Hyper Real Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 So you are a scientific team and you wonder heh why not develop a virus that can kill half the population of the world. Why not, we are scientist right? And just because we can, nana nana?This is exactly what happened in a university in the Netherlands:A virus with the potential to kill up to half the world’s population has been made in a lab. Now academics and bioterrorism experts are arguing over whether to publish the recipe, and whether the research should have been done in the first place.http://pikapvs.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/super-virus-created-by-erasmus-medical-centre-in-rotterdam/The question is should such "research" be prohibited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Gray Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 Toxins are considered a promising area of research for cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawzo Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 The research can be prohibited but someone is going to be doing it anyway sooner or later one would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark 45 Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 research has devloped cures for some diseases,but the orginal intent had nothing to do with curing anything.i disagree that"research"should be prohibited,as all that would do is put it in the hands of"researchers"who may not be so careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 Many things in this life tend to be a Pandora's box. Now that it has been done, it cannot and will not be undone. We, as humans, seem to be racing to our destruction in our efforts to live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundofPeace Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 I don't think humankind can ever be prohibited from doing anything. As Fawzo points out above, "should" and "can" are apples and oranges. That said I am now pondering a world of 3 billion folk as opposed to our current 6 billion. 150 million Americans as opposed to 300 million. In nature these occurences are usually the foundation for a new and fruitful beginning for a species. Once we get past the mourning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan H. B. Lobl Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 I don't think humankind can ever be prohibited from doing anything. As Fawzo points out above, "should" and "can" are apples and oranges. That said I am now pondering a world of 3 billion folk as opposed to our current 6 billion. 150 million Americans as opposed to 300 million. In nature these occurences are usually the foundation for a new and fruitful beginning for a species. Once we get past the mourning.The Bubonic Plague, aka, The Black Death -- was a great boost to the economy of Europe. It is the default solution, if we can't find a more gentle means of population controle. War also works of course. So does famine. I would prefer something less awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper Real Posted May 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 The Bubonic Plague, aka, The Black Death -- was a great boost to the economy of Europe. Could you provide some references for that proposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Nihilo Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 The Bubonic Plague, aka, The Black Death -- was a great boost to the economy of Europe. It is the default solution, if we can't find a more gentle means of population controle. War also works of course. So does famine. I would prefer something less awful.I hope all this is just tongue and cheek. These comments are a tad bit scary...and inaccurate. Look at the effects of Africa losing millions to slavery or now being ravaged by aids. Where's the economic boom? Where's the evolutionary jump. All disease makes are widows, orphans, and corpses. Maybe do a little research into the influenza pandemic of 1918. For me, national and international security concerns may trump the interests of scientific discovery when we have the ability and desire to create something that is a worldwide existential threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Gray Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Or look at the golden age following the black death. Food became more available (less people trying to get it) and there was a boom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Nihilo Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) I disagree with your interpretation of history, but even if that were the case, I for one am not willing to risk half the human population on a toss up. However, if you really think that killing ourselves off is great way to make the world better, shouldn't you go first? If you really back this policy, shouldn't you consider suicide or at the very least sterilzation? I feel like I'm listening to Scrooge say that te widows an orphans should hurry up and die and decrease the surplus population!p. s: I do not actually recommend you or anyone else actually kill themselves...I am merely using a rhetorical device to show ridiculousness of this argument. You have lots to live for...so does everyone else, Thats why shouldn't even toy with the ideaof releasing manmade plagues Edited May 10, 2012 by Rev'd Rattlesnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyper Real Posted May 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Thats why shouldn't even toy with the ideaof releasing manmade plaguesThe longer I am on this forum the less I am surprised by the 'creative' ideas from some of our more conservative members,Forced birth control, removing voting rights from welfare recipients, seeing racial or sexual discrimination as some great freedom thing, scary firearms adoration, hate toward those who are at the bottom of society, I could go on and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Gray Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 I didnt say it was a GOOD idea, just that good has come from it afterwards.The longer I am on this forum the less I am surprised by the 'creative' ideas from some of our more conservative members,Forced birth control, removing voting rights from welfare recipients, seeing racial or sexual discrimination as some great freedom thing, scary firearms adoration, hate toward those who are at the bottom of society, I could go on and on.is it any different then your hate for those at teh "top" of society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_nick Posted May 10, 2012 Report Share Posted May 10, 2012 Research should not be restrained. Who is fit to judge what is or is not studied and what motivations might they have? Let's say Lab X develops a new disease(I'll call it SuperFlu) and SuperFlu has has a virulence of 98% and a fatality rate of 97%. Lab X could publish their paper on it and teams all over the world could study it, discover how it functions, discover how it affects the body, discover how the body reacts to it, and so on. In short, we learn a great deal on a great many subjects. But the government steps in instead. Perhaps they lock it up, perhaps they study it for a cure. How long do you think it'd be before someone decides the national villain of the week deserves a case of the SuperFlu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youch Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Forced birth control, removing voting rights from welfare recipients, seeing racial or sexual discrimination as some great freedom thing, scary firearms adoration, hate toward those who are at the bottom of society, I could go on and on.Oh, please do go on!!! Tell us more of the things and issues about which you are ignorant. It will increase your post count and provide informed people a platform from which to launch.Research should not be restrained. In the abstract, I agree. It would not be natural. It would be totalitarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Nihilo Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Research should not be restrained. Who is fit to judge what is or is not studied and what motivations might they have?I know this will peg me as the Trotskyite of the group but I think its just common sense that the folks with the mandate given to them by the people to guard the health and safety of the public are perfectly fit to stop programs that represent such a serious threat...or maybe I don't understand how the state's police powers work in a democrati republic.Besides, one man's inexcusable restraint is another's just just regulation. I've said it before, in the hierarchy of rights life is of greater value than liberty and where one is at odds with the other, life trumps liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Kaman Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Besides, one man's inexcusable restraint is another's just just regulation. I've said it before, in the hierarchy of rights life is of greater value than liberty and where one is at odds with the other, life trumps liberty.So, "Give me liberty or give me death," is just a tag line to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Nihilo Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 The question is whose death. If you mean your own, then by all means. Life is a right not a burden. But this topic is about risking the lives of others, potentially half the human population, just so some labcoats can play around with microbiological uranium. Noone's liberty is so precious that it should be bought at the price of a life not willingly given and to say otherwise is monstrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokigami Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I disagree with your interpretation of history, but even if that were the case, I for one am not willing to risk half the human population on a toss up. However, if you really think that killing ourselves off is great way to make the world better, shouldn't you go first? If you really back this policy, shouldn't you consider suicide or at the very least sterilzation?I feel like I'm listening to Scrooge say that te widows an orphans should hurry up and die and decrease the surplus population!p. s: I do not actually recommend you or anyone else actually kill themselves...I am merely using a rhetorical device to show ridiculousness of this argument. You have lots to live for...so does everyone else, Thats why shouldn't even toy with the ideaof releasing manmade plaguesI chose sterilization. You should read up on the Voluntary Human Extintion Movement. You should also read history. Yes, the black plague was terrible. But, it redistributed up a lot of wealth. Read Connections, by Burke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Nihilo Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) I know all about vhem....I like how all of you can see the bright side of pandemics. I'm surrounded by armchair optimists.As for me I want to live, make and multiply Edited May 11, 2012 by Rev'd Rattlesnake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts