Quoted: I did a little googling on Forest Mims, recognized the name immediately.  Yep, same guy I thought he was.  He wrote many of the how-to books for Radio Shack, among others. This Dr. Pianka is a dangerous person.

I recognized the name immediately I have probably a dozen of his books.

Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible.

well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives".

Dude, you are trying to morally justify killing billions of people.  This is not a kill one man to save a thousand, this is kill 90% of all humans in existance to save 10%.  You're a sick fuck for trying to justify this.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives".

No man has the right to choose if mankind survives or not. Hell, someone needs to stake this guy to a ant hill just be be sure he never attempts something like this. Kill emm before he gets started and that'll be for the good of mankind.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives".

Well so far, the earth has been able to support all of mankind.  And it doesn't look like natural resources are running out.  (Oil is not a resource necessary for life, although it does make it very nice).  Solar power for growing plants and water are renewable resources.

Granted, if the population grows way way high many years from now, then perhaps there will be overcrowding and lack of resources.  But that is not going to happen in our lifetimes or in our kids.  

And yes, it would still be immoral to go and kill people so that the earth would have a smaller population.  
Science must be governed by moral laws or else it eventally goes to madness and nothing is offlimits.  
Moral laws must have a basis.  In our country and in most of the world, the basis has been a religion or belief, a non tangible idea.

According to the vast majority of those beliefs, it would be wrong to kill people with a killer virus just to reduce the world population.  

Earth's population is allready killing itself off (in certain regions) with AIDS....

The stupid people keep fucking & the disease keeps spreading...

The Lemmings Syndrome

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives". Dude, you are trying to morally justify killing billions of people.  This is not a kill one man to save a thousand, this is kill 90% of all humans in existance to save 10%.  You're a sick fuck for trying to justify this.

What's even worse is that by his user name "PreMed_Gunner" is in training to be a DOCTOR...

Guess he has not been told of the Hippocratic Oath yet

Sick fuck indeed...

This guy does NOT have an army of followers as some of you describe.

That doesn't mean that he will never get one, it just means that right now, the guy is known for his mastery of gene frequencies in population studies, for being a top-notch herpetologist, and for having one leg much longer than the other.  

My buddy and I took a class together that he taught, and he certainly came off then as a goofy, somewhat bitter old fart, but the guy does NOT have a legion of followers ready to run off to the Congo looking for virulent pathogens to unleash upon an unsuspecting U.S. populace.

If he actively pursues such an end, he'll get what's coming to him.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives". Dude, you are trying to morally justify killing billions of people.  This is not a kill one man to save a thousand, this is kill 90% of all humans in existance to save 10%.  You're a sick fuck for trying to justify this. What's even worse is that by his user name "PreMed_Gunner" is in training to be a DOCTOR... Guess he has not been told of the Hippocratic Oath yet Sick fuck indeed...

I said I don't agree with it; however, there is a possible moral justification for eliminating 90% of the human pop.: that in doing so, you guarantee that mankind will be on this planet longer than he would be otherwise.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives". Dude, you are trying to morally justify killing billions of people.  This is not a kill one man to save a thousand, this is kill 90% of all humans in existance to save 10%.  You're a sick fuck for trying to justify this. What's even worse is that by his user name "PreMed_Gunner" is in training to be a DOCTOR... Guess he has not been told of the Hippocratic Oath yet Sick fuck indeed... I said I don't agree with it; however, there is a possible moral justification for eliminating 90% of the human pop.: that in doing so, you guarantee that mankind will be on this planet longer than he would be otherwise.

What, as miserable hunter-gatherers? Ignorant and little better than beasts? What a glorious destiny.

An attempt on your part to say thay genocide is "possibly morally justified" tells me that, yes, you are a sick fuck.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He isn't deciding who lives and dies, that is the wonder of using a virus; the strong, resistent, lucky individuals will live, while others die. It isn't as if he is saying,"we need to manufacture 5.5 billion rounds of 5.56 and go around shooting people in the head". I don't know if you can call him anything really besides an idealist. But this is incorrect.  There is no ebola virus in my neighborhood.  Someone would have to introduce it.  If it is him or one of his followers, then he is not some neutral observer - he is the perpetrator of the act.  He caused them to die.  Not the "wonder of the virus"  that was not there until he introduced it. Science at the exclusion of morals and God is just sick and indefensible. well, I presume there could be morality in the extinguishing of human lives; it is the whole,"is it better to kill one man to save a thousand, or should one let a thousand men die to save one man?" situation. In this case it is,"Let billions live and destroy mankind, or save mankind at the expense of billions of lives". Dude, you are trying to morally justify killing billions of people.  This is not a kill one man to save a thousand, this is kill 90% of all humans in existance to save 10%.  You're a sick fuck for trying to justify this. What's even worse is that by his user name "PreMed_Gunner" is in training to be a DOCTOR... Guess he has not been told of the Hippocratic Oath yet Sick fuck indeed... I said I don't agree with it; however, there is a possible moral justification for eliminating 90% of the human pop.: that in doing so, you guarantee that mankind will be on this planet longer than he would be otherwise.

Premed Gunner - I don't think you are someone that I would want to have around if worse got to worse in any situation: SHTF, combat, stress in the operating room.  It sounds like you lack the noble qualities which should be found in a doctor.  and Yes, I know that some doctors are in it for the money and lack morals and ethics.  
How would someone working with you know that if the situation benefited you, that you would not stab them in the back and justify it to yourself morally?  This trust is especially important in the Doctor-patient relationship.  
"Oh, I think I'll just let this patient die b/c their living would be a burden on society."
or
"They can't afford to pay so that must be survival of the fittest, better let them die so that the rest of the people in the world can benefit from the resources this patient might have used."    

If your opinions are such, then you better keep them to yourself, because no medical school in the US at least would admit you with such a morality.  Believe it or not, we in the medical profession still fancy ourselves as wanting to do some good for others, and help them to a better life, and don't want to kill people just to preserve resources.

Any virus that kills 90% of its victims reasonably quickly could never kill 90% of the entire population.

You would see precipitous die offs which would halt the progress of the virus. If everyone is dying there isn't anyone to walk around and spread the damn thing.

Quoted: Premed Gunner - I don't think you are someone that I would want to have around if worse got to worse in any situation: SHTF, combat, stress in the operating room.  It sounds like you lack the noble qualities which should be found in a doctor.  Yes, I know that some doctors are in it for the money and lack morals and ethics.

I have ethics; I am just arguing that from a scientific point of view, along with a humanist point of view: if humankind were to destroy itself by overpopulating, this choice would be easy to make:

90% dead, 10% still alive and well and thriving in the now very open world

versus

100% dead and the world being a decaying garbage dump.

I would personally choose the first option, based solely off of logic, and the desire to keep mankind around.

How would someone working with you know that if the situation benefited you, that you would not stab them in the back and justify it to yourself morally?

I am not materialistic; hell, if I got paid 30K a year to be a doctor, I would still do it, because I have never seen myself as anything besides a doctor and see it as a public service.

This trust is especially important in the Doctor-patient relationship.   "Oh, I think I'll just let this patient die b/c their living would be a burden on society." or "They can't afford to pay so that must be survival of the fittest, better let them die so that the rest of the people in the world can benefit from the resources this patient might have used."

These two situations(the culling of the flock with ebola, and my doctor-patient relationship) are comparing apples to oranges. My first priority as a doctor would be the health of my patients, and as far as I am concerned, money doesn't really come into the picture when it comes to emergency/life-saving treatment. I am just saying that if I were presented with the choice of mankind totally dieing, or mankind living with 10% of its population left... I would "flip the switch" without hesitation.

Quoted: What, as miserable hunter-gatherers? Ignorant and little better than beasts? What a glorious destiny. An attempt on your part to say thay genocide is "possibly morally justified" tells me that, yes, you are a sick fuck.

I would say that killing some people to save people as a whole definitely is something NOT beast-like; beast-like is breeding until your environment cannot support you anymore, then going extinct, which is exactly what we are doing.

It isn't genocide, it is a culling of population; there is no racial/ethnic/cultural bias in it, there is simply death.

Quoted: Herr Doktors! Vee must EXTERMINATE der untermenshen!

I hope your future patients get a second opinion.

Quoted: Quoted: Premed Gunner - I don't think you are someone that I would want to have around if worse got to worse in any situation: SHTF, combat, stress in the operating room.  It sounds like you lack the noble qualities which should be found in a doctor.  Yes, I know that some doctors are in it for the money and lack morals and ethics. I have ethics; I am just arguing that from a scientific point of view, along with a humanist point of view: if humankind were to destroy itself by overpopulating, this choice would be easy to make: 90% dead, 10% still alive and well and thriving in the now very open world versus 100% dead and the world being a decaying garbage dump. I would personally choose the first option, based solely off of logic, and the desire to keep mankind around. How would someone working with you know that if the situation benefited you, that you would not stab them in the back and justify it to yourself morally? I am not materialistic; hell, if I got paid 30K a year to be a doctor, I would still do it, because I have never seen myself as anything besides a doctor and see it as a public service. This trust is especially important in the Doctor-patient relationship.   "Oh, I think I'll just let this patient die b/c their living would be a burden on society." or "They can't afford to pay so that must be survival of the fittest, better let them die so that the rest of the people in the world can benefit from the resources this patient might have used."     These two situations(the culling of the flock with ebola, and my doctor-patient relationship) are comparing apples to oranges. My first priority as a doctor would be the health of my patients, and as far as I am concerned, money doesn't really come into the picture when it comes to emergency/life-saving treatment. I am just saying that if I were presented with the choice of mankind totally dieing, or mankind living with 10% of its population left... I would "flip the switch" without hesitation.

No one mentioned that you would be killing people for the money.  
And no, you wouldn't be a doctor for 30K a year after you know what going through med school is going to be like.  
And yes, suggesting that killing billions of people is just plain sick. no matter how you rationalize it.  

And you could justify releasing a killer virus, which may kill millions of people, just because it MAY help the rest of the population to live?  I don't think anyone knows the real consequences of what would happen if someone did release such a virus.   This is playing GOD, which physicians try not to do.  

BUT  man, i am glad that we have some pre-med students who can make that call for us because I sure would hate to do it.

Quoted: Quoted: Vee must EXTERMINATE der untermenshen! I hope your future patients get a second opinion.

was wondering when Godwin's law would come into play here. Hell, if it comes down to it, you have my word: I would be the first to volunteer to be "culled".

Jesus, maybe when some people here understand what damage mankind is doing to this planet, and quit believing that we have a God given right to do whatever we please with this planet... they will acknowledge that we are bringing upon our own downfall.

Starvation is the great equalizer

Quoted: i believe that the nuclear bombs are last years super weapons and that custom modified deaseas or DNA modifying viruses are the wave of the future. imagine a desease that lowers the IQ of target genetic groups children for instance, or makes them sterile.

Sooooooooo, they released some at a Democratic National Convention?

Quoted: This thinking is not as uncommon as you think though.  It has been advocated for a long time.   I'm in the medical field, so we are trying to save people, not kill them.  But alot of other higher education academics think that world population needs to be drastically reduced, and quickly.

Funny, the higher education academics group seemed to me like the best place to start with this project :)


1.  Ebola
2.  Underpants
3.
4.  Profit

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Vee must EXTERMINATE der untermenshen! I hope your future patients get a second opinion. was wondering when Godwin's law would come into play here. Hell, if it comes down to it, you have my word: I would be the first to volunteer to be "culled". Jesus, maybe when some people here understand what damage mankind is doing to this planet, and quit believing that we have a God given right to do whatever we please with this planet... they will acknowledge that we are bringing upon our own downfall.

Then why dont you fucking cull yourself right now? Hell im sure you have a gun if your on this site, or just slit your thoat, go cull your parents and family while your at it, dumbass.



Also whats to keep this from only destroying 90% of the population, what if it destroys 100% or even worst 99.9%.

All technology will be gone since every city will be wiped out, the only people left will be those who live out in the rural areas. Think of the crime outbreaks, hell. Since everyone is dieing whats to stop people from going out and raping, murdering and stealing, im sure that will make the world a much better place.

Quoted: the argument extends to worrying about a scientist with similar ideological beliefs being able to cook up some sort of super desease. i think this is a real possibility. unlike having to have hundreds of centrifuges and material to make a bomb, a genetic/biolog/DNA infectous desease expert could craft a virus that could kill 90% of its victims and could spread this desease and get it started. i believe that the nuclear bombs are last years super weapons and that custom modified deaseas or DNA modifying viruses are the wave of the future. imagine a desease that lowers the IQ of target genetic groups children for instance, or makes them sterile.

Check out "The White Plague' by Frank Herbert.  Possible or not, it scared the bejeesus outa me!

MtnWalker

Quoted: Check out "The White Plague' by Frank Herbert.  Possible or not, it scared the bejeesus outa me! MtnWalker

+1

good book

Quoted: No one mentioned that you would be killing people for the money.

no, you said I would let them die if I wouldn't get money, or if I viewed that as being a disgrace to the human race... and I said I wouldn't.

And no, you wouldn't be a doctor for 30K a year after you know what going through med school is going to be like.

I know full well, up to what someone who hasn't gone to med school yet can know, about the rigors and hell that those 4 years are... then you have another 7 or so years of hell in surgical residency.

And you could justify releasing a killer virus, which may kill millions of people, just because it MAY help the rest of the population to live?  I don't think anyone knows the real consequences of what would happen if someone did release such a virus.   This is playing GOD, which physicians try not to do.

it really is playing God; however, I don't think God really cares if we eliminate ourselves completely, so mine as well enter into action.

Originally Posted By ICEAGE Then why dont you fucking cull yourself right now? Hell im sure you have a gun if your on this site, or just slit your thoat, go cull your parents and family while your at it, dumbass.

Because it hasn't come down to having to make that decision yet. I fail to see how I am a "dumbass", considering I am just stating a fact: we will have to do SOMETHING about our population growth. Whether it comes in the form of a super virus, forced sterilizations, licenses to have children, or some other measure something will have to be done.

[quote[Also whats to keep this from only destroying 90% of the population, what if it destroys 100% or even worst 99.9%.


natural immunity, specific populations being relatively well isolated, the disease killing itself off,etc.

All technology will be gone since every city will be wiped out, the only people left will be those who live out in the rural areas. Think of the crime outbreaks, hell. Since everyone is dieing whats to stop people from going out and raping, murdering and stealing, im sure that will make the world a much better place.


If we fall that far, then this guy is 100% right: we are no better than any lizard, amoeba, or single-celled organism.

Quoted: sounds like rainbow six

Damn, ya beat me to it!!

I sometimes think that the reason urgent foreign aide and support doesn't rush into Africa and other countries where genocides take place is because the overall thought is lending support to that  whole global, environmental belief.
 When Cambodia lost 2 million back in the 70's nobody rushed to help.  When Ughanda lost a bunch or now it's Samolia, there is no hurry to help...
 Think Mexico could help solve the overpopulation problem?

I, personally, would never endorse killing one human being even to save billions. It is always ethically wrong to take a life that doesn't directly threaten you or others outside of war. Even then the argument can be made that those in the factory building bombs, etc are a direct threat as is the city which lends support etc. In any event that is far different from murdering someone because we believe it will guarantee our own survival.

There are situations where some might be allowed to die in order to prevent the death of many, ie quarantines, etc but that is another matter. We are not actively taking their life we are seeking to preserve others while admitting there is nothing we can do to save those who would otherwise endanger other members of our species.

I do agree that we have a population crisis on our hands. All of our polution problems, diminishing resources,etc are the result of unchecked population growth.  We are on an exponenetial growth curve. Yeah, we look all fat and happy now but there are ongoing ecological changes.  The population of the Earth has doubled well inside of the last century.  I submit that even if we attain zero population growth that we are headed for disaster.  I cannot verify that, no one can, but based on what I see happening to ecosystems and habitat I see an imminent disaster. Yes, there is plenty of room to build houses if your vision of our future is one house on top of another covering the entire planet with virtually no other creatures and a diet of soylent green!
Every species on this planet is linked to one another and to continue as we are will be disaster.


PremedGunner,
You really need to consider another line of work.  Even if you are correct in everything you have said here, and as is typical you are not, you will not like what you do. When you see the general pt population you find out rapidly that it is not a cross section of the human species.  I don't know how better to put it then that and keep it even somewhat PC. Trust me when I say that you will hate what you do.
Of course you will not. None of you do, you must find out the hard and expensive way. I would attempt to spend a little time volunterring in an ER or clinic to find out what you will be dealing with. It is the friendliest advice I can give.

Quoted: I, personally, would never endorse killing one human being even to save billions. It is always ethically wrong to take a life that doesn't directly threaten you or others outside of war. Even then the argument can be made that those in the factory building bombs, etc are a direct threat as is the city which lends support etc. In any event that is far different from murdering someone because we believe it will guarantee our own survival.

neither would I, I just am saying there IS a moral argument in favor of it, albeit conflicting with most people's morals. If I was alive during the era of Hitler and Stalin, would of I have killed those men to save the hundreds of millions of lives that died in the wars they caused and the millions they killed at home? Yes. Would I do the same on a larger scale to save mankind as a whole, I am "iffy" on that one, but I lean more towards the same decision I would make with Hitler and Stalin.

There are situations where some might be allowed to die in order to prevent the death of many, ie quarantines, etc but that is another matter. We are not actively taking their life we are seeking to preserve others while admitting there is nothing we can do to save those who would otherwise endanger other members of our species.

is passively killing someone through inaction any worse than actively killing them? They are still dead, you can just wipe your hands clean of the whole event.

I do agree that we have a population crisis on our hands. All of our polution problems, diminishing resources,etc are the result of unchecked population growth.  We are on an exponenetial growth curve. Yeah, we look all fat and happy now but there are ongoing ecological changes.  The population of the Earth has doubled well inside of the last century.  I submit that even if we attain zero population growth that we are headed for disaster.  I cannot verify that, no one can, but based on what I see happening to ecosystems and habitat I see an imminent disaster. Yes, there is plenty of room to build houses if your vision of our future is one house on top of another covering the entire planet with virtually no other creatures and a diet of soylent green! Every species on this planet is linked to one another and to continue as we are will be disaster.

indeed, but the difference in our opinions is how do we solve the problem. The problem is, there is only ONE answer: a large number of people have to die off in order for equilibrium to be restored. I think you and I agree on this point; I merely differ by saying that perhaps mankind should take a role in its own continued status as a member of the "non-extinct" crowd.

PremedGunner, You really need to consider another line of work.  Even if you are correct in everything you have said here, and as is typical you are not, you will not like what you do. When you see the general pt population you find out rapidly that it is not a cross section of the human species.  I don't know how better to put it then that and keep it even somewhat PC. Trust me when I say that you will hate what you do.

I like socializing with people, I like helping people, I honestly like most people, despite some things I have said that may give an opposing view. I am merely seperating my own personal views regarding people from what may actually NEED to be done in the name of the greater good. If a military commander sends a large number of his troops on a known suicide mission so a small portion of his troops can achieve the mission objectives, and there is no other way to obtain those objectives, is he murdering those people?

Of course you will not. None of you do, you must find out the hard and expensive way. I would attempt to spend a little time volunterring in an ER or clinic to find out what you will be dealing with. It is the friendliest advice I can give.

Have plans on doing that this summer, in addition to research. Thanks for the advice

Quoted: Quoted: I, personally, would never endorse killing one human being even to save billions. It is always ethically wrong to take a life that doesn't directly threaten you or others outside of war. Even then the argument can be made that those in the factory building bombs, etc are a direct threat as is the city which lends support etc. In any event that is far different from murdering someone because we believe it will guarantee our own survival. neither would I, I just am saying there IS a moral argument in favor of it, albeit conflicting with most people's morals. If I was alive during the era of Hitler and Stalin, would of I have killed those men to save the hundreds of millions of lives that died in the wars they caused and the millions they killed at home? Yes. Would I do the same on a larger scale to save mankind as a whole, I am "iffy" on that one, but I lean more towards the same decision I would make with Hitler and Stalin.

Different matter. Apples and oranges.
Hitler and Stalin were murderers and sought to destroy millions. Killing them is therefore justified just as executing a serial killer is.

The real question is:

Would you kill an innocent 3 year old girl if it meant the survival of 10,000? 1 million? How about all the people on Earth?
I would not.

There are situations where some might be allowed to die in order to prevent the death of many, ie quarantines, etc but that is another matter. We are not actively taking their life we are seeking to preserve others while admitting there is nothing we can do to save those who would otherwise endanger other members of our species. is passively killing someone through inaction any worse than actively killing them? They are still dead, you can just wipe your hands clean of the whole event.

When you take the hippocratic oath (mistake) you will pledge to do no harm. I would much rather that a pts disease kills them than I do. Same deal here. There is a difference. If you cannot see that then you are even less cut out for medicine than I previously believed.
FWIW, I have though that about you since you first posted here. You are making a huge mistake.

I do agree that we have a population crisis on our hands. All of our polution problems, diminishing resources,etc are the result of unchecked population growth.  We are on an exponenetial growth curve. Yeah, we look all fat and happy now but there are ongoing ecological changes.  The population of the Earth has doubled well inside of the last century.  I submit that even if we attain zero population growth that we are headed for disaster.  I cannot verify that, no one can, but based on what I see happening to ecosystems and habitat I see an imminent disaster. Yes, there is plenty of room to build houses if your vision of our future is one house on top of another covering the entire planet with virtually no other creatures and a diet of soylent green! Every species on this planet is linked to one another and to continue as we are will be disaster. indeed, but the difference in our opinions is how do we solve the problem. The problem is, there is only ONE answer: a large number of people have to die off in order for equilibrium to be restored. I think you and I agree on this point; I merely differ by saying that perhaps mankind should take a role in its own continued status as a member of the "non-extinct" crowd.

Instead of medicine maybe you should go into politics so you can one day launch a couple of hundred nukes to put your plans for mass genocide into effect.

PremedGunner, You really need to consider another line of work.  Even if you are correct in everything you have said here, and as is typical you are not, you will not like what you do. When you see the general pt population you find out rapidly that it is not a cross section of the human species.  I don't know how better to put it then that and keep it even somewhat PC. Trust me when I say that you will hate what you do. I like socializing with people, I like helping people, I honestly like most people, despite some things I have said that may give an opposing view. I am merely seperating my own personal views regarding people from what may actually NEED to be done in the name of the greater good. If a military commander sends a large number of his troops on a known suicide mission so a small portion of his troops can achieve the mission objectives, and there is no other way to obtain those objectives, is he murdering those people? Of course you will not. None of you do, you must find out the hard and expensive way. I would attempt to spend a little time volunterring in an ER or clinic to find out what you will be dealing with. It is the friendliest advice I can give. Have plans on doing that this summer, in addition to research. Thanks for the advice

Like I said, you won't listen. You will have to learn the hard way.

Quoted: Quoted: Well, if that sick fuck isn't on the terrorist watch list, then no one should be. Fuck him and whatever he rode on to get into this state! Uhm... why should he be considered a terrorist? He isn't doing this to strike fear, he isn't doing this to attack one government, he is simply proposing a method to reduce human population to levels that are sustainable on this planet.

Do you actual practice being this stupid?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I, personally, would never endorse killing one human being even to save billions. It is always ethically wrong to take a life that doesn't directly threaten you or others outside of war. Even then the argument can be made that those in the factory building bombs, etc are a direct threat as is the city which lends support etc. In any event that is far different from murdering someone because we believe it will guarantee our own survival. neither would I, I just am saying there IS a moral argument in favor of it, albeit conflicting with most people's morals. If I was alive during the era of Hitler and Stalin, would of I have killed those men to save the hundreds of millions of lives that died in the wars they caused and the millions they killed at home? Yes. Would I do the same on a larger scale to save mankind as a whole, I am "iffy" on that one, but I lean more towards the same decision I would make with Hitler and Stalin. Different matter. Apples and oranges. Hitler and Stalin were murderers and sought to destroy millions. Killing them is therefore justified just as executing a serial killer is. The real question is: Would you kill an innocent 3 year old girl if it meant the survival of 10,000? 1 million? How about all the people on Earth? I would not.

It isn't even a question of would not, I could not do such a thing, that would violate everything I believe in.

When you take the hippocratic oath (mistake) you will pledge to do no harm. I would much rather that a pts disease kills them than I do. Same deal here. There is a difference. If you cannot see that then you are even less cut out for medicine than I previously believed. FWIW, I have though that about you since you first posted here. You are making a huge mistake.

Then it is a mistake I will make, and learn from. As I have said, my views on individual people versus the entirety of mankind are two different things. I view human life as sacresanct, and it is only for me to rationalize things when we are talking millions or billions of people, not an individual.

Instead of medicine maybe you should go into politics so you can one day launch a couple of hundred nukes to put your plans for mass genocide into effect.

I wouldn't do that because I royally hate the political system. The difference between you and I is I don't carry my respect from human life at the individual level to the "billions of people" level very well; I view a million, hell a billion people dead as a number; I view a single person's death as a tragedy.

Like I said, you won't listen. You will have to learn the hard way.

Why would I listen, I have always wanted to be a doctor, since long before my thoughts were corrupted into playing a "numbers game" with populations. If I find out the hard way it is not for me, then I will apologize for not taking your advice.

Sounds like a cure for islam.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, if that sick fuck isn't on the terrorist watch list, then no one should be. Fuck him and whatever he rode on to get into this state! Uhm... why should he be considered a terrorist? He isn't doing this to strike fear, he isn't doing this to attack one government, he is simply proposing a method to reduce human population to levels that are sustainable on this planet. Do you actual practice being this stupid?

Just playing semantics. A terrorist is someone who uses fear to attain their goals; this guy is not using fear to attain his goals, and thus is not a terrorist.

I don't honestly know what to call him though.

Quoted: I find it interesting the "there's too many people, let's kill some" crowd always want to kill other people.  If they had an real convictions in the matter they could start by killing themselves and their progeny.

Sweet Jesus man, I never realized your post count was so high!

What I don't understand from this animal husbandry type calculus, is...if this nut case is so sure mankind is doomed by overpopulation, why not just wait and let nature run it's course. Billions will starve but the race won't be wiped out as he well knows it as small groups will survive by having food... but with a man made virus they preclude even the 'strong' from surviving.

Besides, famine is almost always the result of political forces not man literally running out of resources. The earth replenishes itself - we can quadruple the number of human beings EASILY and still not end up in a mass starvation die off.

Quoted: Quoted: ebola is a very poor choice for doing that. i've worked with it. this guy is an idiot. mike When the Hell did you work with ebola!? And why? Kills people too fast?

It is easy to disinfect - just add a little bleach.

Quoted: i think this is a real possibility. unlike having to have hundreds of centrifuges and material to make a bomb, a genetic/biolog/DNA infectous desease expert could craft a virus that could kill 90% of its victims and could spread this desease and get it started.

 Yeah, cause you can just cut & paste that shit together.

Dude, you watch to much TV.

CO

Quoted: What I don't understand from this animal husbandry type calculus, is...if this nut case is so sure mankind is doomed by overpopulation, why not just wait and let nature run it's course. Billions will starve but the race won't be wiped out as he well knows it as small groups will survive by having food... but with a man made virus they preclude even the 'strong' from surviving.

that is actually what he said, reading the transcript from his speech. He was saying that Ebola Zaire is only a couple mutations from being airborne like its other, non-human transmittable cousing. The only thing he said that actually hinted he wouldn't care if men used it was when he was saying that "good terrorists" would use microbes, not bombs, to whipe out their enemy.

Quoted: All I would like to say is "You first Dr. Pianka, you first"

I'm going to be pro-active. I'm going to pollute the earth as much as I can before ebola gets me!

Lol, wasn't this the plot of Rainbow 6?

Quoted: fear not folks. my old unit at FT detrick stands ready to defend against assholes such as this.... photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=36956

I've had nightmares about being in a box like this when I was a kid..

No shit
Thanks for adding another couple of months to the therapy I need

Quoted: Jesus, maybe when some people here understand what damage mankind is doing to this planet, and quit believing that we have a God given right to do whatever we please with this planet... they will acknowledge that we are bringing upon our own downfall.

Yet another environmentalist whackjob who thinks mankind is the worst thing to befall the "planet".

Listen, whackjob, the greatest damage done to plant and animal life has ALL been natural.

An asteroid impact eliminated the dinosaurs.  For every year that man has been on earth, the dinos were around for 1,000 years, yet they disappeared.   Recurring Ice ages have wiped out thousands of species including the most recent ice age which wiped out the wooly mammoth and saber-toothed tigers.

The "planet" (I call it earth) has survived hundreds of asteroid impacts, solar radiation, gamma rays, earthquakes, continental drift, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic explosions (which toss millions of tons of particulate matter into the UPPER atmosphere and change climate), thousand year droughts (in the pleistocene), ice ages (every 10 to 15 thousand years), etc...  HUGE climate and temperature changes occurred WAY before man arrived on this planet.

And guess what?  The "planet" has survived.  You know what junior?  The "planet" doesn't need your help.  The odds are it will be around billions of years after mankind has become extinct, as 95% of all species become extinct.  Extinction is natural, and it isn't caused by man, it isn't caused by underarm deodorant, or freon, or automobiles, or factories, or coal plants.

If earth, or god, wants to get rid of us it will.  Flu wasn't invented by man, ebola wasn't created by man, the bubonic plague wasn't created by man, aids wasn't created by man etc.  The total weight of bacteria on earth exceeds the total weight of ALL animal life.  You get a mutation here or there and you just mught get the end-all virus or bacteria to end life as we know it.  Due to misuse of anti-biotics there are ever more resistant and deadly bacteria on the horizon.

So get off your high horse and get some perspective and learn about the multi-billion year history of the "planet", so you don't go around making stupid comments like every other enviro-freak who thinks mankind can control the weather.

P.S.  The "planet" can sustain far more than 5.5 billion people.  You sound like that failed alarmist, Paul Erlich.

Quoted: Quoted: Jesus, maybe when some people here understand what damage mankind is doing to this planet, and quit believing that we have a God given right to do whatever we please with this planet... they will acknowledge that we are bringing upon our own downfall. Yet another environmentalist whackjob who thinks mankind is the worst thing to befall the "planet". Listen, whackjob, the greatest damage done to plant and animal life has ALL been natural. An asteroid impact eliminated the dinosaurs.  For every year that man has been on earth, the dinos were around for 1,000 years, yet they disappeared.   Recurring Ice ages have wiped out thousands of species including the most recent ice age which wiped out the wooly mammoth and saber-toothed tigers. The "planet" (I call it earth) has survived hundreds of asteroid impacts, solar radiation, gamma rays, earthquakes, continental drift, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic explosions (which toss millions of tons of particulate matter into the UPPER atmosphere and change climate), thousand year droughts (in the pleistocene), ice ages (every 10 to 15 thousand years), etc...  HUGE climate and temperature changes occurred WAY before man arrived on this planet. And guess what?  The "planet" has survived.  You know what junior?  The "planet" doesn't need your help.  The odds are it will be around billions of years after mankind has become extinct, as 95% of all species become extinct.  Extinction is natural, and it isn't caused by man, it isn't caused by underarm deodorant, or freon, or automobiles, or factories, or coal plants. If earth, or god, wants to get rid of us it will.  Flu wasn't invented by man, ebola wasn't created by man, the bubonic plague wasn't created by man, aids wasn't created by man etc.  The total weight of bacteria on earth exceeds the total weight of ALL animal life.  You get a mutation here or there and you just mught get the end-all virus or bacteria to end life as we know it.  Due to misuse of anti-biotics there are ever more resistant and deadly bacteria on the horizon. So get off your high horse and get some perspective and learn about the multi-billion year history of the "planet", so you don't go around making stupid comments like every other enviro-freak who thinks mankind can control the weather. P.S.  The "planet" can sustain far more than 5.5 billion people.  You sound like that failed alarmist, Paul Erlich.

Thank you.  Saved me the time of writing the same.  The planet could care less if we come or go or kill ourselves or don't.  If the population grows to high it'll crash and we'll become extinct or we won't.  Some illness will wipe us out or it won't.  The earth will go on and something else will take our place.  "We're killing the earth" is just utter bullshit.