Silliness

November 8, 2005

You are REALLY intelligent.

Point taken.

Thanks for posting it.

You've taught us a lot today .

Tom

Administrator

But see, that's just why I'm saying that they can be moral

judgements-

-for the same reason that moral judgements are made against the

rich: they must not have had to do anything to earn it, they must

have done something illegal or immoral to get it, they're

just 'lucky' and were in the right time and/or place, and other

stereotypes like these. You worked really hard but who saw the full

extent of your effort but you? Someone comes along at a point where

you're enjoying the fruits of your labor and makes judgements that

have no basis in reality. For the same reasons, someone might look

at someone who can't find work as lazy, not seeing what efforts they

have made to little avail.

November 8, 2005

Aw, shucks, I'm just interested in the subject.

>

> But see, that's just why I'm saying that they can be moral

> judgements-

> -for the same reason that moral judgements are made against the

> rich: they must not have had to do anything to earn it, they must

> have done something illegal or immoral to get it, they're

> just 'lucky' and were in the right time and/or place, and other

> stereotypes like these. You worked really hard but who saw the full

> extent of your effort but you? Someone comes along at a point where

> you're enjoying the fruits of your labor and makes judgements that

> have no basis in reality. For the same reasons, someone might look

> at someone who can't find work as lazy, not seeing what efforts they

> have made to little avail.

>

November 8, 2005

Aw, shucks, I'm just interested in the subject.

>

> But see, that's just why I'm saying that they can be moral

> judgements-

> -for the same reason that moral judgements are made against the

> rich: they must not have had to do anything to earn it, they must

> have done something illegal or immoral to get it, they're

> just 'lucky' and were in the right time and/or place, and other

> stereotypes like these. You worked really hard but who saw the full

> extent of your effort but you? Someone comes along at a point where

> you're enjoying the fruits of your labor and makes judgements that

> have no basis in reality. For the same reasons, someone might look

> at someone who can't find work as lazy, not seeing what efforts they

> have made to little avail.

>

November 8, 2005

,

I think it's real, although I doubt we'll actually see human to human

transmission this year, and by NEXT year people will have gotten so

bored with the whole end-of-the-world-epidemic scenario that they may

wind up getting overrun by the disease.

The threat is real, and I will explain why in a moment.

If there is any duping going on, it is regarding HIV/AIDS.

You have to keep in mind that up until this moment in history where

this supposed flu epidemic is about to occur, the greatest OTHER

plague we have plundering the earth is HIV/AIDS, and though we

frequently see news blurbs about African countries suffering under

AIDS, most people in the western world are largely unconcerned about

it.

Hetrerosexuals mistakenly belive that AIDS is almost exclusively

confined to the homosexual, prison, or IV drug-using communities when

in fact the transmission of the HIV virus is also occuring in places

most people would not have thought of. Transmission among the elderly,

for example, is fairly high, mainly because they aren't using condoms

during sex, and because many widows and widowers do not want to re-

marry so late in life, or want to retain their independence for other

reasons, they may have multiple partners. (Their logic is: If women

cannot get pregnant, and neither partner has any STDs, why use

condoms?).

Since it can take 10 years for the symptoms of AIDS to manifest

themselves, the 42 million known infected people walking the earth

with this disease represents the merest fraction of those who MIGHT be

infected with HIV. And since most of the 28 million people who have

died from the disease mostly died in countries that are off the radar

screen of most westerners, the disease has failed to inspire people

with the proper sense of alarm.

Yet up until this year, HIV/AIDS was the biggest threat to man's

existence that we've had in close to a hundred years.

Now we have this looming flu epidemic which could have a high

communicability rate, a 50% death rate, and which kills people between

one and three days after infection. Medical scientists believe that if

an initial outbreak were not contained, this epidemic could spread

across the world in 28 weeks.

Thus you'd have as many as 3 billion people dying in just over half a

year.

Now the reality of the matter is that something well short of that

scenario is more likely to happen. Perhaps one in fifty will die, or,

where better medical facilities are available, one in a hundred, or

one in two hundred, and the spread will take place over a period of

years, by which time some sort of vaccine will be developed that will

reduce the deadliness of this new flu strain.

It's important to remember that there are plenty of bacteria and

viruses among us that we have already developed complete and absolute

immunity to, and so their effects on us are harmless, but this flu

appears to be something that we haven't seen before, and mutates at a

rate so quick that standard, run-of-the-mill vaccines against it may

be ineffective.

What we could be seeing in the near future is literally what Darwin

would call the survival of the fittest; a situation where anyone whose

immune system could not fight this form of flu would die off and those

that could combat it would live.

Whether we were created by God or came out of the primordial slime and

evolved, we are in either case mortal and subject to diseases and mass-

extinctions/cullings as any other plant or beast is. The inability of

people to grasp this simple and frightening concept will more likely

than not be the biggest factor in determining whether or not we will

successfully develop vaccines soon enough or whether we will twiddle

out thumbs in the hope that nothing will happen to us.

This is why scientists are getting the word out. Will it be as bad as

they are saying? probably not. Will it be worse than anything we have

seen in recent decades? Probably so.

Better to be safe than sorry, even if it does cause consternation and

annoyance among the general populace.

Tom

I'm on the fence between believing it's really a threat and looking

at is as a contrived scare to divert peoples' attentions away from

other issues and to get people to take vaccines and buy tamiflu.

November 8, 2005

So true, . All it takes for a little upset to the precarious

balance that our world is trying to keep.

>

> In a message dated 11/8/2005 10:42:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> no_reply writes:

>

> Not that I am looking forward to this, but right now the bird flu

> kills one out of every two people it comes in contact with and

tests

> have shown that it has already mutated in human hosts, although it

> cannot yet spread from human to human. But if it does, and if the

> 50% death rate remains, and if the flu spread around the entire

> world, it would halve the human population and the world would be

> less crowded, sort of like it was 30 years ago when I was a kid.

>

> And life would not be that bad for those who survived either.

There

> would be all this stuff around with half as many people left alive

> to use it, and all the monetary and material wealth that had been

> accumulated by the dead people would be passed on to the survivors.

>

> Not that it would be paradise. The loss of all those people would

be

> incredibly sad, but one has to ask oneself if " progress " as we

know

> it is heading in the right direction anyway. With society

possibly

> about to be fragmented through this impending catastrophy, perhaps

> those that remain will THINK about what they will do and how they

> will do it going forward, and the animal and natural world would

> hopefully benefit from such consideration.

>

> Tom

>

> Actually this is a flawed analysis. A bird flu pandemic would be

> catastrophic even if it only killed a few percent of people and not

50%.

>

> The pandemic wouldn't be just a sudden strike over in a few weeks.

Rather,

> it would be a cycle that could last for years. It would rise and

fall in

> different parts of the world or even parts of a single nation at

different times.

> Things would ease and then it would return again. The mental toll

on all

> would tremendous.

>

> Since manufacturing has spread out globally, the global nature of

the

> pandemic would affect trade. Nations would rightly place

quaranteens against

> nations with a heavy outbreak, which would necessarily cut off

trade with that

> nation. So, if China closed its borders or a quaranteen was placed

against it,

> then all those manufactured goods would not be delivered possibly

for months.

> That would result in empty shelves as supplies ran out.

>

> This could also happen internally. If certain cities were

guaranteened, then

> that could disrupt larger trade, especially if those were major

port cities.

> Likewise, if truck drivers, pilots and train engineers fell sick,

then

> transportation would break down. This again would lead to supply

problems.

>

> Supply problems would lead to an economic crisis. Most Western

societies

> depend on comsumer spending to one degree or another. If there were

no more

> goods to buy, businesses would fail. Other larger businesses, like

say Walmart,

> would see their profits and earnings fall, which would lower their

stock

> prices. Those falling prices would affect people's stored wealth.

Bear in mind,

> much of the wealth today isn't gold or things like that. It exists

as numbers in

> a bank computer or rests on the value of stocks. Houses have

value, but if

> there was a pandemic, housing prices would fall. There could be

many houses

> left vacant because people died. The more vacant houses, the more

the price

> would drop, especially if there were many more houses than people.

>

> There might be a lot of things left lying around, but what are we

talking

> about here? We are talking about looting the sick and dead. And for

what? It

> wouldn't be for anything with any real value. TV's, radios,

computers, etc. What

> value do they have? Very little really since they are all but

disposable

> commodities these days. Its not like people have stashes of gold

and silver

> anymore, nor do they would they have stockpiles of barter goods

like cigarettes,

> medicine and such. Anything looted would be gone in short order.

>

> What also likely see if the pandemic was really bad, was an end to

global

> trade for some time. I don't really see that as a bad thing since

it would bring

> back industry to the US and Europe that has been shipped overseas.

Granted

> it might take the government to force people to do some jobs, but

that would

> be a necessary step.

>

> Speaking of government, much of the stored wealth would no doubt be

swalled

> by Leviathan. Think about it. Spending slows, people are dying and

business is

> slowing. All of that means tax recipts would be falling and demand

for

> services would likely be growing greatly. So what do they do? Do

they radically

> reconfigure social programs to account for the disaster or do they

raise taxes

> and raid the wealth of the dead? If you guessed the first, I have

some

> property on Mars to sell you.

>

> Bush has put money into preventing a pandemic, but that's really a

joke. The

> National Insitute of Health and the CDC already spend many times

more than

> that on researching communicable disease. The problem lies with the

fact that

> there is only ONE US maker of flu vaccines and it is using 30 year

old, small

> batch technology. All the others have been sued out of business or

overseas,

> well sued and underpaid by the government for its product. What

needs to be

> done is increase facilities with modern technology so vaccines can

be mass

> produced in a hurry. This same applies to drug makers. Only one

company makes

> Tamiflu, the best anti-viral we have. Patents are an issue, but

they could

> license other firms to make it. The problem is, there aren't any

other firms.

> Most of them have been sued out of business too. Just look at what

happened to

> Merck of Vioxx. The warnings were published and well known, but

still a

> handful off the millions who took it died or had heart attacks and

they sued.

> That's tragic for them, but it is no reason to put the company out

of business.

> Those lawsuits also eat up money that could go to researching

Vioxx 2 that

> doesn't have those side effects ot a more effective Tamiflu.

>

> Anyway, society is more technological and interdependant that it

was at the

> time of the Black Death that killed a third of Europe. Most people

them lived

> on farms and could support themselves in hard times. These days

only 4% live

> on farms with about 70% living in cities or the Suburbs. We won't

have the

> luxury of close the farm gates and growing our own food. What we

need to do is

> prevent this pandemic from hitting the country too hard.

>

November 8, 2005

Hi ,

Yes, my analysis is flawed. But I am thinking about what would

happen after the epidemic ended. It IS a combination of fantasy and

the fantastic.

I suspect in reality that there would be a breif period of anarchy

during which time societies all over the world would be forced to

restructure themselves and reassess what was important to themselves

and what wasn't.

Opportunists would take advantage of this time to loot, plunder,

rape, and rob.

There would be martial law and general pandemonium, and even the law-

abiding citizenry would eb doubtful of their governements' ability

to handle and manage the crime and choas, and they would be ready to

overthrow their governments due to the problems the governments

would have had managing the initial epidemic. (Think world-wide New

Orleans/Katrina backlash).

After this nebulous and unproductive period, I could see new -but

modified- versions of old governments being assembled, (one assumes

here that 50% of all governments would get wiped out - they can

isolate themselves, but if even one of them gets sick, they cannot

prevent its spread amongst themselves) and you would also see a

collectivisation of labor not seen since WWII.

People would be assessed for their skills and placed in

positions/jobs where they were most useful. Labor would be focused

on the areas it was focused on 4,000 years ago: Survival.

Even so, life would be better. While people would be doing things

like burning wood to cook and stay warm while electricity is out,

there would be half as many people in the world, and since the

majority of the pollutors have historically been in industrialized

nations, and the drop in population among this group would be fifty

percent or so, the PERCENTAGE of pollutants would go down more than

50% due to the loss in manufacturing even as wood and coal fires for

cooking and heating increase.

With 50% of the population dead, and with their houses vacant,

perhaps the surviving homeless could be put in them, and with these

homes being stocked up furniture and supplies, they could, for the

first time in their lives, live in reasonable comfort.

Life would become much more agrarian, much less industrial, and we

would no longer be focused on getting into space, but nurturing the

space we have, since doing so would determine whether or not we

survived.

If an epidemic were to wipe half of us out, I could still be very

optimistic despite all the death. I would see it as an opportunity

to wipe the old slate clean and start afresh.

Tom

In a message dated 11/8/2005 10:42:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

no_reply writes:

Not that I am looking forward to this, but right now the bird flu

kills one out of every two people it comes in contact with and tests

have shown that it has already mutated in human hosts, although it

cannot yet spread from human to human. But if it does, and if the

50% death rate remains, and if the flu spread around the entire

world, it would halve the human population and the world would be

less crowded, sort of like it was 30 years ago when I was a kid.

And life would not be that bad for those who survived either. There

would be all this stuff around with half as many people left alive

to use it, and all the monetary and material wealth that had been

accumulated by the dead people would be passed on to the survivors.

Not that it would be paradise. The loss of all those people would be

incredibly sad, but one has to ask oneself if " progress " as we know

it is heading in the right direction anyway. With society possibly

about to be fragmented through this impending catastrophy, perhaps

those that remain will THINK about what they will do and how they

will do it going forward, and the animal and natural world would

hopefully benefit from such consideration.

Tom

Actually this is a flawed analysis. A bird flu pandemic would be

catastrophic even if it only killed a few percent of people and not

50%.

The pandemic wouldn't be just a sudden strike over in a few weeks.

Rather, it would be a cycle that could last for years. It would rise

and fall in different parts of the world or even parts of a single

nation at different times. Things would ease and then it would

return again. The mental toll on all would tremendous.

Since manufacturing has spread out globally, the global nature of

the pandemic would affect trade. Nations would rightly place

quaranteens against nations with a heavy outbreak, which would

necessarily cut off trade with that nation. So, if China closed its

borders or a quaranteen was placed against it, then all those

manufactured goods would not be delivered possibly for months. That

would result in empty shelves as supplies ran out.

This could also happen internally. If certain cities were

guaranteened, then that could disrupt larger trade, especially if

those were major port cities. Likewise, if truck drivers, pilots and

train engineers fell sick, then transportation would break down.

This again would lead to supply problems.

Supply problems would lead to an economic crisis. Most Western

societies depend on comsumer spending to one degree or another. If

there were no more goods to buy, businesses would fail. Other larger

businesses, like say Walmart, would see their profits and earnings

fall, which would lower their stock prices. Those falling prices

would affect people's stored wealth. Bear in mind, much of the

wealth today isn't gold or things like that. It exists as numbers in

a bank computer or rests on the value of stocks. Houses have value,

but if there was a pandemic, housing prices would fall. There could

be many houses left vacant because people died. The more vacant

houses, the more the price would drop, especially if there were many

more houses than people.

There might be a lot of things left lying around, but what are we

talking about here? We are talking about looting the sick and dead.

And for what? It wouldn't be for anything with any real value. TV's,

radios, computers, etc. What value do they have? Very little really

since they are all but disposable commodities these days. Its not

like people have stashes of gold and silver anymore, nor do they

would they have stockpiles of barter goods like cigarettes, medicine

and such. Anything looted would be gone in short order.

What also likely see if the pandemic was really bad, was an end to

global trade for some time. I don't really see that as a bad thing

since it would bring back industry to the US and Europe that has

been shipped overseas. Granted it might take the government to force

people to do some jobs, but that would be a necessary step.

Speaking of government, much of the stored wealth would no doubt be

swalled by Leviathan. Think about it. Spending slows, people are

dying and business is slowing. All of that means tax recipts would

be falling and demand for services would likely be growing greatly.

So what do they do? Do they radically reconfigure social programs to

account for the disaster or do they raise taxes and raid the wealth

of the dead? If you guessed the first, I have some property on Mars

to sell you.

Bush has put money into preventing a pandemic, but that's really a

joke. The National Insitute of Health and the CDC already spend many

times more than that on researching communicable disease. The

problem lies with the fact that there is only ONE US maker of flu

vaccines and it is using 30 year old, small batch technology. All

the others have been sued out of business or overseas, well sued and

underpaid by the government for its product. What needs to be done

is increase facilities with modern technology so vaccines can be

mass produced in a hurry. This same applies to drug makers. Only one

company makes Tamiflu, the best anti-viral we have. Patents are an

issue, but they could license other firms to make it. The problem

is, there aren't any other firms. Most of them have been sued out of

business too. Just look at what happened to Merck of Vioxx. The

warnings were published and well known, but still a handful off the

millions who took it died or had heart attacks and they sued. That's

tragic for them, but it is no reason to put the company out of

business. Those lawsuits also eat up money that could go to

researching Vioxx 2 that doesn't have those side effects ot a more

effective Tamiflu.

Anyway, society is more technological and interdependant that it was

at the time of the Black Death that killed a third of Europe. Most

people them lived on farms and could support themselves in hard

times. These days only 4% live on farms with about 70% living in

cities or the Suburbs. We won't have the luxury of close the farm

gates and growing our own food. What we need to do is prevent this

pandemic from hitting the country too hard.

November 8, 2005

Interesting comparison to AIDS. People are funny in that AIDS was

really scary at first and now that the threat is actually worse as

it's spreading, people are less worried. Even though the expensive

drug cocktails that can be taken to hopefully keep HIV from

developing into AIDS exist now, it still is a scary and debilitating

thing to have. And anyway, people weren't too worried before the drug

cocktail. But for the bird flu it does all depend on human to human

transmission which hasn't happened yet, but if people get lax like

they do with other things and forget about, that could be a problem.

Do you know what they say is the chance of it mutating, or do they

know? I'm sorry, I can't look it up, I'm running out of brain cells

posting so much while trying to work, shame on me, but my job is

boring!

-- In , environmental1st2003

<no_reply@y...> wrote:

>

> ,

>

> I think it's real, although I doubt we'll actually see human to

human

> transmission this year, and by NEXT year people will have gotten so

> bored with the whole end-of-the-world-epidemic scenario that they

may

> wind up getting overrun by the disease.

>

> The threat is real, and I will explain why in a moment.

>

> If there is any duping going on, it is regarding HIV/AIDS.

>

> You have to keep in mind that up until this moment in history where

> this supposed flu epidemic is about to occur, the greatest OTHER

> plague we have plundering the earth is HIV/AIDS, and though we

> frequently see news blurbs about African countries suffering under

> AIDS, most people in the western world are largely unconcerned

about

> it.

>

> Hetrerosexuals mistakenly belive that AIDS is almost exclusively

> confined to the homosexual, prison, or IV drug-using communities

when

> in fact the transmission of the HIV virus is also occuring in

places

> most people would not have thought of. Transmission among the

elderly,

> for example, is fairly high, mainly because they aren't using

condoms

> during sex, and because many widows and widowers do not want to re-

> marry so late in life, or want to retain their independence for

other

> reasons, they may have multiple partners. (Their logic is: If women

> cannot get pregnant, and neither partner has any STDs, why use

> condoms?).

>

> Since it can take 10 years for the symptoms of AIDS to manifest

> themselves, the 42 million known infected people walking the earth

> with this disease represents the merest fraction of those who MIGHT

be

> infected with HIV. And since most of the 28 million people who have

> died from the disease mostly died in countries that are off the

radar

> screen of most westerners, the disease has failed to inspire people

> with the proper sense of alarm.

>

> Yet up until this year, HIV/AIDS was the biggest threat to man's

> existence that we've had in close to a hundred years.

>

> Now we have this looming flu epidemic which could have a high

> communicability rate, a 50% death rate, and which kills people

between

> one and three days after infection. Medical scientists believe that

if

> an initial outbreak were not contained, this epidemic could spread

> across the world in 28 weeks.

>

> Thus you'd have as many as 3 billion people dying in just over half

a

> year.

>

> Now the reality of the matter is that something well short of that

> scenario is more likely to happen. Perhaps one in fifty will die,

or,

> where better medical facilities are available, one in a hundred, or

> one in two hundred, and the spread will take place over a period of

> years, by which time some sort of vaccine will be developed that

will

> reduce the deadliness of this new flu strain.

>

> It's important to remember that there are plenty of bacteria and

> viruses among us that we have already developed complete and

absolute

> immunity to, and so their effects on us are harmless, but this flu

> appears to be something that we haven't seen before, and mutates at

a

> rate so quick that standard, run-of-the-mill vaccines against it

may

> be ineffective.

>

> What we could be seeing in the near future is literally what Darwin

> would call the survival of the fittest; a situation where anyone

whose

> immune system could not fight this form of flu would die off and

those

> that could combat it would live.

>

> Whether we were created by God or came out of the primordial slime

and

> evolved, we are in either case mortal and subject to diseases and

mass-

> extinctions/cullings as any other plant or beast is. The inability

of

> people to grasp this simple and frightening concept will more

likely

> than not be the biggest factor in determining whether or not we

will

> successfully develop vaccines soon enough or whether we will

twiddle

> out thumbs in the hope that nothing will happen to us.

>

> This is why scientists are getting the word out. Will it be as bad

as

> they are saying? probably not. Will it be worse than anything we

have

> seen in recent decades? Probably so.

>

> Better to be safe than sorry, even if it does cause consternation

and

> annoyance among the general populace.

>

> Tom

>

> I'm on the fence between believing it's really a threat and looking

> at is as a contrived scare to divert peoples' attentions away from

> other issues and to get people to take vaccines and buy tamiflu.

>

November 8, 2005

"Do you know what they say is the chance of it mutating, or do theyknow?"The chances are exceptional that it WILL mutate. I watched a show on the virus (can't remember its name) and they basically say the same thing this article (from March) said:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2 & objectid=10123441"Flu pandemics occur when three developments take place: a virus emerges to which humans have little or no immunity; it is able to infect people, and it mutates to spread efficiently among them. "The bird flu virus - codenamed H5NI - has crossed the first two barriers, and experts fear it is now about to breach the third. "The TV program that I watched said that the further the flu spreads, the more likely it is to find a human host that can incubate the disease and cause it to incubate into something that is transmissible between humans.As I write this, I now see these headlines:http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=161849794 & p=y6y85x5xx"Vietnam confirms 42nd bird flu death08/11/2005 - 12:44:30 "The country worst hit by bird flu, Vietnam, confirmed its 42nd human death today from the virus, as the World Health Organisation warned governments to be ready for when – not if – a deadly pandemic arrives that could kill millions."http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/nov0705avflu.htmlIndonesia has two H5N1 cases; China seeks WHO helpNov 7, 2005 (CIDRAP News) – Two more human cases of H5N1 infection—one of which was fatal—have been confirmed in Indonesia, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced today.

November 8, 2005

, you bring up some interesting points, but your response

presumes that those who are left over would try to resume the

standard of living they had before the pandemic hit, and it also

presumes that this standard of living was good for them.

In viewing " civilized " society as I see it now, there are a lot of

faults with it. It is consumerism and conspicuous consumption that

got us to the point where our world is almost too polluted to live

in, too populated to reside in, too devoid of resources to keep us

living at this level, and too unhappy with itself generally speaking.

Place everyone in in a crisis situation at once and it causes people

to value what they have before they lose it, and to value what's

left after they've lost most of what they have.

This dictum applies also to when you lose people. Perhaps I am an

idealist, but I believe many of those that remain will be those that

sheltered themselves from the epidemic: folks like us Aspies who

don't want to make trouble. And the remainder will appreciate that

their situations have changed so dramatically and that they have

lost so many people, that perhaps they ought to be kinder and

gentler with those that are left.

At any rate, I think half of what the middle classes and above have

in their houses these days they really don't NEED. Put people in a

position where they have food, shelter, clothing, friends, adequate

medical care...and take away the video games, DVDs, TV, and all the

rest of the things that people believe are important but really

aren't, and what's left is two options:

1) Twiddling one's thumbs, or

2) Getting to know thyself and thy neighbor.

Wouldn't it be a pleasure if we could retrieve and relive the days

when everyone on a block or in a neighborhood knew one another and

people didn't have to lock their doors when they went out or went to

bed at night.

I can see it your way too . It's hard to predict what will

happen if anything happens at all. But I do think that Aspies and

other " shut-ins " might come out of such a pandemic in greater

numbers than neurotypicals simply because our reclusiveness reduces

our exposure to the disease in the first place and because our

lifestyle choices and habits gravitate more toward healing and

recovery than the self-destructive habits and self-defeating

lifestyle choices and self-destructive habits practiced by non-

Aspies.

Tom

Administrator

I don't think that having the human population cut in half would

improve things for anyone.

If the human population sees a sharp decline, it would likely lower

the standard of living for everyone. There are many reasons for

this. First, it would destroy international trade, which would

likely result in higher costs for things because they would have to

be made domestically at higher wages rates and many factories would

have to be built from scratch. Second, supply of resources would be

cut. Supplies of everything from oil to cocoa to coffee would be

affected, as would year round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables.

Third, there would be fewer people to purchase goods, resulting in

fewer made and higher cost per unit.

Just because people survived doesn't mean they would feel any

kinship toward each other. More likely we would end up closer to a

tribal organization with much more fighting and violence between

groups and travelling bands of bandits. Resources, especially food,

would be more scarce and this always brings out the worst in many

people.

Medical care would also take a hit. This would of course make live

less pleasant for just about everyone, not to mention shorter.

The greatest threat would be from government. Tom mentions analyzing

all the people and putting them to work. Well, that's not a bad

idea, but that would require giving the government enormous and

intrusive power. What I can really see happening is the government

taking over the economy and issuing a card or implanted device that

would be required in order to buy and sell. I can even see the

government issuing everyone the same amount of money every month,

but at the same time taking just about everything privately owned.

Such steps might, might, be necessary in a very hard survival

situation, but once granted, the government would not willingly give

up that power. So, for the sake of survival, humanity would be

selling itself into slavery yet again.

I don't think things would become more agrarian either because there

isn't the need to. A farmer with a few machines could do more work

than hundreds of people. Putting all those people to work in the

fields then would be a waste of human potential. It would be better

to have those people working at other things and rebuilding the

economy so that there would be capital to research prevention and

cures for the next pandemic.

It probably would force a rethink of our world. What would probably

happen is a return to regionalism. That is to say instead of global

trade, trade would be focussed within regions. The North American

Free Trade Agreement is an example. The US, Canada, Mexico, Central

America and the Carribean could be one such region. Production and

resources would be geared toward that region. Europe would probably

be another and others would probably develop as well. Regions could

trade with each other, but I think each region would try to provide

its own necessities as much as possible.

But really, I see not a new, enlightened humanity rising from an

Avian flu pandemic, but rather one that has been beaten up and could

well have sold its future freedom to the government.

November 9, 2005

,

this was very well put! Thanks for your attempt at broadening our

perspective here. Couldn't agree more.

Inger

Re: Silliness

But see, that's just why I'm saying that they can be moral judgements-

-for the same reason that moral judgements are made against the

rich: they must not have had to do anything to earn it, they must

have done something illegal or immoral to get it, they're

just 'lucky' and were in the right time and/or place, and other

stereotypes like these. You worked really hard but who saw the full

extent of your effort but you? Someone comes along at a point where

you're enjoying the fruits of your labor and makes judgements that

have no basis in reality. For the same reasons, someone might look

at someone who can't find work as lazy, not seeing what efforts they

have made to little avail. I once saw a talk show that had a panel of

upset and crying wealthy people. They were in pain because no one

would acknowledge that they could have the same problems as the rest

of humanity--one woman said she couldn't be sick because people would

tell her, 'You're rich, you're not allowed to be sick, you have it

all.' Prejudice is wrong whereever you find it. But what I am

saying, which is just naturally hard for people to understand, is

that many of us by being white and middle class have advantages that

we take for granted and just assume that everyone is born with. We

pick up things such as how we speak and think and understand the

world, as well as having opportunities open to us that we assume are

open to anyone that works hard and applies themself or has the right

attitude. Think of things your family did, as an example, that you

just assumed everyone did until you got older and learned other

families do things different ways. This is even more subtle and

intrinsic than that and is the reason most people do not understand

the differences. Surely you can see this in being Aspergers where

people expect certain things of you that they just assume you have or

can do and refuse to believe that you don't have them or can do them,

because they can/they have.

November 9, 2005

Very good point, . Hadn't thought of that.

Inger

Re: Re: Silliness

Tom,

AIDS is indeed a problem. It would not have been had it been originally treated like other incurable, communicable diseases of the past like Thyphoid, Tuberculousis and others. Had the first indected people been isolated and a concerted effort made to find others they might have infected and so on, and all of those people isolated, then it would not be much of an issue in the US and Europe today. Sadly, it would still be a problem in Africa. However, most people there don't have the right idea about the disease either so it spreads. Some countries are having better luck than others though. Those are the nations that accept the scientific basis of the disease and use Western methods for combating it.

The current bird flu very likely won't become a pandemic. You say it kills in a few days and it does. It also has a very high mortality rate. Those two things combined work against the disease becoming a major problem because it kills too many too fast to spread effectively. IT is like Ebola. Ebola killed fast and also most of the people it infected. This prevented it from spreading beyond a village or two and made quaranteen easy: they only had to restrict traffic for a week or so before the disease burned itself out.

Bird flu will be more of a threat if it develops a lower mortality rate and lenghtens its duration. The regular flu lasts for up to two weeks but kills few people. As a result, the season lasts months and infects up to half of the population. If bird flu reached that duration and virility, with a mortality rate of no more than 10% or so, then it would be a serious problem because then it would be able to spread and keep recurring.

November 9, 2005

In a message dated 11/9/2005 10:39:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

I also feel that the powers that be have made provisions for themselves and a minority of others in case of disaster. Meanwhile they are using the consumers to make money off of with no care as to their health or safety because 1)it's all about money, and 2)if and when the masses die due to what they are consuming or lack of care (pharmaceuticals, junk food that is laced with harmful additives--some not identified properly or at all on the label, lack of REAL health care, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, lupus and other societal 'diseases', etc., all of which could be prevented or cured but that info is either ignored or hidden from the average person and the average person is brainwashed to believe their best interests are at heart or at least that they would be told whether or not something is bad for them, that's okay because key areas in the world (but not he world as a whole) are overpopulated and resources are being used up that the elite want for themselves.

This is not just perception, it is true. The President has a couple of secure bunkers that he can retreat to, but that is logical since he is the head of state. However, Congress also built itself a huge retreat in the West Virginia mountains that would have been big enough for all of them with supplies to last for months and space to allow them to continue governing. Of course there was only room for them, not their families or anyone else but some workers. What makes this so bad is that during the cold war, when this was built, there was opposition by many of them for telling people how to build proper fallout shelters for themselves and setting up civil defense in case there was a nuclear attack on a city.

Congress is such a trip though. You know they have their own health care plan which is excellent and their own retirement package in lieu of Social Security, and if you guessed it pay out a lot more because it earns interest on their private individual accounts go to the head of the class. Both of these could serve as perfect models for the rest of the country, yet most fight doing that.

Did you also know that Congress exempts itself from many of the laws it imposes on the rest of us? They are exempt from sexual harassment laws, racial quota hiring laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act and others. Basically you can figure if there is a law that is regulates behavior or who you can hire or fire, Congress has probable exempted itself from it.

It has really always been that way. Those with means will look after themselves first. Now, I don't begrudge a private individual with means for preparing for disaster, that is just good sense. But what is onerous is that in our democratic system that the politicians would play such games and worse get away with it. I guesss as long as they bring the goodies home to the unions and their other chief voting blocks, those groups don't care what the politician does otherwise.

November 9, 2005

In a message dated 11/9/2005 10:39:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

I also feel that the powers that be have made provisions for themselves and a minority of others in case of disaster. Meanwhile they are using the consumers to make money off of with no care as to their health or safety because 1)it's all about money, and 2)if and when the masses die due to what they are consuming or lack of care (pharmaceuticals, junk food that is laced with harmful additives--some not identified properly or at all on the label, lack of REAL health care, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, lupus and other societal 'diseases', etc., all of which could be prevented or cured but that info is either ignored or hidden from the average person and the average person is brainwashed to believe their best interests are at heart or at least that they would be told whether or not something is bad for them, that's okay because key areas in the world (but not he world as a whole) are overpopulated and resources are being used up that the elite want for themselves.

This is not just perception, it is true. The President has a couple of secure bunkers that he can retreat to, but that is logical since he is the head of state. However, Congress also built itself a huge retreat in the West Virginia mountains that would have been big enough for all of them with supplies to last for months and space to allow them to continue governing. Of course there was only room for them, not their families or anyone else but some workers. What makes this so bad is that during the cold war, when this was built, there was opposition by many of them for telling people how to build proper fallout shelters for themselves and setting up civil defense in case there was a nuclear attack on a city.

Congress is such a trip though. You know they have their own health care plan which is excellent and their own retirement package in lieu of Social Security, and if you guessed it pay out a lot more because it earns interest on their private individual accounts go to the head of the class. Both of these could serve as perfect models for the rest of the country, yet most fight doing that.

Did you also know that Congress exempts itself from many of the laws it imposes on the rest of us? They are exempt from sexual harassment laws, racial quota hiring laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act and others. Basically you can figure if there is a law that is regulates behavior or who you can hire or fire, Congress has probable exempted itself from it.

It has really always been that way. Those with means will look after themselves first. Now, I don't begrudge a private individual with means for preparing for disaster, that is just good sense. But what is onerous is that in our democratic system that the politicians would play such games and worse get away with it. I guesss as long as they bring the goodies home to the unions and their other chief voting blocks, those groups don't care what the politician does otherwise.

November 9, 2005

Tom,

I have some survival skills and some manuals that I can refer to if need be. Right now I have about 2 weeks of canned goods in my emergency stash and water purifying gear so I could get water from the creek behind the house if the water is turned off. I'd probably also dig a hole near the creek and get water from that because the water would probably be clearer than in the creek itself. I've also got a .22 and a pellet gun so if I had to I could hunt the squirrels and raccoons. I want to invest in a few months worth of MRE's or long duration camping rations but my mom won't hear of it. I might just do it anyway though.

I would garden, but the only place for it is the front yard. My mother has also been dead against my using the yard for learning to garden too. Well, if it came to it I'm sure I could make a go of it, though I would have to defend it against the raccoons. They have ruined every previous attempt at planting some little patched of things, like a group of sunflowers with other things mixed in.

Drug companies are looking into new antibiotics. The problem is that there isn't much demand for them, yet. You are right that improper use of them has given rising to drug resistant strains. This is one place where the government could do something right. They could offer a bounty reward for the new antibiotics and a bigger one still for the next generation of germ fighter. The first company to develop these would get the bounty. The British government used to do this and it really spurred development, just like the X-Prize did. Cutting out the big lawsuits would help too as would easing licensing and such.

The government already does buy huge amounts of medicine and vaccines at below market costs. This is one reason why some vaccine makers have gone out of business. The government would order large batches of vaccines, which naturally lowers cost, but they would also pay very little for them. What the government paid was barely enough to cover cost let alone allow for research and development or profit. No profit for the company means investors leave, which means less money for operations including R & D and eventually it folds. This is why 10 years ago a flu shot cost about $5 and now it can be as much as $15. Not only are there just a handful of makers, but the government still buys a lot of the vaccine for next to nothing so the company has to try to make it up by charging individuals more.

Bread and Circusses. It has probably always been like that. The more "entertained", morally debauched a people are, the easier they are to rule because they don't pay attention to what the government is doing. When you have policies that pit them against each other, like our racial, sexual and ideological awarding of government spoils does; a constant barrage against any kind of morality or limits to behavior and it only gets worse. However, this chaos will only serve the elites for so long. Eventually there will either be a backlash or it will all fall apart.

November 9, 2005

How could I possibly have forgotten the most egregious exemption the politicians have given themselve? Several years ago there was an anti-telemarketer law passed because tele-marketers had become so profligate that people began to hate hearing the phone ring.

You guessed it though: the politicians exempted themselves from this too. Yesterday was election day. The day before that I got around 20 calls from telemarketers, mostly supporting the Democrats, to get out the vote and to vote for their candidate. Election day itself I got about 12. Just now, the day after the election, I got a call from one of their recorded caller machines I guess they forgot to turn off.

Really it was to the point those two days that I was about to take the phone off the hook. I didn't because I was expecting an important call, but those telemarketers from both parties started feeling my wrath toward the end of the day.

November 9, 2005

In a message dated 11/9/2005 12:55:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

What happens when a population gets decimated is that many of those with special skills and knowledge die too. Might not the bird flu lead to the same 'intellectual recession' as during the Dark Ages and in Russia after most of the intelligentia was killed or fled to the West?

The Black Death did largely strike urban populations rather than rural ones. It can be guessed that many specialists did die from the plague. However, given that in many cities the streets were covered with several inches of excrement, it is a wonder any level of population existed at all.

It could happen that the Bird Flu could kill off the intelligent people. Doctors and nurses would be on the front line and many would likely get infected. It is also possible that other good people like those volunteering to help, paramedics, police, fire and the military would also be exposed. As technologically dependant as society is these days, the loss of the intelligent people will hit harder than ever in the past.

>Though today we still have so much knowledge preserved in books and on the net. Wonder what would happen if all computers got zapped by a mega EMP? Would we still be able to manage?

ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) is a side effect of nuclear explosions. It can burn out electronic components and cause electrical power grids to fail. This threat has long been known but little has been done about it. It would cost between 3% and 5% more per unit to make any given electronic device EMP proof, but this has not been done. This is amazing giving how tech dependant the economy is. Everything is driven by computers that talk to each other to organize shipping and stocking in stores. An EMP could knock all of that out and I'm not sure people know how to set up a paper and telephone system again.

All this technology is convenient and fast, but I think the old ways should be maintained as a backup. If not an EMP, a computer virus, hardware failure or power outage could take all that out. This is one of the many reasons I oppose the cashless society. What happens when ALL of your wealth is reduced to numbers in a computer and that computer fails? You're instantly dirt poor with nothing but the clothes on your back and no other recourse. The bank may complain, but we need physical cash money as a backup.

November 9, 2005

That Bush was secreted away after 9/11 only makes sense. If the terrorists had managed to kill the President it would have been a real feather in their cap. Its not that he is irreplaceable, we have the Vice President and a further line of succession over 12 steps long. His loss would be more of a psychological blow to the country than a real crisis. The Founding Fathers knew this which is why they had President, Vice President, Speaker of the House as line of succession. During the Cold War when so many coudl have been wiped out in one fell swoop, more steps were added, including military and civilians, and they were kept well separated in case their was a massive nuclear attack. That way, someone would always be in command, even if it took a little while to see who on the list was still alive and operational.

The media in a way does serve the public, but it also serves its own agenda. The people want to see blood, fire and tragedy, so they get it. They want to see the high and might made low and they love a good scandal, so they get it. The media by and large is populated by Democrats and they hate Bush and the Republicans. So they find stories that fit what the people want AND reflect badly on those they had and pour it on.

Unfortunately, what the media does can have unintended consequences. In their lust to make Katrina's aftermath as terrible as possible, their overblown stories may have hampered rescue efforts. Documents and interviews from the Red Cross and FEMA show that they heard the media stories of the chaos, murder, rape and armed gangs around the Superdome and the Convention Center. Because of this, the agencies feared for the safety of their people and held up sending them in for several days until they could get police escort. Of course those media stories turned out not to be true. So a lot of the suffering those people endured lies squarely on the media. But has there been even one apology or retraction? No. There won't be either because they did what they set out to do and the people have already forgotten about Katrina anyway.

South Park did a really good parody of all this. They had a flood caused when the boys broke a damn and a small town was flooded. The reporter was miles outside of town and was reporting looting mass killings and riots. When the anchor asked if the reporter had seen this himself, the reporter said no, but he was reporting it. He also said that 100's of millions of people died in the flooding, and since the town only had a population of 8,000, that was a major tragedy. That's pretty much the way the media handle Katrina and really I did get a sense of a letdown amongst them that there really weren't 10,000 dead but only about 1,000 all along the coast. It is interesting also that they barely covered the Pakistan earthquake that killed at least 50,000 people. Very little about that.

Wiilliam

November 9, 2005

I'm trying to identify plants that can be eaten (although it's hard

because one plant can look like another). Where I live kudzu is so

abundant and is edible, I'm not as worried as I would be if food gets

scarce. I wish I had survival skills. My husband does somewhat as he

is from a developing country and was poor as a child. Oh, the things

he's learned and the resourcefulness he has from not growing up as a

foolish consumer.

In case of a disaster, I often picture the most foolish of the

consumers attacking each other out of desperation.

I also feel that the powers that be have made provisions for

themselves and a minority of others in case of disaster. Meanwhile

they are using the consumers to make money off of with no care as to

their health or safety because 1)it's all about money, and 2)if and

when the masses die due to what they are consuming or lack of care

(pharmaceuticals, junk food that is laced with harmful additives--

some not identified properly or at all on the label, lack of REAL

health care, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, lupus and other

societal 'diseases', etc., all of which could be prevented or cured

but that info is either ignored or hidden from the average person and

the average person is brainwashed to believe their best interests are

at heart or at least that they would be told whether or not something

is bad for them, that's okay because key areas in the world (but not

he world as a whole) are overpopulated and resources are being used

up that the elite want for themselves.

>

> " Yes, but we are still left with a sickening feeling concerning our

> > (human) lack of understanding of and empathy for nature (Gaia). "

>

> I know I am! I live in a city that is in a growth period and seeing

> the trees crashing down and replaced with poorly built overly large

> homes on tiny plots of land crammed together is too depressing. The

> birds and animals flee and try to find homes. I get a lot of

> beautiful birds but they're starving and overcrowded. There are

> natural springs and streams being filled in and natural ecosystems

> and who knows what rare plants and animals are being lost. I saw

> some amazing creatures at a construction site, including a giant

> yellow moth! I really don't undertsand these crazy NTs! It also

> reminds me of the shows on HGTV. I like to watch the landcaping ones

> but I see that NTs will take a beautiful green backyard (they say

> it's ugly, overgrown and unusable-- there's their rapacious consumer

> mindset again!) and spend $20,000 and up to tear out old,

> established greenery and replace it with concrete & stone and other

> hardscape in order to have another 'room' on the outside of their

> house (as if they don't have enough rooms inside).

>

> They'll throw in a few plants so people know it's still a yard. Oh

> the ignorance and arrogance of people who forget they are tenants on

> the earth, not owners!

>

> I think that Gaia stuff is interesting. There does seem to be

> something like a living earth. Have you seen this amazing stuff

> about the properties of water: http://www.energetic-

> medicine.net/research/conciousness%20of%20water.htm

> >

> > See: http://www.oceansonline.com/gaiaho.htm

> >

> > Rainbow

> >

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and

> acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the

> folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>

November 9, 2005

" I wish I had survival skills. "

I think we all have instinctual survival skills, but the more we

immerse ourselves in material wealth, the less " survival " seems to

matter in the traditional sense and the more we suppress our

survival skills instead of trying to culture and develop them.

" In case of a disaster, I often picture the most foolish of the

consumers attacking each other out of desperation. "

This would be precisely what would happen. People will think short

term: " I have no food, therefore I will steal some, or kill to get

it. "

The sensible people will be rationing themselves on what they have

or what they can acquire while figuring out how to garden, what to

garden, and how to fish and hunt.

" I also feel that the powers that be have made provisions for

themselves and a minority of others in case of disaster. "

Surely they are, but these are the ones who are the most helpless.

When their supplies run out, they will be far behind the rabble they

govern, who will already have adapted to their new environment.

Unless this elite can hold power, they will be in far worse

condition than everyone else eventually. And you cannot forget that

the as the general public grows more self-sufficient, they will

increasingly resent the elite and see it as a liability which they

will want to replace with some of their own people, who will have an

appreciation for what it's like to struggle in the new world.

" Meanwhile they are using the consumers to make money off of with no

care as to their health or safety ....because key areas in the world

(but not he world as a whole) are overpopulated and resources are

being used up that the elite want for themselves. "

I'm glad you pointed this out.

Most drug companies have ceased to research and manufacture new

antibiotics because they are at this point not-profitable, which any

investor can understand, yet if bacteria continue to resist

antibiotics already on the market, they will once again begin to

infect and kill the very customers that make other drugs profitable.

Drug companies have lobbied politicians in the past to get them to

avoid passing a national health care plan that would have fixed drug

prices for consumers, and as a result, consumers will have to " shop "

between companies for the best price on drugs, and while consumers

may " negotiate " for lower prices, what company will give them lower

prices when the companies hold the power.

Give the masses what they want and they will be quiet. As long as

there is legalized gambling, porn on cable and the net, relatively

low taxes on alcohol, violence on TV, policies that

encourage " political correctness " so that anyone can do whatever

they please and not feel badly about it, and no caps on lawsuits so

that people can blame and sue others for frivolous reasons instead

of taking responsibility for their own actions, the people will

never rise up against their governments.

Just wanted to point something ELSE out too:

If a few people rise up and demand reform and accountability from

all sectors of society, woe betide them. People would rather stew in

problems of their own making, or have others HELP them out rather

than be forced to help themselves or be held accountable.

Tom

Administrator

November 9, 2005