BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Bird Flu

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
quixote
03:39 / 02.11.05
Evil Scientist: antibiotic resistance in bacterial infections is on the rise.

True, that. Flu viruses mutate faster than bacteria, so resistance to antivirals can be expected even faster. Antibiotic resistance seems to take a decade or so of misuse. Antiviral resistance seems to be happening in a couple of years. Possibly, with concerted misuse, as we'll probably get for tamiflu, it could happen in months or weeks. What fun. Not.
 
 
Supersister
15:53 / 03.11.05
Samples of lung tissue I stand corrected. Who kept them, were they frozen? Can they really survive that long? I should find this out for myself, shouldn't I? I may have given up science in school, but I am still dubious that any one virus need be responsible. Haven't looked up the 50 million yet, sorry.

I maintain that this story is most likely a sales pitch for Tamiflu.

You, of course, have evidence for this?

No, I hoped the words 'most likely' made it clear this is a supposition as you correctly identify. To clarify, I believe that the desire of someone somewhere to make money selling a particular drug is the most likely reason for the story hitting the headlines at this time. I am well aware that the drug is next to useless, but Governments are stockpiling it like crazy and one poor soul I encountered last week has sent his Wife off to get a private prescription.

how can we deduce the subject died as a result of carrying that virus and how can we possibly then deduce that the remaining 1,499,999/ 19,999,999/ 39,999,999 or 49,999,999 died from the same cause?

Pathology, epidemiology, microbiology, scientific analysis of the facts. Also the fact that 50 million people developed the same symptoms and died. Y'know, the usual. The stuff that works.

No need to be sarcastic. I did make it clear I'm no expert.

Re. the big conspiracy, I have no way of checking it actually exists short of accessing the diaries of everyone with a financial interest in propagating this mass panic and fear and working out which of their employees has met with representatives from the WHO, media etc and then going back in time to bug their offices, which I'm afraid I can't fit in to my own busy schedule. Thus it will remain a theory.
 
 
+#'s, - names
01:42 / 04.11.05
funny how everything is coming up milhouse when it comes to the bush administration's bank accounts.
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
05:59 / 04.11.05
I've seen figures from 65-150 deaths from the hyped H5N1 bird flu category, but as far as I can tell any mutation after that is in God's hands. Nothing we can do short of a quantum leap in genetic engineering. Then killing every bird on the planet. That means the story is pure news-cycle crap edutainment at its best, or operant conditioning for the real pandemic at its best.

The best bet would to be to take the Tamiflu money and ship some good sanitation to Gongdong province. Clean water and streets in the third world should be the top priority in battling whatever terrorist microbe is next. One, it'll most likely come from there, as every unspeakable biological devsatation that I've heard of does. Then the humanitarian (globalization) argument that people will stop dying less in their productive years with healthy immune systems. Also if we go on some anti-flu research bonanza we can only speed up the mutations of the virii.

As for conspiracies, just think of what happens when the duct tape-and-trashbag rush is over and the real pandemic hits. The most chilling thing I've heard in the bird flu coverage was Mr. Bush promising the American people that every man, woman, and child would get the vaccine when the big one hits. Ok, first: Army guys in the hospitals, airports, schools for disaster relief. Quarantines, looting, econimic manipulation and recession. What if you feel fine and are encouraged to take the vaccine? What if you took the vaccine and experience the normal side effects...flu-like symptoms? Once you take the cure you'll start making antibodies anyway so basically every single person either has the virus and is potentially dangerous or hasn't got the cure and is potentially dangerous. Muahahahaha.
 
 
quixote
16:58 / 07.11.05
Harold: I'm not sure I understood you right, but you seem to be implying that people who get the vaccine will be carrying the virus because they have the antibodies.

Not so.

If they had enough live virus to be contagious, they'd get sick. If they had that flu virus before, or if they were vaccinated, they'd have antibodies. The antibodies are not viruses. They are *our* immune system police that terminate with extreme prejudice any virus of the type they're primed to destroy. (Think of antibodies as being against [foreign] bodies, like viruses or bacteria.)
 
 
Harold Washington died for you
19:19 / 07.11.05
My bad, I guess I wasnt all that clear.

The main way to test for viruses in general (I suppose) and the flu in particular is a test for the antibodies of the particular strain in your blood, not the actual virus. That means whatever governmental angency is charged with monitoring the spread of the virus could, potentially, have a lot of discretion in how they determine who's "sick" and "well," considering a person who has antibodies for a particular virus is either sick with no symptoms (a carrier), someone who took the vaccine, or someone who's own immune response fought off the virus.
 
 
Malarki
19:55 / 07.11.05
The questions to ask are: What more important world events that they want to distract us from is this lame excuse for a story covering up?; Who is making a profit out of this panic?; Do I really give a fuck if we loose a small percentage of the pandemic they call the human race which is the biggest threat to itself?; Just like with BSE, should I be laughing at all you carnivores coz I'm a veggie? Who's asked the avian's opinion in all this?; How many scientists is this keeping in employment? What is it, forty people in two years in a poor country like Vietnam, that pathetic compared to what the US military can do in one days collateral damage!
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:20 / 08.11.05
What more important world events that they want to distract us from is this lame excuse for a story covering up?

Depends what you consider important really. Personally I consider a virus potentially capable of laying waste to vast swathes of the human species pretty important. If you've been paying attention to the news then you may have noticed that avian flu isn't currently front page news. So theories of it being a smokescreen by Teh Conspiracy aren't very probable.

Who is making a profit out of this panic?

Well, lot's of drug companies obviously. However, the potential threat of a human flu pandemic isn't necessarily less just because evil corporations are making money.

Do I really give a fuck if we loose a small percentage of the pandemic they call the human race which is the biggest threat to itself?

You may do if you or people you care about get it.

Just like with BSE, should I be laughing at all you carnivores coz I'm a veggie?

Well, no. The primary concern with avian flu is that it will start crossing human to human. Consumption of contaminated food is not considered to be a high risk currently. Vegetarians are just as vulnerable to an airbourne respiratory pathogen as everyone else.

Who's asked the avian's opinion in all this?

Do you mean the birds or the virus? Birds aren't smart enough to hold an opinion on this. Viruses barely count as living organisms, and have no ability to communicate.

How many scientists is this keeping in employment?

Are you aware of some major lay-offs of scientific personnel that were going to occur before the avian flu outbreak? Scientists do a lot of different jobs, not all to do with the containment and treatment of disease. The people studying the outbreak and researching ways to deal with a human-pathogenic virus were most doing research in that field anyway.

Speaking as someone who works in vaccine production, I have to tell you the industry ticks along quite nicely.

What is it, forty people in two years in a poor country like Vietnam, that pathetic compared to what the US military can do in one days collateral damage!

Are you suggesting their lives were worth less? Clarify.

The last flu pandemic killed millions. You're appear to misunderstand what the panic is about. I suggest you go to the top of this thread and read a little before posting.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:31 / 08.11.05
The contradictory information issued by the European Union about the risks linked to eating meat and egg has added to the confusion. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which was set up in 2002 in the wake of the 'mad cow' disease crisis, with the aim of keeping scientific analysis separate from the political handling of the crisis, has caused confusion among consumers by recommending to avoid eating raw eggs and poorly cooked poultry meat. EFSA later went back on its recommendation, stating that “there is no evidence at present to suggest that bird flu can be passed on to humans through the consumption of food,” which is in agreement with the World Health Organization (WHO).

Meanwhile, a global conference on bird flu will be held between November 7 and 9 in Geneva to discuss the creation of a special fund aimed at combating the disease. Participants will look for ways to coordinate the fight against the H5N1 virus of Asian origin and identify weaknesses in the veterinary and health systems. Meanwhile, according to the Financial Times, WHO officials have said they support the idea of introducing a centralized system to purchase flu vaccines against seasonal epidemics, in order to boost immunization rates among the population, cut vaccination costs and stimulate research aimed at preventing a potential flu pandemic.

Taken from the our company's weekly newsletter.
 
 
Malarki
12:00 / 08.11.05
I did read quite a few of the postings and afraid I find most of it the usual ideal speculation and hysteria.

In terms of forty dead Vietnamese, in no way was I suggesting that Vietnamese lives are worth less than any others (and as the people who gave the USA a good kicking I'd say they were worth more than most), but it does raise the question of the best use of limited resources. As others have raised, what about HIV? That is real.

And as for the loss of those I "care" about, I am afraid I'm unsentimental and anti-humanist enough to not value a human life anymore than any other being, mine and those close to me included, and would be far more angry and upset by a death cause by a careless car driver who is likely under present legislation to get not much more than a fine in court. Natural deaths occur all the time for much more ethically questionable reasons in large parts of the world and we westerners have the luxury of a facade of safety which leads to these sort of panics when something might have the slight possibility of threaten our homogenised private health care and gym existence. Living with death on a daily basis will give one a much better perspective on life. If saving quantities of human lives is the concern, I would suggest some recalculation may be necessary. And as I suggested, there is far too much human life than is sustainable in my opinion, so unless someone's planning a major world war, the system needs to find other ways to control population if it won't control itself.

Now if it effected cats, then I would be worried.
 
 
Malarki
12:14 / 08.11.05
Just to clarify before anyone with a wit bypass posts, I am not suggesting that "Natural Deaths" (by which I mean those cause by natural causes like dieases or the body wearing out, as opposed to being murdered) don't occur in the west, just that we are artificial segregated from the whole experience of death on a daily basis, such that in many western cultures a much more sentimental reaction occurs as if death was something unexpected or unnatural, than would occur in a society that does not attempt to cover up this reality. I would suggest that this leads to a culture which by concealing death ignores the really important question which is how to live? But I digress. Or maybe not, because in the end this panic is about fear of death, the source of all anxiety.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:40 / 08.11.05
Now if it effected cats, then I would be worried.

Weird, I'd be overjoyed. Allergy-causing useless things.

speculation and hysteria

My posts are based on neither speculation nor hysteria. It is a fact that influenza viruses have, in the past, caused mass death and that, given it's propensity for mutation and antigenic shift, it's very likely to happen again.

I am afraid I'm unsentimental and anti-humanist enough to not value a human life anymore than any other being, mine and those close to me included, and would be far more angry and upset by a death cause by a careless car driver who is likely under present legislation to get not much more than a fine in court.

If you're anti-humanist then I question why you'd be angered by a hit-and-run. It's just another dead consumer right? Surely if you believe that the human race needs to be culled back then you'd be shaking the careless driver's hand?

Natural deaths occur all the time for much more ethically questionable reasons in large parts of the world and we westerners have the luxury of a facade of safety which leads to these sort of panics when something might have the slight possibility of threaten our homogenised private health care and gym existence.

If a death is natural then how can it be "ethically questionable"? One for the Head Shop.

If avian flu became truely human pathogenic then there's a very good chance that it would travel across the world (hence the term "pandemic"). It is not simply matter of wealthy Western countries (who, if I read between the lines, seem to be who you're anti-humanist about) getting worried about the sniffles. It's a matter of people from all walks of life contracting a highly contagious lethal disease which has no effective treatment beyond vaccines (which rapidly lose their effectiveness as described above).

Living with death on a daily basis will give one a much better perspective on life.

Would it really? You have evidence for this of course? I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and guess that, in fact, you've never experienced "death on a daily basis". So, in fact, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

And as I suggested, there is far too much human life than is sustainable in my opinion,

Based on what precisely?

so unless someone's planning a major world war, the system needs to find other ways to control population if it won't control itself

The system? So disease is just nature's way of culling out the populations that get too big? So we shouldn't bother researching medicines and treatments because it's all the judgement of some undefined "force of nature".

Hmm, don't think I'm going to be able to agree with you there buddy.

but it does raise the question of the best use of limited resources. As others have raised, what about HIV? That is real

By your standards though, shouldn't HIV be allowed to run it's course without treatment? It's just killing useless humans.

Your assumption that the total resources of the human race are not up to dealing with more than one disease at a time is, frankly, tot.
 
 
Malarki
14:28 / 08.11.05
My loathing for car drivers and their irresponsible actions that lead to the deaths of many of my feline friends as a subset of humanity is greater than my general misanthropy. It is partly about a (misplaced?) sense of justice that sees people get prison terms for crime against property but not for killing someone.

The speculation bit of all this is whether it will ever come to anything. It is an if, not a when. Just as others here have pointed out with the sarrs virus. Apparently, WMD were facts not ideal specualtion too. As your arguments appear to be based on some sort of scientific premise, can I remind you that all science by its nature is contingent and so any predictions remain that until observations can add weight to them. Even so, the gathered observations still need interpretation and therefore there can be little that can be said to be objective in an absolute sense. The only areas of knowledge in which we can have certainty is logic but the world is not a pure logical system - or atleast our observation haven't/can't confirm that.

My point about resources is that on the assumption that one values human life, and all human life is equal which in the case of USA's statements about the value of its citizens lives as oppose to those of other countries is not necessarily safe, then the resources at ones disposal need to be deployed to the greatest effect. Yes, humanity may have sufficient resources to deal with more than one problem at a time, but has it the moral and political will?

Sorry, obviously didn't make myself clear. My statement about living with death is speculative as I live in a nice cosey western city where the dead and dying are discreetly kept from view. However, my speculation is backed up by anthropological observations and my experience of those parts of my family that don't have the luck to live here but live in much more harsh parts of the world where life expectancy is much more uncertain.

The ethically dubious nature of many natural deaths merely refers to the point that many of those deaths may have been avoidable with the basic amenities enjoyed in richer countries. Again it is a political and moral will question, best use of available resources and a bit of mathematics in relation to quantities.


My opinion are my opinions, and that is why I call them such. Some are based on nothing but irrational inclination or preferance, such as plain chocolate being preferable to milk chocolate. Others are constructed upon observation, reason, study.....my opinion about the sustainability of the human race is based on various of these but most importantly Agent Smith's observation that humanity is a virus.

No, don't go with the "force of nature" type stuff either and that is exactly why I avoided such phrases. However, as a scientist you should be familiar with ideas of cause and effect, and complex systems. It is not a particularly controversial idea as far as I'm aware that systems have complex feedback loops and ways of correcting themselves, and that such systems have been observed and documented in animal populations such that populations remain stable and controlled. Usually where this becomes unbalanced is due to human, or some other catastrophic interference. I am suggesting that such pandemics, and other things, may be a part of the planet's complex ecological system's mechanism for restoring some sort of equalibrium.

Shouldn't alot of this be in the Lab or Headshoppe rather than here?
 
 
Axolotl
15:00 / 08.11.05
The problem I have with anyone who says the world needs less people is that essentially they are campaigning for the death of millions, if not billions of people, people with families, people who have as much of a right to life as the individual proposing such a course, and I don't see them topping themselves to bring the world back into some kind of ecological balance.
Also I cannot take anyone who uses the Matrix to prove a point (even in jest) seriously.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:24 / 08.11.05
I am suggesting that such pandemics, and other things, may be a part of the planet's complex ecological system's mechanism for restoring some sort of equalibrium.

I am a little confused about what you think that actually means even if it were true.
 
 
Malarki
15:39 / 08.11.05
Ahhh, human rights, now that's a different debate. Do you believe in god? What are the basis of your beliefs and can you justify your assumptions? As for billions dying, if you're so concerned what are you doing about it?

But this is getting a little off topic....
 
 
Malarki
15:51 / 08.11.05
I am a little confused about what you think that actually means even if it were true.

Which proves that language is not a transparent window onto meaning, and can never be. As such, further explanation is probably futile due to languages structural opaqueness. The confusion is yours and I will let you keep it - what do you think it means? I would suggest that this is the wrong forum for such a discussion.
 
 
Cherielabombe
19:12 / 08.11.05
A very interesting and informative interview with Mike Davis, Professor at UC Davis, about the threat of an avian flu pandemic can be listened to, watched or read here


Some interesting things *I* learned from this interview, for those too lazy/timepressed/etc to read it:

- Somewhere between 40 and 100 million people died from the 1918 flu pandemic. Think about that for a moment. FORTY MILLION PEOPLE - minimum!! Now think about the deaths from the tsunami, earthquake in Pakistan, etc. They were MINOR compared to the casualties a flu pandemic has the potential of causing.

Due the fact that many more people currently live in slumlike and unsanitary conditions than did in the 1918 pandemic, another bird flu pandemic could be far worse than the 1918 one.

Why was SARS able to be controlled? In part because people were not contagious with SARS until they began showing symptoms of being sick. With the current strain of avian flu you are contagious before you start showing symptoms. This quite obviously increases the difficulty of isolating people with the illness.


This and lots of other fun facts in the interview.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:29 / 09.11.05
The speculation bit of all this is whether it will ever come to anything. It is an if, not a when. Just as others here have pointed out with the sarrs virus. Apparently, WMD were facts not ideal specualtion too.

You're right, in a way. It is not a certainty that avian flu will become a human-lethal pandemic. But given what we know of the virus, there is a very real possibility that it will. Given that, it makes sense to begin preparations for the worst now. Rather than when it's already two thirds of the way around the world.

SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) was a very real concern which fortunately was never the threat that the media machine made it out to be. It's not an applicable comparisson to avian flu for the following reasons.

1) Lethality. The people who actually died from SARS were the elderly and the very young. Both are groups often vulnerable to infection. The influenza virus is most lethal to people between the ages of 25 to 40. Which means that, in the event of a pandemic, public services would be decimated. It's tough to fight a plague without doctors.

2) Transmission. Avian flu has already established a presence in every corner of the globe. It's carried by migratory wild birds so is very difficult to prevent it's arrival in a country. SARS barely made it out of the countries where it first mainfested.

3) History. SARS was a potential threat simply because it wasn't an illness that had been seen before. Things like that tend to be handled as though they are worst-case. Human-lethal influenza has already demonstrated the ability to wipe out vast swathes of the global human population.

With regards to your belief that having a "daily exposure to death" would somehow improve our standard of living. I'm curious to know how you would put this to the people who'd lost family to a flu pandemic? You're advocating it, so I believe you have the responsibilty to explain your belief here. How are you going to explain to someone who's watched their loved one slowly choke to death on fluid-filled lungs that it was a "good thing"?

Others are constructed upon observation, reason, study.....my opinion about the sustainability of the human race is based on various of these but most importantly Agent Smith's observation that humanity is a virus.

I'll give that statement the respect it deserves.

No, don't go with the "force of nature" type stuff either

After which you say:

I am suggesting that such pandemics, and other things, may be a part of the planet's complex ecological system's mechanism for restoring some sort of equalibrium

Force of nature in other words.

However, as a scientist you should be familiar with ideas of cause and effect, and complex systems. It is not a particularly controversial idea as far as I'm aware that systems have complex feedback loops and ways of correcting themselves, and that such systems have been observed and documented in animal populations such that populations remain stable and controlled

I think I see what the problem is here. You are making the mistake of assuming that, because disease is sometimes a factor in wiping out or culling back an over-successful species that it is in some way an "agent of the system" (to put it in comfortable terms for you). What is actually occurring is the rise of a second living organism (in this case a micro-organism) taking advantage of the situation.

Sudden overpopulation of a specific species does not automatically mean they will be culled back by some inbuilt ecological defense system. Species reach a natural balance due to levels of available food and mates. If a population grows too much then often the limiting factor will simply be a lack of food.

A dense population is vulnerable to disease. True. But it does not automatically follow that this means diseases are "nature's little helpers".

Shouldn't alot of this be in the Lab or Headshoppe rather than here?

Heh, I actually started a thread on avian flu ages ago in Lab. But we don't get many visitors there so it dropped away into the depths. Arguably it should be over there, but it's getting more attention here so I don't really mind.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:50 / 09.11.05
I suggest you cut the cryptic bullshit and answer the question Malarki.
 
 
bjacques
12:04 / 09.11.05
When someone expresses a casual attitude (with a whiff of desire) about Nature "cleaning out" excess people, they're usually talking about those "other" people, who, ironically, are less of a burden (if you want to think in those terms) than the average holder of the above opinions. I'd guess by a factor of at least ten.
 
 
Malarki
14:51 / 09.11.05
I suggest you cut the cryptic bullshit and answer the question Malarki.

Not being cryptic Nina, just don't see the relevance in getting into a discussion of linguists here. Neither do I see discussions of ontology or epistomology, which would probably be necessary to try and explain what I mean, would necessarily be relevant in a direct way to the discussion. Plus I genuinely believe that language is structurally ambiguous in its relation to meaning - but now I am getting into semiotics.

However, as some sort of attempt to explain what I meant, I was trying to express the opinion that the world, planet, solar system, however you want to scale things, is a self-regulating system. Not because it has some consciousness, but in a complex mechanical way. Now I'm no scientist and view science as another among many belief system, and for much of the West (though not for a growing part of the US it would appear) the dominant belief system, but academically and by inclination a philosopher and therefore sceptic. But I have some certainty, and I think its been confirmed above, that systems type thinking is not entirely unfamiliar to science and I am more familiar with it in the social sciences.

Now you can analysis my motivations if you like and perhaps suggest that I'm trying to dress up misanthropy in dubious theories, but as I've suggested above, science is merely another theory, based on contingencies and extrapolations made from them and as such is never right or true in any absolute sense. Reading between the lines myself, I am surprised that my opinions should be so threatening to scientists with all their certainties. All I have to declare is my uncertainty.

Does that help? Ultimately it depends on ones cosmology as to how one views these events/threats and just because science dominates as the discourse de jour doesn't make it right.
 
 
Malarki
15:34 / 09.11.05
Mr Evil Scientist (do you have a cat? judging by your earlier comments no, though I thought them compulsory in your line of work, together with an island lair) we seem to be getting somewhere!

Yes, make preparations in case, but what concerns me is the accompanying generation of media hysteria and the fact that then distracts from more immediate problems and how the available resources are distributed. Has the poor response to the Pakistan earthquake in the west been because they don't care or because they are more worried by what they precieve to be the imminent threat to their own lives?

The living with death stuff is not about standard of living, its about perspective. How do we currently live with telling people dying of HIV, famine, collerateral damage due to the actions of our armed forces that its because we not willing to give an extra 1% in taxes or for their own good so as to rid them of a dictator?

You call it Force of Nature, someone else calls it Gaia, I call it a complex system. I feel that Nature with the capital N, implies some sort of consciousness and I don't believe in transcendent beings of that nature. Consciousness as an emergent property is a topic I'd like to discuss, but don't think it'd be appropriate here.

On the agent of the system v second living organism bit, isn't there a bit of chicken and egg here? Only because certain conditions have emerged in terms of human population, the ways it lives and interacts with its environment, can this organism take advantage (sorry don't mean to imply an intent here) and thereby spread and do its thing, and in that sense is it not a property of the system analysis on a macro level?

Sorry to hear your scientific peers would not engage and so you're stuck with pesky speculators instead.

...and what has everybody got against Agent Smith? We all need heroes.
 
 
Morpheus
20:01 / 09.11.05
Something about this story just doesn't make sense and I will put my finger on it sooner or later.

"It's the smell..."
Mr. smith

Children are fighting the war on poverty in France.
I see more car, beer, cell phone and KFC ads then ever.
My ipod is going to lull me to fits of hidden aggressive behavior.
The winter is going to be rough and heating is going to double.
CEO's still seem to be doing backflips with no visible real economy.
Real Estate is bloated beyond belief,

...but you are going to now try and sell me on bird flu.

If everyone dies of bird flu, how are we going to fight terror and fill those new prisons we just built.

Add that if you start detaining prisoners for 90 days plus...add a bit of bird flu. More room for future terrorists.

The world is for rent. Bring your flag.
 
 
Morpheus
20:57 / 09.11.05
If you've been paying attention to the news then you may have noticed that avian flu isn't currently front page news.

You are ...wrong. It is front page news. Go to CNN and Health "POP".

You are being manipulated. Deja Voo?

"What did the cat look like?"
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:37 / 09.11.05
The cat looked like a paranoid schizophrenic.

NEXT!
 
 
Ganesh
22:39 / 09.11.05
Did the cat 'get' Seaguy?
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:22 / 10.11.05
Sea-Cat! Garrr!

Just a quick one, things are a little busy in the lab this morning.

Malarki, I'll answer your post once things calm down.

Morpheus, no offence mate but your previous posts on other threads are neither productive nor constructive. I'll be ignoring your "contributions".
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:44 / 10.11.05
I'm baaaaack. That took less time to sort out than I thought it would. Bloody zombies.

but as I've suggested above, science is merely another theory, based on contingencies and extrapolations made from them and as such is never right or true in any absolute sense. Reading between the lines myself, I am surprised that my opinions should be so threatening to scientists with all their certainties. All I have to declare is my uncertainty.

Again, you're half right. Scientific theories are based on observing the results and drawing conclusions from them. The reason why science is popular as a way of explaining the world and how it works is that it is extremely flexible and produces consistent, accurate results. I don't know about anyone else but I'm not feeling too threatened by your position on this. You're drawing on baseless suppositions and unproven theories.

On the agent of the system v second living organism bit, isn't there a bit of chicken and egg here? Only because certain conditions have emerged in terms of human population, the ways it lives and interacts with its environment, can this organism take advantage (sorry don't mean to imply an intent here) and thereby spread and do its thing, and in that sense is it not a property of the system analysis on a macro level?

It isn't a property of system analysis no. That would presume that there is some way for the system to be analysed. Some disease epidemics occur due to poor conditions, certainly. This particular disease has occurred due to mutation in a pathogen already present. Arguably a different style of chicken farming could have controlled and limited the possibility of such a varient strain arising, but it could not completely rule it out.

Avian flu has not occurred simply because there are too many humans. It will, however, spread quickly because we have a very dense population with a global transport network. Also because, as explained above, wild migratory birds can bring the disease into a country unrestricted. But again, a dense population does not mean "too many".

...and what has everybody got against Agent Smith? We all need heroes.

I have nothing against the character, as far as set-chewing badguys go he's moderately entertaining. I just wouldn't use him as the principle argument on the worth of Humanity. He's a character in a third-rate film.
 
 
Malarki
14:03 / 10.11.05
Sorry, some typos which sorta distorted some of what I was saying but think you got the general gist.

Don't think we're gonna agree on the status of scientific theory. Like any believer you obviously have your faith and for good reason. As I've already said above, I'm a sceptic and so my job is to spread doubt. I've also studied the history and philosophy of science and am aware of its limitations and the battles it had to fight to establish itself as the dominant discourse. As with all belief systems it has baseline unfounded assumptions, just because you've got to start from somewhere. You may feel that these assumptions are self-evident, but they remain assumptions. As science is about the real world as opposed to abstraction, it cannot be anything other than contingent and must remain so otherwise it becomes a dogmatic doctrine like many religions. It is only in logic that statements and propositions can be necessary and absolute. And even so, one still has to establish ones assumptions. The power of science is indeed its power to predict, but anyone who looks at the history of science will quickly see that it often has to change its assumptions and theories because they are found to no longer fit the current data. The transition from a Newtonian to Einsteinian/Quantum world view I believe illustrates this points well; the Newtonian remains a fairly good model for everyday purposes but the new paradigm is better if one wants to make more accurate observations, explain certain phenomena and send people into space.

What I meant to say in the bit you quoted was "system analyised" rather than "system analysis". However, I wasn't talking about simple systems which the whole environment/human interaction clearly isn't. To a certain extent I think we're talking at cross-purposes as I think we use the same words to mean different things, you speaking from the nomenclature of physical science and I from philosophy/social sciences/humanities. As such, I think I actually agree with alot that your saying, but add a slighty different interpretation which means that I take the ease with which such a pandemic will spread, should it ever occur, to mean that the human population is unsustainable. Recent reports I've heard regarding fresh water supplies in relation to the size of human population are the sort of thing that also inform my view....as well as Agent Smith.

While the Matrix is indutibly third rate (Avalon and Ghost in the Shell are far superior for starters), but fun none the less, would you find the character of Johnny in Naked a more acceptable role model for misanthrops?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:01 / 10.11.05
As I've already said above, I'm a sceptic and so my job is to spread doubt.

Isn't that the job of a Pyrrhonist?
 
 
Chiropteran
19:56 / 10.11.05
[rot]
Isn't that the job of a Pyrrhonist?

Nah, a Pyrrhonist's job is to suspend judgement, while living in accordance with appearance and the customs and laws of the land. Spreading doubt is the job of The Matrix. Do you think that's air you're breathing now?

[/rot]
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:42 / 11.11.05
Malarki, you make a couple of valid points in your last post. But considering we are talking about a real world situation, i.e. the spread of a human-pathogenic bird flu, would you not agree that scientific method would be the most useful tool with which to combat the spread of it?

Let's try and bring this thread back on track.

In your first post you suggested that the avian flu crisis was being over-hyped to act as a smokescreen for other events. Do you have an opinion on what these events are?

Do you accept that avian flu, even if it doesn't become the global death-party some people predict, is causing heavy economic damage to the non-Western countries who are having to kill their livestock in an attempt to stop the spread of the disease?
 
 
Malarki
12:51 / 11.11.05
Coming back on thread is a good idea.


As for combatting avian flu through science, no problems with that. Gonna be better than praying. Just as long as the allocation of resources is proportionate in terms of all the other imminent threats to human life on the planet, ie war, global warming, etc..

The events being covered up is always a tricky one, other than with hindsight, exactly because they are being cover up. However, this method of political machinations is not exactly unheard of. I guess what I was trying to suggest (I do alot of suggesting don't I?) is that given what I've been arguing, and you have to an extent conceded, about the threat being an if, even if a big IF, why so much coverage? Is it that there is nothing else going on internationally? Or is it because they'd rather talk about this than something more uncomfortable, like the West's poor response to the Pakistani earthquake? The continuing rising deathtoll in Iraqi? The warmongering against Iran?

While I'm not on first name terms with the effect that the avian flu is having on livestock, probably because the reporting focuses on the human threat, I would definitely concede that this is something to be concerned about - especially as many of my relatives live in SE Asia. I would double my concern in light of the controversal slaughter of cattle and sheep in the UK a few years back because of the threat of foot and mouth disease. As well as the obvious disruption to the food supply for many (though as a veggie it did not directly effect me and I could be going serves you right for your dodgy factory farming methods) there has also been the long-term effect on many small farmers who are now going out of business. If your conspiratorial, you could ask who's long-term interests have been served by putting small farmers out of business? In some non-Western countries there is of course not the protection of the wealth that allows that should the food supply be disrupted alternative supplies can be shipped in from elsewhere. Now that would seem to be a more immediate human crisis that needs attention.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:16 / 11.11.05
I guess what I was trying to suggest (I do alot of suggesting don't I?) is that given what I've been arguing, and you have to an extent conceded, about the threat being an if, even if a big IF, why so much coverage?

There is a lot of coverage because the possible threat of a lethal flu epidemic is considered highly newsworthy. Avian flu is as big a story as the Iraq situation, and is potentially a bigger natural disaster than the Pakistan earthquakes.

This may simply be a case of IF not WHEN. However, the potential threat to human life is on such a magnitude that if we did not react as though it were a certainty then we'd be in some extremely deep poo in the event that a worst case scenario occurred.

If your conspiratorial, you could ask who's long-term interests have been served by putting small farmers out of business?

Tescos manages to do it without seeming to need a global conspiracy.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply