Smallpox = horrifying!

[Borvik]

Societal order? Hmm it's nothing new and surely not invented by human beeings. Tools? Ok with that.

BUT intelligence????? Homo sapiens sapiens will be the first being on earth capable of erasing itself from exactly this world. And IMHO he well manage to do so due to the total lack of intelligence.

I'm not sure if I'd like to be the most powerful predator. But I'm quiet sure we are not superior - instead I agree with Ladyzekke humans are dominant.

[Sir Kenyth]

To get back on topic, the pox viruses are some of the most advanced known on the planet. In comparison to most viruses, they are huge and contain a lot of genetic material! They steal genes from their hosts. They found some genes in smallpox viruses that originally came from rodents. This suggests that the virus may have "hopped" species directly from vermin rats a long time ago. The way the virus propigates is quite advanced. The host cell produces more virus. Some of these virus have propelling tails. When they contact the cell wall, the cell wall is stretched into a tube leading to the next cell instead of immediately broken. This protects the virus from the immune system. Eventually, the cell breaks and releases the standard, non-tailed viruses for dispersion through the bloodstream and air. Whether a person survives or not can be dependant on where the virus enters the body and how much virus the person gets. If the virus gets into the lymphatic system first, it can shock the immune system and cause a diminished response. In these cases, the pustules are not formed and the disease is almost always fatal. The skin gets a blackened, bruised and blood blistered appearance as it's destroyed. Before the unfortunate victem dies, the skin usually falls off over large areas and there is a lot of hemorraghing. Known as "Black pox". Like I said, horrible.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Borvik: Societal order? Hmm it's nothing new and surely not invented by human beeings. Tools? Ok with that. BUT intelligence????? Homo sapiens sapiens will be the first being on earth capable of erasing itself from exactly this world. And IMHO he well manage to do so due to the total lack of intelligence. I'm not sure if I'd like to be the most powerful predator. But I'm quiet sure we are not superior - instead I agree with Ladyzekke humans are dominant.

Societal order beyond a "pack" is unique to humans. As far as being able to erase ourselves, that goes with being "Too smart for our own good". I wouldn't bet your paycheck on it happening though. Don't doubt that if other species had the abilty, they too would consume the planet at our rate, and with less regard for polluting the environment at that.

It doesn't matter if you want to be a predator or not. The point was that you could be if you wanted to. The ability to do it is the indicator of your species dominance. Eating any animal based product is an indirect predatory act. Without modern agricultural developments, it's impossible for us to subsist strictly on wild plants. We cannot break down cellulose, the key energy source used by grazing animals. Green leafy veggies are mostly passed through our digestive tract. We ARE omnivores and meant to eat more animal proteins in the absence of sugar/fat containing fruits/seeds/tubers. The fact that we cannot digest cellulose, but so readily can convert animal proteins into sugars (and subsequently fatty acids) is an undeniable indicator of our hereditary dietary needs.

As far as superiority goes. If your point of view includes the matter of our success as a species in varying environments and in competition with other species, then we are indeed superior.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Smallpox is a good place to start when trying to control the explosion of humanity. Disease is one of the ways that nature weeds out the weak. Unfortunately humans discovered medicine and now the weak and useless are over running the planet.

Though this would be evolutionary correct it doesn´t fit in with viruses. A visru doesn´t follow the law of evolution , it kills strong as well as weak. Yes smallpox is terryfying, more so since it is the more virulent strain that is the most common one. Fatality rate was about 20-30% which is incredibly low. And to removes some fear it does not infect easily. You need to be in direct and pro-longed facial contact to transmit the disease. And since it is fairly obvoius when you are infected you can easily spot them. To compare smallpox with Ebola is not that adequat. Ebola has a fatality rate of 80% and destroys the entire body by de-attaching cells from each other. Where there once was organs there will only be fluid. You alos have a better chance of surviving smallpox since us doctors will have longer time to help the patients by boosting their immune response. When infected you still have 3-4 weeks compaired to <1 week with Ebola. But still I can not understand why scientists still are allowed to produce and alter a virus as dangerous as smallpox [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

[ 12-05-2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: and now the weak and useless are over running the planet.

oooo.... I could take this in sooo many directions [img]smile.gif[/img] but let us just say the seatbelt and helmet laws, and the legal requirement for warning labels on toothpicks are also responsible for allowing the weak, useless and dumb to live long enough to procreate

[Seraph]

Societal order beyond a "pack" is unique to humans.

What about ants? and bees?

If your point of view includes the matter of our success as a species in varying environments and in competition with other species, then we are indeed superior.

Actually, wouldnt bacteria then be the superior species on earth? They can survive in climats that humans can only dream of.

But still I can not understand why scientists still are allowed to produce and alter a virus as dangerous as smallpox

They arn't. There were at one point only supposed to be two samples left in the world. Becides, I think that the fact that the US was ready to bomb Iraq over it shows that its generally not looked favorably on.

The thing I dont understand is why there havent been millions of smallpox vacines produced in this now over year old terrorism scare. Its not that hard to do really.

[Borvik]

I don't have to add very much to Seraphs post. But...
Sir K.: you are talking about varying environments. Uhmmm in my opinion we are not varying - we are destroying it, aren't we? And then do we have to compete with other species? I don't think so. It's more that we should try to survive and it doesn't seem to me that we have the right plan to acomplish that.
Sometimes I'm a pessimist. I'd be glad if somebody could proove me wrong

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Seraph: quote: Societal order beyond a "pack" is unique to humans.

What about ants? and bees?

If your point of view includes the matter of our success as a species in varying environments and in competition with other species, then we are indeed superior.

Actually, wouldnt bacteria then be the superior species on earth? They can survive in climats that humans can only dream of.

But still I can not understand why scientists still are allowed to produce and alter a virus as dangerous as smallpox

They arn't. There were at one point only supposed to be two samples left in the world. Becides, I think that the fact that the US was ready to bomb Iraq over it shows that its generally not looked favorably on.

The thing I dont understand is why there havent been millions of smallpox vacines produced in this now over year old terrorism scare. Its not that hard to do really.[/QUOTE]Ants and bees? I suppose you can compare them to us if you want to. If you do, they possibly have first dibs on the social order. I seem to remember reading a fictional book once about a society of hive minded humans that was pretty creepy.

Bacteria? Not so! With the proper tools, we can survive almost any environment. From the complete vacuum of space, to the high pressure of the deep seas. We can augment our senses to see things outside the ability of any creature. Tools can allow us to do anything we want to. No other animal has such a broad range of adaptability.

Actually, the smallpox vaccine is quite crude, if effective. It's a weak virus very similar to virulent smallpox that's cultured in calves. Basically, you get a scratch from a cluster of small needles dirtied with cow blister pus. If it wasn't for the existence of this varient of the virus, we'd have problems. If someone manages to mutate the smallpox virus, vaccinations will no longer be effective.

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Borvik: I don't have to add very much to Seraphs post. But... Sir K.: you are talking about varying environments. Uhmmm in my opinion we are not varying - we are destroying it, aren't we? And then do we have to compete with other species? I don't think so. It's more that we should try to survive and it doesn't seem to me that we have the right plan to acomplish that. Sometimes I'm a pessimist. I'd be glad if somebody could proove me wrong

In my statement, an environment refers to extreme conditions in which we can survive with the aid of tools. We do radically alter the ecosystem with our presence, as any other prolific species would. Whether that's considered destructive depends on your point of view. As far as competition goes, you're partially right. All other animals cannot compete with us. We are so far ahead that we don't even consider them competition anymore. We have to consider helping them in many circumstances. Like I said, we're "Too good for our own good"!

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by ladyzekke: Bah it's too late for me to respond fully. But I see things a bit differently than you, although at the same time understand what you are saying as well. I personally think that one of the things that separate us humans from animals is the fact that our weak can survive, as it is our minds in many ways that makes us the dominant species. We have no pointy teeth or claws or rough skin with fur. We really as humans ARE a weak species in and of itself. But again physical attributes are only a small part of what keeps the human race alive. I do not wish to see any disease kill any humans, it would be a sick thing to think "oh good we've cleansed". And to end, the part I do agree with you about is overpopulation. I do think that something should be done about how many children people have. The planet is only so big, and we cannot rape it's resources in entire. Everyone should be able to procreate, but so many have 5 or more kids, and a lot of people have kids simply because they cannot afford birth control (accidents). So we have a huge population of humans, and yes, if it continues to grow, when the planet isn't growing, ultimately we will end up destroying all our resources, hence destroying ourselves. So I'm more for prevention rather than annihilation, if that makes sense [img]smile.gif[/img]

Possibly...but I reckon terraforming is not just science-fiction. I am pretty sure that at some point other planets will be terraformed where humans will be able to live and thus overpopulation problems will be solved.

And to add to the other discussion: humans DO have natural predators: grizzly bears, lions, crocodiles etc. any of these would not hesitate to attack a human if they were hungry. But people are right that humans do not need to consider any other species competition, of course not, technology cancels out any physical advantages other species have. I agree somewhat that medicine defeats nature's way of "the strong survive" but as people have said it is not always the strong and brainy people that have the best immune systems Also, humans have birth control which means if used properly, there doesn't need to be a "strong survives" because we can all live in equilibrium with our environment. If every couple had no more than 2 children there would be no problems. Why aren't 2 children enough for some couples? I don't know...

[ 12-05-2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]