May 10, 2009 Political
Well- the time is coming where critical mass will be achieved in the population, and this will be known when there is not enough water for the world to consume. Fast upon the heels of a lack of water will come a lack of food, and famine will ensue. There are only so many people who can exist at any one time.
This is a given, especially when you have the population of the Middle East Muslims, and the Hispanic populations growing at a four to one pace versus everyone else. The Chinese have had a cap on their population, but we have gone from 3 billion people in the 1950s to over 6 billion people now- double the amount in just 50 something years- a fact that is distressing, when you think that another doubling could come in twenty more years.
And here we have corn being siphoned from the food chain to make ethanol, when sugarcane could do this better and not affect the food cycle. I have to wonder at the lack of intelligence- could this be intentional, or are they just that stupid? I vote for the stupidity- it’s more hopeful.
But I am going to play Devil’s Advocate here- a little “What If” sort of guessing game where I think of the scenarios that might be possible under this administration and Barama’s fellow travelers in other governments.
First, the economy is not going to get much better globally, until there is a culling of people worldwide- how this is done could be iffy- a bio- weapon might get the job done, but what if it was to change, to morph into something that there was no vaccine for? That makes that scenario not so sure. The virus might double back on the instigators. There would have to be a vaccine prepped ahead of time.
Still, at least half of the populace would need to go- armed conflict? That gets chancy also, as the various powers would begin to take it seriously, and jockey for territory, not just culling people, so no government could trust another in this exercise- greed takes over, and the violence would inevitably escalate, and the landscape gets altered in negative ways- not a good alternative.
That leaves a natural killer, one that has been around since day one- cancer. Cancer affects everyone at one time or another. Everyone has had someone they knew who has been at least affected by this in one form or another.
If there was an enhanced version or versions of cancer, that could not be cured ( and there are already several versions of cancer that are difficult to treat), and if people at an advanced rate got these cancers, soon the problem would begin to solve itself as the death rate inevitably rose above the present levels.
Now, I know that this is an unpleasant subject for anyone who has had to deal with cancer. I have had to deal with it twice, so I am sensitive to the emotional impact- but we are talking Devil’s Advocate here, so the problem is, how do they (the Governments of this world) deal with over- population? Something will have to be done eventually- whether it is disease, war, or mass emigration to another planet (yeah- not real high on the list of possibles), the problem will need to be addressed within the next fifty years at the most.
In the wake of the Swine Flu, weak though that was, the question remains, because our population density as well as our modes of travel have produced a faster than expected spread of this virus. In addition, the 24/7 news cycle has kept a fine map, if you will, that demonstrates how this disease has spread. We have been lucky in that this version of the flu was weak, and it has come during the spring, rather than the winter, when peoples immune systems are compromised, and people are staying inside.
Could the Swine Flu have been a test run for some other, more lethal strain of disease to be unleashed at a later date? Sure- I rather doubt it, but in this governmental environment, I truly believe that there are no ethical limits that would not be crossed by the people in power now, and that is something I never thought I would say about ANY American, ever. So, could they kill (or cull, if you will) a percentage of people in this country, in order to stay in power? Yes, I believe they could.
Look at how little they are doing to ease the monetary crisis- as long as the public believes the crisis is still here, this administration has basically carte blanche to do as they will. They like that.
After all, as Rhomboid Emmanuel is very fond of saying, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
With cynicism like that, ANY scenario becomes possible.
Jun 9, 2008 General
The World Health Organization (WHO) has accepted as truth that the threat of a heterosexual AIDS pandemic has disappeared. That was nice of them but there never was a threat of a pandemic. HIV and AIDS are transmitted, mostly, through high risk behavior such as IV drug use with shared needles, homosexual sex and sex with those who engage in high risks.
Certainly the possibility exists that monogamous heterosexuals can get the disease. this can happen through tainted blood transfusions and exposure to contaminated body fluids (as in health care workers). However, the risk of contracting AIDS has always been low for heterosexuals who do not engage in sexual activity with high risk partners. The risk of a heterosexual pandemic has never really existed. Yes, outbreaks can occur and heterosexuals can get AIDS but the likelihood of a pandemic was close to zero, or nonexistent.
The whole issue was suggested years ago when homosexuals were singled out as having high risk for the disease based upon their sexual practices. They complained about the suggestion that their lifestyle put them at higher risk and they believed that if AIDS were only recognized as a pandemic in their group (and those of other high risk behaviors) then research and funding for a cure would be minimal. By including the average every day heterosexual they were able, in their minds, to get research money directed toward curing the disease. This idea is ridiculous. We have not halted the research into the cure for lung cancer based on the fact that smokers are more likely to get it.
In all this time research money and time has been wasted looking for ways to stop a pandemic occurrence of heterosexual acquired AIDS when money and time would have been better if it had been focused on those most likely to get the disease. It took quite a bit of time for people to state the obvious.
The study still has unanswered questions:
But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.
“The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you explain such differences?” The Independent
I have certainly not looked at the data but off the top of my head I would have to say it is because Washington DC has a larger population of homosexuals and IV drug users than does North Dakota. There are not as many people engaging in high risk behavior in North Dakota as there are in DC. Washington is a bastion of liberalism and the “do what you want in life” mentality, so when coupled with the population demographics, it stands to reason that DC will have the higher rate. Also, the National Institute of Health is in DC and there are research hospitals as well so it also stands to reason that some of the population migrated to DC for [inclusion in] research, testing and treatment.
The waste of time and money over the years is attributable to a politically correct attitude that said we could not single out high risk groups. This makes as much sense as spending years researching the affects of sickle cell anemia in whites who do not come from [have ancestry in] Africa, South or Central America (especially Panama), Caribbean islands, Mediterranean countries (such as Turkey, Greece, and Italy), India, and Saudi Arabia. Since the disease affects mostly African Americans in the US it would be a waste of resources to do expansive research in whites. This is the same principle for AIDS research.
Once again, political correctness rears its ugly head…