Could H5N1 be the saviour of the human race?

Question

OK, it's hard to see millions dead as salvation but given that space and resources are running out and there is no "fair" way to distribute whats left, could a bird flu pandemic be natures answer to mans problem?

Can I add that I'm in the age range projected to be wiped out by this potential disaster.
YES it could happen to me, I accept that.

Seriously, I'm not suggesting the world would be a better place without certain groups of people.
As I understand it H5N1 is a particularly nasty virus that could kill as many in the first world as in the third, regardless of our preparation for it.

At which point was I saying I wished for the deaths of millions? Chances are this will happen anyway and just how would I go about bringing this to fruition if it were my plan? Get off the moral high horse.

Answer 1

No, i think there are far more itelligent ways to save our planet and species. However it seems that no-one in power has the guts to see this through thier political glasses so its likely a pandemic of some sort will have more effect than the politicians.

However, a H5N1 pandemic will just result in more scientists being thrown at the problems of virus and result in genetically modified chickens, fowl etc.

Its unlikely to result in an enlightened view that messing about with nature will bite us in the end.

There are many ways to support 6 billion people on this planet. No one has the guts to do it and 5.99999 billion people are too selfish to help.

Saving the planet is not a vote winner.

I think rather than us being the most intelligent species on the planet it makes us the most stupid.

Answer 2

Great, another proposal to destroy mankind in order to save it. Call it a "final solution" to overpopulation. Does that term make you uneasy? It should. Mao, Stalin and Hitler all thought they were making the world a better place when their actions and dogmas resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. Those who died might beg to differ, if they could.

Besides, what you have in mind wouldn't work. First of all, it's a myth that we're running out of space. Take an airplane flight sometime and you'll see there is still PLENTY of space left out there. Also, while SOME of our resources are running out, the history of resource shortages is that we have always used our cleverness to find more, or a substitute resource, or to conserve and/or recycle what we have. Food? We already grow enough to feed the world. Fossil fuels? When they run out we'll have switched to something else. Fresh water? Ocean desalination is getting cheaper. Wood? We can always grow more on tree farms. Etc. etc. etc.

Now as you point out, a highly lethal pandemic is likely to strike the first world as badly as the third world. But the first world doesn't have an overpopulation problem; most first world countries have either stable or decreasing populations. About 80-90% of global population growth is in the third world. So using a bird flu pandemic to control population would be like amputating your entire arm because of a growth on one of your fingers.

Even if the pandemic did manage to wipe out, say, 100 million(!) people, that's a drop in the bucket in world population. Population growth for a single year would replace those numbers. (And of course, most of those replacements would be in the third world.)

And finally, it is of extremely questionable morality (to say the least) to enact, advocate, or even wish for the deaths of millions of innocent people, for ANY reason. There is NO noble cause that could ever justify such a desire. Sorry, but there are countless far better ways at dealing with overpopulation or resource depletion. Give it some thought.

Answer 3

Previous pandemics have caused death to around 10% of those most susceptible. So although the loss of life is potentially huge, the human population is unlikely to be decimated to the extent that could cause a major lessening of out impact on the earth.

Possibly the scariest thing is that this loss of life would likely occur over a very short time span, probably months. So negativity all round I am afriad.

Answer 4

Its tempting to think that the world would be a better place if there were fewer people in it, or if certain people were eradicated. And I guess its also tempting to see a plague as a 'guilt free' way of achieving that.
The problem is that people don't learn. If we can't organise food, shelter, water, health care, contraception and education for the majority now; what makes you think there'll be the will to do it later?

Answer 5

What an illogical and asinine end you have drawn. i've got faith so plenty greater human beings died through fact of money and land acquisition than interior the call of Christ. to not point out the infinite different religions which participated in conflict.

Answer 6

I think man manages fine on its own through war etc. but I can see what you're saying.

Answer 7

Its natures way. Like the plague.

Answer 8

You know, I heard the same stupid theory about the Tsunami, and also about AIDS...the unfortunate thing is that people assume it'd all be a good thing AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM, THEIR FRIENDS OR THEIR FAMILY, of course.

Answer 9

Definitely, so long as I get to be the one who chooses the surviviors!

Answer 10

NOW you're thinking like Hitler...good work.