Is SARS a good thing?

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-05-09 02:22pm

closet sci-fi fan wrote:I personally think the guy is a inconsiderate compassionless fuck.

I think you are being too kind.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-05-09 02:32pm

Wait until he gets infected. Then we'll see how he feels about it. Bastard.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-05-09 02:40pm

Welcome to the land of utter assholes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-05-09 02:42pm

So he thinks it would be a good thing for Nature to "correct her mistakes", eh? Let's hope Mother Nature starts with him.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-09 02:46pm

survival of the fittest got left behind for the most part when civilization developed - it is a trait of civilization to protect your weak.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-05-09 03:01pm

I love these shithats who are more than willing to condemn millions of people to death just so long as they're not on the list of undesireables.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-05-09 05:02pm

FUCK YOU!

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-10 10:28pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:survival of the fittest got left behind for the most part when civilization developed - it is a trait of civilization to protect your weak.

Makes you think about the fact that "survival of the fittest" was coined by a Nazi around WWII. It's certainly a dark concept used here.

While the tree of life is self-pruning, there's always one who pisses in the gene pool every once in a while, this guy be one of 'em.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-05-12 04:29pm

I though children were more resistant to sars for some reason?

Oh and the thing in modern society is that those who survive may not be the ones that are the best for society. For example, fundies reproduce quickly, yet they hold society back. Evolution only favors those who can proprogate their genes, not those who contribute a lot to society.

On second thought I don't contribute much to society except for ranting. *pause* *shrugs* Life in general isn't that great anyway.

Stormin · Post by **Stormin** » 2003-05-12 05:35pm

I think sars was a good thing in that it is practice for an even worse deadly disease that will eventually come. It could have been much worse but for the comparitivly quick actions of involved people and officials.

Enricko · Post by **Enricko** » 2003-05-12 08:34pm

Stormin wrote:I think sars was a good thing in that it is practice for an even worse deadly disease that will eventually come. It could have been much worse but for the comparitivly quick actions of involved people and officials.

At least we can hope that China government will no longer wait until it's nearly too late before alerting the World of a new epidemic...

As for seeing SARS as euthanasia or planned parenthood, why that guy doesn't inject himself some hot lead in the brain?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-05-13 11:34am

Enricko wrote:As for seeing SARS as euthanasia or planned parenthood, why that guy doesn't inject himself some hot lead in the brain?

Judging by his post, it looks like he already has.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-05-13 12:03pm

Uuuuuh.. LOL.

Most viruses (especially the family SARS is in) is usually fatal to the young or infirmed. But in a way, it IS nature, but not euthanasia. It's the way the world works.. one organism feeds off of another. Viruses and humans have been competing against each other in attacks and defenses since they've been around. When we get one up, the virus will figure out a way past our defenses. And with their relatively high rate of recombinations, it's just thanks to modern medicine that we can keep mortality rates low and contain some of the more virulent (thankfully most of them were somewhat static as well) ones.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-05-13 05:51pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:survival of the fittest got left behind for the most part when civilization developed - it is a trait of civilization to protect your weak.
Makes you think about the fact that "survival of the fittest" was coined by a Nazi around WWII. It's certainly a dark concept used here.

While the tree of life is self-pruning, there's always one who pisses in the gene pool every once in a while, this guy be one of 'em.

It wasn't survival of the fittest which was coined by Nazi ideology, but survival of the strongest, i.e. social darwinism.

Ignorant_Boy · Post by **Ignorant_Boy** » 2003-05-15 04:34pm

Ironic if he gets somehow dies and wins a Darwin; helping society by killing off the stupid.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-05-15 05:37pm

Dahak wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:survival of the fittest got left behind for the most part when civilization developed - it is a trait of civilization to protect your weak.
Makes you think about the fact that "survival of the fittest" was coined by a Nazi around WWII. It's certainly a dark concept used here.

While the tree of life is self-pruning, there's always one who pisses in the gene pool every once in a while, this guy be one of 'em.
It wasn't survival of the fittest which was coined by Nazi ideology, but survival of the strongest, i.e. social darwinism.

That's really just semantics, they mean the same thing.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-05-15 07:00pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Dahak wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote: Makes you think about the fact that "survival of the fittest" was coined by a Nazi around WWII. It's certainly a dark concept used here.

While the tree of life is self-pruning, there's always one who pisses in the gene pool every once in a while, this guy be one of 'em.
It wasn't survival of the fittest which was coined by Nazi ideology, but survival of the strongest, i.e. social darwinism.
That's really just semantics, they mean the same thing.

No it's is not semantics.
Survival of the fittest is something completely different than survival of the strongest.
The latter suggests that power or strength has something to do with survival.
Survival of the fittest just says that those who are best adapted to their environment will survive.

Survival of the ittest. Definition:

Although this phrase is inextricably linked to Darwin, it was not actually used by him in the first edition of On the Origin of the Species. Rather, the term was coined by Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher, the term fittest¹ referring to those individuals best able to promote the progress and improvement of their species. Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-developer of evolutionary theory, suggested to Darwin that they replace their term natural selection¹, which seemed difficult for people to understand, with Spencer¹s. Survival of the Fittest¹, however, also provoked misunderstandings, as no universally accepted definition of fitness¹ could determined. Generally, the term is now understood to imply reproductive success, not necessarily strength or dominance.

Newtonian Fury · Post by **Newtonian Fury** » 2003-05-16 01:03am

"Fittest" means most suitable for the current environment.

There have been experiments where one douses a colony of bacteria with antibiotics. Most die, but a few survives. Those few then dominate the petri dish. Then another type of antibiotic is administered, and it leads to another "generation" of adapted bacteria. This process is repeated over and over again.

The interesting thing here is that some of the later generation bacteria can't survive some of the earlier administered antibiotics. Meaning, an earlier generation had advantage over the later generation. So, evolution isn't always about survival of the strongest, as this experiment shows that certain advantageous traits that aren't passed down. Rather, it's those that are adapted to the current environment that survive.

Apply that to society. If the society is oppressive, fundamentalist, and seeks to destroy heretics, the critical thinkers may not last long in this type of environment. While we may see people who thinks critically to be "better" than those who don't, this quality certainly doesn't help with survival in this environment. This type of strength is actually harmful to reproductive success.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is SARS a good thing?

Re: Is SARS a good thing?