necessarily agree that I will live forever. Honesty, I believe that I am living forever.

Even if I 'die,' I will be revived. Cryonics isn't even necessary. Though my individual and biological identity dies quite often already, I have a strong enough continuity of consciousness to select numero uno. The question is... Will I continue to play an active conscious roll in my self-identity (if I even have free will to begin with).

So yeah... the point is moot. But biologically speaking, we'll find cures for aging in the next couple decades, unless something really catastrophic happens, like the Rapture

I'm surprised there are so many death-ists on these forums. I do worry about the prospects for biological research, given that there's just so much "vaporware" in the research community. But IT's humming along nicely, so I think we'll be alright.

[gashinshotan]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

[forever freedom]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

[gashinshotan]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

Natural evolution has proven to be the best force for propagating and maintaining life - nearly 4 billion years of evolution doesn't lie while only a few thousand years of human self-destruction only reveal the inferiority of the human mind in making the best choices for life.

[forever freedom]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

Natural evolution has proven to be the best force for propagating and maintaining life - nearly 4 billion years of evolution doesn't lie while only a few thousand years of human self-destruction only reveal the inferiority of the human mind in making the best choices for life.

We are the product of nature. Nature created us. Appearently nature isn't as smart as it seems then is it.

Since we are already here and it can't be reversed, it appears reasonable to me that we should try to enhance ourselves, so we can approach this perfection that nature was supposed to have.

[gashinshotan]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

Natural evolution has proven to be the best force for propagating and maintaining life - nearly 4 billion years of evolution doesn't lie while only a few thousand years of human self-destruction only reveal the inferiority of the human mind in making the best choices for life.

We are the product of nature. Nature created us. Appearently nature isn't as smart as it seems then is it.

Since we are already here and it can't be reversed, it appears reasonable to me that we should try to enhance ourselves, so we can approach this perfection that nature was supposed to have.

The fact that evolution works by producing generations of imperfect beings does not impair its ability to produce the best organisms for the environment. That humans want this in their own lives is a rejection of this fact and an expression of speciocentrism.

[forever freedom]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

Natural evolution has proven to be the best force for propagating and maintaining life - nearly 4 billion years of evolution doesn't lie while only a few thousand years of human self-destruction only reveal the inferiority of the human mind in making the best choices for life.

We are the product of nature. Nature created us. Appearently nature isn't as smart as it seems then is it.

Since we are already here and it can't be reversed, it appears reasonable to me that we should try to enhance ourselves, so we can approach this perfection that nature was supposed to have.

The fact that evolution works by producing generations of imperfect beings does not impair its ability to produce the best organisms for the environment. That humans want this in their own lives is a rejection of this fact and an expression of speciocentrism.

And why does nature produces imperfect beings? This shows that nature isn't perfect either. So why do we have to follow nature's will if neither of us is perfect?

[gashinshotan]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

Natural evolution has proven to be the best force for propagating and maintaining life - nearly 4 billion years of evolution doesn't lie while only a few thousand years of human self-destruction only reveal the inferiority of the human mind in making the best choices for life.

We are the product of nature. Nature created us. Appearently nature isn't as smart as it seems then is it.

Since we are already here and it can't be reversed, it appears reasonable to me that we should try to enhance ourselves, so we can approach this perfection that nature was supposed to have.

The fact that evolution works by producing generations of imperfect beings does not impair its ability to produce the best organisms for the environment. That humans want this in their own lives is a rejection of this fact and an expression of speciocentrism.

And why does nature produces imperfect beings? This shows that nature isn't perfect either. So why do we have to follow nature's will if neither of us is perfect?

Nature produces beings sufficient enough to survive and reproduce. Perfection is a human concept, created by human minds which more often than not make self-destructive choices.

[DJS]

If what is "natural" is considered everything that is a product of a "natural process", then everything can be labeled "natural", thereby preventing the term from being in any way meaningful.

Often it seems that individuals who haven't thoroughly thought things through use the term "natural" interchangably with "that which is status quo".

The Supposed Sin of Defying Nature: Part One

The Supposed Sin of Defying Nature: Part Two

[forever freedom]

I really don't fear death because I see it as a normal part of life and been in so many near-death encounters that I'm expecting it to happen.

I never could understand this logic, why do assume that whatever happens in nature is good? What about natural disasters or wild fires? These things are natural, but people do not desire them.

Nature is morally neutral. Any natural act probably has both good and bad consequences.

Exactly. In fact, I don't believe in "good" or "bad," only in nature.

Nature doesn't give a damn about you. Nature made you so that you could breed for 30 years and then it made you disposable. There's nothing wrong with that, but since we have intelligence and consciousness of ourselves, i belive it's time we start making the rules, instead of nature. The mentality that "it's all natural and we can't do anything about it" sure served us well for some thousands of years when we had no way of fighting it. But now that we are starting to see the tip of the iceberg of what we can do, this old mentality doesn't serve us anymore; it's time we change it so we can better handle what's ahead of us.

Natural evolution has proven to be the best force for propagating and maintaining life - nearly 4 billion years of evolution doesn't lie while only a few thousand years of human self-destruction only reveal the inferiority of the human mind in making the best choices for life.

We are the product of nature. Nature created us. Appearently nature isn't as smart as it seems then is it.

Since we are already here and it can't be reversed, it appears reasonable to me that we should try to enhance ourselves, so we can approach this perfection that nature was supposed to have.

The fact that evolution works by producing generations of imperfect beings does not impair its ability to produce the best organisms for the environment. That humans want this in their own lives is a rejection of this fact and an expression of speciocentrism.

And why does nature produces imperfect beings? This shows that nature isn't perfect either. So why do we have to follow nature's will if neither of us is perfect?

Nature produces beings sufficient enough to survive and reproduce. Perfection is a human concept, created by human minds which more often than not make self-destructive choices.

Can't you see? WE are the product of nature. Have you ever heard of natural selection? Natural selection chooses the most fit individuals to survive. And it is a mechanism created by NATURE ITSELF. And guess what? It decided that WE, HUMANS with INTELLIGENCE, were the most fit individuals to survive. So nature, with its own mechanisms, created us. We are all part of nature and a creation, selected by nature's mechanism of selection, which is the NATURAL selection. If we are so bad and imperfect, nature must be really flawed to have created us. And even if we got wiped out of earth, nature, with this same "flawed" mechanism, would eventually create another "imperfect" species, just like us.

To say that nature is perfect and we are not is a completely unreasonable conclusion. If i didn't convince you now, i'm afraid nothing will change your mind, so i will stop arguing with you on this matter because i got tired of it.

Edited by sam988, 03 December 2007 - 12:37 AM.

[gashinshotan]

Can't you see? WE are the product of nature. Have you ever heard of natural selection? Natural selection chooses the most fit individuals to survive. And it is a mechanism created by NATURE ITSELF. And guess what? It decided that WE, HUMANS with INTELLIGENCE, were the most fit individuals to survive. So nature, with its own mechanisms, created us. We are all part of nature and a creation, selected by nature's mechanism of selection, which is the NATURAL selection. If we are so bad and imperfect, nature must be really flawed to have created us. And even if we got wiped out of earth, nature, with this same "flawed" mechanism, would eventually create another "imperfect" species, just like us.

Yes we are the products of nature. But perfection isn't necessary for survival and nature only creates what is necessary through evolution. We are not the most fit individuals to survive - rather this honor goes to the bacterial species which have existed since almost the beginning of time and can withstand the worst environmental conditions thrown at them. Even, we, humans cannot eradicate these particularly hardy species if we tried.

To say that nature is perfect and we are not is a completely unreasonable conclusion. If i didn't convince you now, i'm afraid nothing will change your mind, so i will stop arguing with you on this matter because i got tired of it.

Your views are humocentric. You judge the perfection of human beings as a result of nature by human standards while ignoring that natural selection and evolution occur for one purpose: the propagation of life. This does not include immortality - in order for evolution to occur, the individuals must die, not only to allow for the improvement of the gene pool, but also to reduce competition for natural resources for the next generation. Death is a necessary part of life and evolution while evolution does not require the survival of the individual, only life itself and this is why we aren't "perfect" in our adaptation to the environment. Thus nature is perfect in maintaining and propagating life, ignoring the artificial needs and desires of humanity.

[Live Forever]

I don't know about all you Johnny-come-lately's, but I'll be turning 490 in January. Remember: there can be only one. ;-)

Connor? I have found you at last.

[Shepard]

[HellKaiserRyo]

Can't you see? WE are the product of nature. Have you ever heard of natural selection? Natural selection chooses the most fit individuals to survive. And it is a mechanism created by NATURE ITSELF. And guess what? It decided that WE, HUMANS with INTELLIGENCE, were the most fit individuals to survive. So nature, with its own mechanisms, created us. We are all part of nature and a creation, selected by nature's mechanism of selection, which is the NATURAL selection. If we are so bad and imperfect, nature must be really flawed to have created us. And even if we got wiped out of earth, nature, with this same "flawed" mechanism, would eventually create another "imperfect" species, just like us.

Yes we are the products of nature. But perfection isn't necessary for survival and nature only creates what is necessary through evolution. We are not the most fit individuals to survive - rather this honor goes to the bacterial species which have existed since almost the beginning of time and can withstand the worst environmental conditions thrown at them. Even, we, humans cannot eradicate these particularly hardy species if we tried.

To say that nature is perfect and we are not is a completely unreasonable conclusion. If i didn't convince you now, i'm afraid nothing will change your mind, so i will stop arguing with you on this matter because i got tired of it.

Your views are humocentric. You judge the perfection of human beings as a result of nature by human standards while ignoring that natural selection and evolution occur for one purpose: the propagation of life. This does not include immortality - in order for evolution to occur, the individuals must die, not only to allow for the improvement of the gene pool, but also to reduce competition for natural resources for the next generation. Death is a necessary part of life and evolution while evolution does not require the survival of the individual, only life itself and this is why we aren't "perfect" in our adaptation to the environment. Thus nature is perfect in maintaining and propagating life, ignoring the artificial needs and desires of humanity.

We do not need death, however, evolution is merely one part of life. Darwinian evolution is imperfect and it is obsolete now. We are about to say adieu to the forth epoch and welcome the fifth.



Intelligence has been accelerating; evolution has provided most of the acceleration. Now, humanity will augment their intelligence to supersede Darwinian evolution’s hegemony. This is consistent with the law of accelerating returns.



You are just a bioluddite deathist. Why are you a deathist?

[gashinshotan]

Can't you see? WE are the product of nature. Have you ever heard of natural selection? Natural selection chooses the most fit individuals to survive. And it is a mechanism created by NATURE ITSELF. And guess what? It decided that WE, HUMANS with INTELLIGENCE, were the most fit individuals to survive. So nature, with its own mechanisms, created us. We are all part of nature and a creation, selected by nature's mechanism of selection, which is the NATURAL selection. If we are so bad and imperfect, nature must be really flawed to have created us. And even if we got wiped out of earth, nature, with this same "flawed" mechanism, would eventually create another "imperfect" species, just like us.

Yes we are the products of nature. But perfection isn't necessary for survival and nature only creates what is necessary through evolution. We are not the most fit individuals to survive - rather this honor goes to the bacterial species which have existed since almost the beginning of time and can withstand the worst environmental conditions thrown at them. Even, we, humans cannot eradicate these particularly hardy species if we tried.

To say that nature is perfect and we are not is a completely unreasonable conclusion. If i didn't convince you now, i'm afraid nothing will change your mind, so i will stop arguing with you on this matter because i got tired of it.

Your views are humocentric. You judge the perfection of human beings as a result of nature by human standards while ignoring that natural selection and evolution occur for one purpose: the propagation of life. This does not include immortality - in order for evolution to occur, the individuals must die, not only to allow for the improvement of the gene pool, but also to reduce competition for natural resources for the next generation. Death is a necessary part of life and evolution while evolution does not require the survival of the individual, only life itself and this is why we aren't "perfect" in our adaptation to the environment. Thus nature is perfect in maintaining and propagating life, ignoring the artificial needs and desires of humanity.

We do not need death, however, evolution is merely one part of life. Darwinian evolution is imperfect and it is obsolete now. We are about to say adieu to the forth epoch and welcome the fifth.



Intelligence has been accelerating; evolution has provided most of the acceleration. Now, humanity will augment their intelligence to supersede Darwinian evolution’s hegemony. This is consistent with the law of accelerating returns.



You are just a bioluddite deathist. Why are you a deathist?

Death is beautiful.





I'm kidding. Seriously, I'm just being realistic. Human beings will always make the worst choices for themselves and with ever increasing technology comes ever increasing probability of self-destruction. For example, while we have created vaccines and anti-biotics to defeat infectious diseases and extend life, abuse of that same technology has resulted in
pathogens which we are powerless to defend against such as H5N1 and other anti-biotic resistant organisms which have the high potential to cause hundreds of millions of deaths, totally nullifying the benefits that the initial vaccines and anti-biotics produced. What other bad choices will we continue to make and what are the chances that another mistake will cause massive destruction? Very likely in my opinion, taking into consideration humanity's tendency toward self-destruction.

[Traclo]

For example, while we have created vaccines and anti-biotics to defeat infectious diseases and extend life, abuse of that same technology has resulted in
pathogens which we are powerless to defend against such as H5N1 and other anti-biotic resistant organisms which have the high potential to cause hundreds of millions of deaths, totally nullifying the benefits that the initial vaccines and anti-biotics produced.

Hmm... let's look at this.
You say it was a bad choice to make antibiotics (in spite of the lives they have saved), because we have now produced antibiotic resistant bacteria. My god! They aren't treatable? Much like the illnesses we had before antibiotics? Impressive, we should stop all research now. All that that logic does is stagnate our growth towards ever greater medical heights. Your logic is seriously flawed. Perhaps a better example is in order to prove your point. And not to be cliché but 'with great power comes great responsibility', obviously the better control we have over our environment and ourselves the more dangerous it will become, because of the potential for misuse. That's not a reason not to keep going, that's cowardice.

So please no nonsense. Rational, logical arguments are what makes a point of view strong.

[Luna]

People here are talking about nature as if it is a person.
nature is just some random stuff happening due to the rules of physics, it has no thought and no plans! things just happens.

[gashinshotan]

For example, while we have created vaccines and anti-biotics to defeat infectious diseases and extend life, abuse of that same technology has resulted in
pathogens which we are powerless to defend against such as H5N1 and other anti-biotic resistant organisms which have the high potential to cause hundreds of millions of deaths, totally nullifying the benefits that the initial vaccines and anti-biotics produced.

Hmm... let's look at this.
You say it was a bad choice to make antibiotics (in spite of the lives they have saved), because we have now produced antibiotic resistant bacteria. My god! They aren't treatable? Much like the illnesses we had before antibiotics? Impressive, we should stop all research now. All that that logic does is stagnate our growth towards ever greater medical heights. Your logic is seriously flawed. Perhaps a better example is in order to prove your point. And not to be cliché but 'with great power comes great responsibility', obviously the better control we have over our environment and ourselves the more dangerous it will become, because of the potential for misuse. That's not a reason not to keep going, that's cowardice.

So please no nonsense. Rational, logical arguments are what makes a point of view strong.

Hmm... nope they aren't treatable and they are currently infecting and killing people throughout the world. Even if we do create vaccines and anti-biotics that are effective, more resistant pathogens will keep evolving until their defenses outpace our ability to make new vaccines - OH WAIT, H5N1 HAS ALREADY DONE THIS!!

[gashinshotan]

People here are talking about nature as if it is a person.
nature is just some random stuff happening due to the rules of physics, it has no thought and no plans! things just happens.

Things don't just happen - they occur because of natural selection.

[Traclo]

Hmm... nope they aren't treatable and they are currently infecting and killing people throughout the world. Even if we do create vaccines and anti-biotics that are effective, more resistant pathogens will keep evolving until their defenses outpace our ability to make new vaccines - OH WAIT, H5N1 HAS ALREADY DONE THIS!!

Did you even read what I said? All you did was restate your previous post, but with some capitals (an attempt at humour?). So again I'd like to know how not treating these illnesses with the best we have is better then doing so. If we didn't use what we had there would be many more 'untreatable' illnesses. So please, be logical, non offensive, and state what you mean with proper argumentation.

[gashinshotan]

Hmm... nope they aren't treatable and they are currently infecting and killing people throughout the world. Even if we do create vaccines and anti-biotics that are effective, more resistant pathogens will keep evolving until their defenses outpace our ability to make new vaccines - OH WAIT, H5N1 HAS ALREADY DONE THIS!!

Did you even read what I said? All you did was restate your previous post, but with some capitals (an attempt at humour?). So again I'd like to know how not treating these illnesses with the best we have is better then doing so. If we didn't use what we had there would be many more 'untreatable' illnesses. So please, be logical, non offensive, and state what you mean with proper argumentation.

You don't get it do you? The best possible action is to let the illnesses run their course, killing off the necessary amount of people and quarantining to prevent the spread of the disease. Isn't this the more logical choice than temporarily creating vaccines and antibiotics which will result in even stronger, more resistant pathogens that will be capable of completely wiping out humanity? Of course humans are too sentimental to be logical, too self-destructive to do what is necessary for survival. This is why I trust in natural selection.

[eternaltraveler]

Isn't this the more logical choice than temporarily creating vaccines and antibiotics which will result in even stronger, more resistant pathogens that will be capable of completely wiping out humanity?

so this is the nut of your argument.

I'm afraid your premise is flawed. Treating disease with antibiotics, while leading to antibiotic resistance, does not lead to fundamentally more virulent organisms. If for example super antibiotic resistant tuberculosis develops (it's well on it's way), we would not have more lethal tuberculosis than we had before the advent of antibiotics. We would just have tuberculosis like we had before antibiotics, which is contained by the immune systems of most people just fine.

Your argument against vaccines is even more flawed. Several major killers of humans have been wiped out entirely through vaccine use. Therefore they cannot evolve at all. We won.

[gashinshotan]

Isn't this the more logical choice than temporarily creating vaccines and antibiotics which will result in even stronger, more resistant pathogens that will be capable of completely wiping out humanity?

so this is the nut of your argument.

I'm afraid your premise is flawed. Treating disease with antibiotics, while leading to antibiotic resistance, does not lead to fundamentally more virulent organisms. If for example super antibiotic resistant tuberculosis develops (it's well on it's way), we would not have more lethal tuberculosis than we had before the advent of antibiotics. We would just have tuberculosis like we had before antibiotics, which is contained by the immune systems of most people just fine.

Your argument against vaccines is even more flawed. Several major killers of humans have been wiped out entirely through vaccine use. Therefore they cannot evolve at all. We won.

Then why are public health officials panicking over H5N1? An avian flu virus which cannot be treated and which could easily mutate into a more infectious form? Because WE CAN'T TREAT IT. Treating disease with anti-biotics leads to the domination of pathogenic communities by anti-biotic resistant strains as the vulnerable strains are wiped out. This is basic evolution - I suggest you ask ANY biologist and doctor their opinions on the current avian flu strains as well as the anti-biotic resistant pathogens pervading U.S. schools and hospitals. They will tell you that the abuse and inappropriate prescription of anti-biotics and vaccines has led to more virulent organisms. Why do I know so much about this topic? Because I'm currently studying for a Pathogenic microbiology final exam - so ask away, I have my text book and slides with all the CORRECT information.

[Traclo]

You don't get it do you? The best possible action is to let the illnesses run their course, killing off the necessary amount of people and quarantining to prevent the spread of the disease. Isn't this the more logical choice than temporarily creating vaccines and antibiotics which will result in even stronger, more resistant pathogens that will be capable of completely wiping out humanity? Of course humans are too sentimental to be logical, too self-destructive to do what is necessary for survival. This is why I trust in natural selection.

Thank you. This may have slightly more merit (though the attempt at an insulting post is indeed amusing).
First you do realize that your very same logic can be applied to quarantining, in that this may cause an even more deadly disease that can be transmitted further through the air. What is best is clearly allowing the human race to become like the bacteria and allow enough of us to die off so that we may develop natural defenses to these illnesses. (Wait a minute... can't bacteria evolve defenses against our own natural ones?)
(Also as an amusing side note: your proposal to weaken Asia through a virus, and using a vaccine on ourselves is perhaps a direct contradiction to this. No doubt that virus will mutate and kill us all...)

Your logic seems to be that the natural path is the best, yet there are countless examples where nature is less efficient then what we could do ourselves. Of course I'm not denying that nature does have many examples of excellent adaptation features, but rather that it is possible to do better then nature. If you say that it is impossible to do better then nature (please clarify this) then why are you a medical student (soon to be)? If you do agree to there being a possibility of us doing better then nature, then why stand in the way of advancement? (Please not again : cause we are creating the superkiller virus, because we have faced terrible illnesses before and if we had a chance to prevent one (the black death for example) would you not prevent it on the possibility of it creating a superblack death?)

It also seems highly unlikely that even a superbug will 'completely wipe out humanity' because of the very natural selection you seem to support

Edit: Elrond! You beat me to the punch... essentially I'm saying the same things... not being able to treat avian flu sounds very similar to not having treatment for all those other deadly diseases, except with a few million less dead people

Edited by traclo, 04 December 2007 - 08:26 AM.

[gashinshotan]

Thank you. This may have slightly more merit (though the attempt at an insulting post is indeed amusing).
First you do realize that your very same logic can be applied to quarantining, in that this may cause an even more deadly disease that can be transmitted further through the air. What is best is clearly allowing the human race to become like the bacteria and allow enough of us to die off so that we may develop natural defenses to these illnesses. (Wait a minute... can't bacteria evolve defenses against our own natural ones?)
(Also as an amusing side note: your proposal to weaken Asia through a virus, and using a vaccine on ourselves is perhaps a direct contradiction to this. No doubt that virus will mutate and kill us all...)

You are being far more insulting than I with your continued criticism of the most insignificant parts of my posts. How would quarantining lead to the evolution of more resistant strains? Once the people who are infected die, and their bodies properly disposed of, the pathogen will be gone forever unless a mistake is made. A pathogen which originally transmitted from person to person wouldn't be able to evolve into an airborne pathogen if it is completely wiped out with the proper sterilization and disposal of the infected corpses.

Your logic seems to be that the natural path is the best, yet there are countless examples where nature is less efficient then what we could do ourselves. Of course I'm not denying that nature does have many examples of excellent adaptation features, but rather that it is possible to do better then nature. If you say that it is impossible to do better then nature (please clarify this) then why are you a medical student (soon to be)? If you do agree to there being a possibility of us doing better then nature, then why stand in the way of advancement? (Please not again : cause we are creating the superkiller virus, because we have faced terrible illnesses before and if we had a chance to prevent one (the black death for example) would you not prevent it on the possibility of it creating a superblack death?)

Evolution has a 4 billion year track record of producing organisms best adapted to their environments - this involves the continual annihilation of the inferior generations and their replacement by improved versions. Thus evolution is perfection over time, not perfection at the moment.

It also seems highly unlikely that even a superbug will 'completely wipe out humanity' because of the very natural selection you seem to support

Edit: Elrond! You beat me to the punch... essentially I'm saying the same things...

It can if the pathogen has no history of ever infecting humanity such as the untreatable H5N1 and SARS viruses. Evolution would only occur if by chance a resistant mutant individual or population exists. Unfortunately they dont because of artificial human preservation of the status quo through interbreeding. All humans can be killed by H5N1 and the other anti-biotic resistant fatal strains and this necessarily rules out the chance for evolution.

[eternaltraveler]

WE CAN'T TREAT IT. Treating disease with anti-biotics leads to the domination of pathogenic communities by anti-biotic resistant strains as the vulnerable strains are wiped out.

The above post indicates how ignorant you are in terms of infectious disease.

Allow me to educate you. Of course we can't treat H5N1 with antibiotics. It's a virus. We can't treat any viruses with antibiotics. A virus is an infectious particle that hijacks the cellular machinery of host cells to reproduce. They have no metabolism.

Antibiotics are used to treat microbial disease, primarily bacteria. Bacteria are mostly free living organisms. Aside from rickettsia, chlamydia, and mycobacteria, the vast majority of pathogenic bacteria live extra cellularly, with only the first two being obligate intracellular organisms (they have all their own replication machinery). As an aside it was likely a relative or type of rickettsia that evolved into our own mitochondria.

Now in regards to H5N1. It is a subtype of influenza A. Public health officials are "panicking" as you say because H5N1 is capable of making the jump from birds to humans (though not from human to human with any effectiveness), and it has a dissimilar enough protien coat from other influenza A subtypes to render prior immunity through either vaccination or infection of previous influenza A stains of no use. It is certainly not a result of antibiotic resistance, or due to vaccination campaigns. Even if we never used antibiotics and flu vaccines it would still hold the same potential. Should it become easily transmissible we could be looking at something similar to the 1919 flue epidemic.

You are not entirely correct about it being treatable either. Tamiflu should work if it's used early enough in the incubation cycle, and there are sufficient stockpiles of this in america.

[eternaltraveler]

Why do I know so much about this topic? Because I'm currently studying for a Pathogenic microbiology final exam - so ask away, I have my text book and slides with all the CORRECT information.

well if you want to use an appeal to authority as part of your argument, I might as well inform you that I'm a microbiologist, I just submitted the first draft of my thesis in microbiology two days ago. Good luck on your final exam.

edit: No one reading this should consider my arguments any more valid. All that is important is whether my science is correct. This was simply a response to his appeal to authority.

[gashinshotan]

The above post indicates how ignorant you are in terms of infectious disease.

Allow me to educate you. Of course we can't treat H5N1 with antibiotics. It's a virus. We can't treat any viruses with antibiotics. A virus is an infectious particle that hijacks the cellular machinery of host cells to reproduce. They have no metabolism.

Antibiotics are used to treat microbial disease, primarily bacteria. Bacteria are mostly free living organisms. Aside from rickettsia, chlamydia, and mycobacteria, the vast majority of pathogenic bacteria live extra cellularly, with only the first two being obligate intracellular organisms (they have all their own replication machinery). As an aside it was likely a relative or type of rickettsia that evolved into our own mitochondria.

Did I say that H5N1 could be treated with anti-biotics? Allow me to educate you. Not all pathogens are viruses.

Now in regards to H5N1. It is a subtype of influenza A. Public health officials are "panicking" as you say because H5N1 is capable of making the jump from birds to humans (though not from human to human with any effectiveness), and it has a dissimilar enough protien coat from other influenza A subtypes to render prior immunity through either vaccination or infection of previous influenza A stains of no use. It is certainly not a result of antibiotic resistance, or due to vaccination campaigns. Even if we never used antibiotics and flu vaccines it would still hold the same potential. Should it become easily transmissible we could be looking at something similar to the 1919 flue epidemic.

You are not entirely correct about it being treatable either. Tamiflu should work if it's used early enough in the incubation cycle, and there are sufficient stockpiles of this in america.

You're wrong. The fact that H5N1 is able to infect humans is because of human and animal vaccination programs which have led to the proliferation of H5N1 and other new avian flu strains in human and poultry settings because they would naturally have been restricted by the superior ability of previous flu strains in competing for hosts. This is called amensalism and this is why avian flu strains have not been a problem before.