Samus Aran said: It wouldn't be a disaster for the human race as a whole in the sense that there would still be plenty of us alive and that we wouldn't be endangered- at all.  And also the fact that diseases have always been the number one killer of humanity since agriculture. Yes, we can replace them. That's the whole freaking point here. Diseases are the cost we paid for agriculture. Of course there were diseases as well before we "invented" agriculture, but nowhere near as the diseases that came after it. The life expectancy actually went DOWN at first for a LONG time when people became farmers. Even though the life expectancy went down a lot, the birth rate was so high that it could easily buffer against the increased mortality rate. Yes, the population grew to astonishing heights even though we died a lot faster/sooner. I'm glad we paid that cost, it's worth it :) Diseases are a necessary evil(or were if we manage to wipe out all diseases one day, which I doubt). Perhaps you should discuss the real treat to humanity for once?

100 million people dead would be the population of my country. Nearly twice. I would call that a disaster.

Also, I understand disease has been the number one killer since civilisation began. However, we have always tried to look after the sick, either that or exiled/quarantine them. Why? Because we know that if we don't heal the sick, then what is infecting them will infect us too, and we don't want that.

It is vital for the survival of the human race to battle sickness, if we look at disease as "just a natural thing, we can replace the dead", then we are not going to last very long. 

highwaystar101 said: Samus Aran said: It wouldn't be a disaster for the human race as a whole in the sense that there would still be plenty of us alive and that we wouldn't be endangered- at all.  And also the fact that diseases have always been the number one killer of humanity since agriculture. Yes, we can replace them. That's the whole freaking point here. Diseases are the cost we paid for agriculture. Of course there were diseases as well before we "invented" agriculture, but nowhere near as the diseases that came after it. The life expectancy actually went DOWN at first for a LONG time when people became farmers. Even though the life expectancy went down a lot, the birth rate was so high that it could easily buffer against the increased mortality rate. Yes, the population grew to astonishing heights even though we died a lot faster/sooner. I'm glad we paid that cost, it's worth it :) Diseases are a necessary evil(or were if we manage to wipe out all diseases one day, which I doubt). Perhaps you should discuss the real treat to humanity for once?   100 million people dead would be the population of my country. Nearly twice. I would call that a disaster. Also, I understand disease has been the number one killer since civilisation began. However, we have always tried to look after the sick, either that or exiled/quarantine them. Why? Because we know that if we don't heal the sick, then what is infecting them will infect us too, and we don't want that. It is vital for the survival of the human race to battle sickness, if we look at disease as "just a natural thing, we can replace the dead", then we are not going to last very long.

Actually, they did very little to heal the sick until the 1800s. People only went to a doctor when it was too late already most of the time. Most people trusted in their faith(Christianity in Europe). In the early modern age only half of the people managed to become adults(which is when you did your Holy Communion in that age, usually at the age of 13-15). Life expectancy was around 25-35 years old. Not really high :)

Yes, some people with diseases got exiled because I don't know a lot of people that went to stay close to someone with a disease like lepra. They also exiled Jews and Gypsies back then you know. 

Samus Aran said: highwaystar101 said: Samus Aran said: It wouldn't be a disaster for the human race as a whole in the sense that there would still be plenty of us alive and that we wouldn't be endangered- at all.  And also the fact that diseases have always been the number one killer of humanity since agriculture. Yes, we can replace them. That's the whole freaking point here. Diseases are the cost we paid for agriculture. Of course there were diseases as well before we "invented" agriculture, but nowhere near as the diseases that came after it. The life expectancy actually went DOWN at first for a LONG time when people became farmers. Even though the life expectancy went down a lot, the birth rate was so high that it could easily buffer against the increased mortality rate. Yes, the population grew to astonishing heights even though we died a lot faster/sooner. I'm glad we paid that cost, it's worth it :) Diseases are a necessary evil(or were if we manage to wipe out all diseases one day, which I doubt). Perhaps you should discuss the real treat to humanity for once?   100 million people dead would be the population of my country. Nearly twice. I would call that a disaster. Also, I understand disease has been the number one killer since civilisation began. However, we have always tried to look after the sick, either that or exiled/quarantine them. Why? Because we know that if we don't heal the sick, then what is infecting them will infect us too, and we don't want that. It is vital for the survival of the human race to battle sickness, if we look at disease as "just a natural thing, we can replace the dead", then we are not going to last very long.  Actually, they did very little to heal the sick until the 1800s. People only went to a doctor when it was too late already most of the time. Most people trusted in their faith(Christianity in Europe). In the early modern age only half of the people managed to become adults(which is when you did your Holy Communion in that age, usually at the age of 13-15). Life expectancy was around 25-35 years old. Not really high :) Yes, some people with diseases got exiled because I don't know a lot of people that went to stay close to someone with a disease like lepra. They also exiled Jews and Gypsies back then you know.

People have always attempted to heal the sick, just because they haven't been going to doctors thousands of years doesn't mean that it's not part of human nature. You even said that before the 1800's people used to visit faith healers, why? Because that was one of the ways we tried to treat the sick.

The point is that we've always tried to heal the sick, regardless of the method, whether it is a church or a doctor.

If we don't acknowledge disease as something that effects a whole community, then humans don't stand any chance of survival. The old methods (churches etc) didn't do well and life expectancy was low due to disease. But now we have better methods, so we can stop things like the black death from being so rampant.

Our take on it hasn't changed, just our methods of dealing with it.

 

The PS3.
But not this year. This year, PS3 had mercy, but not next year.

PS3apocalypse. On 1st March 2011, the PS will have sold 900 million units. Every PC has been replaced by a PS because they're so UBER powerful and they have teh poWa of Blue-Rayz.
Even the NASA PCs.

Remember the date. FIRST FO MARCH.

nah i think thier just building the suspense for 2012

I think we can never rule out AIDS. The constant danger of it wiping out the human race with it is always there.

highwaystar101 said: Samus Aran said: highwaystar101 said: Samus Aran said: It wouldn't be a disaster for the human race as a whole in the sense that there would still be plenty of us alive and that we wouldn't be endangered- at all.  And also the fact that diseases have always been the number one killer of humanity since agriculture. Yes, we can replace them. That's the whole freaking point here. Diseases are the cost we paid for agriculture. Of course there were diseases as well before we "invented" agriculture, but nowhere near as the diseases that came after it. The life expectancy actually went DOWN at first for a LONG time when people became farmers. Even though the life expectancy went down a lot, the birth rate was so high that it could easily buffer against the increased mortality rate. Yes, the population grew to astonishing heights even though we died a lot faster/sooner. I'm glad we paid that cost, it's worth it :) Diseases are a necessary evil(or were if we manage to wipe out all diseases one day, which I doubt). Perhaps you should discuss the real treat to humanity for once?   100 million people dead would be the population of my country. Nearly twice. I would call that a disaster. Also, I understand disease has been the number one killer since civilisation began. However, we have always tried to look after the sick, either that or exiled/quarantine them. Why? Because we know that if we don't heal the sick, then what is infecting them will infect us too, and we don't want that. It is vital for the survival of the human race to battle sickness, if we look at disease as "just a natural thing, we can replace the dead", then we are not going to last very long.  Actually, they did very little to heal the sick until the 1800s. People only went to a doctor when it was too late already most of the time. Most people trusted in their faith(Christianity in Europe). In the early modern age only half of the people managed to become adults(which is when you did your Holy Communion in that age, usually at the age of 13-15). Life expectancy was around 25-35 years old. Not really high :) Yes, some people with diseases got exiled because I don't know a lot of people that went to stay close to someone with a disease like lepra. They also exiled Jews and Gypsies back then you know.  People have always attempted to heal the sick, just because they haven't been going to doctors thousands of years doesn't mean that it's not part of human nature. You even said that before the 1800's people used to visit faith healers, why? Because that was one of the ways we tried to treat the sick. The point is that we've always tried to heal the sick, regardless of the method, whether it is a church or a doctor. If we don't acknowledge disease as something that effects a whole community, then humans don't stand any chance of survival. The old methods (churches etc) didn't do well and life expectancy was low due to disease. But now we have better methods, so we can stop things like the black death from being so rampant. Our take on it hasn't changed, just our methods of dealing with it.

That's the whole freaking point. If diseases didn't endanger us at all when we did pretty much nothing(and with nothing I really do mean nothing, trusting in god to cure you won't do much by it self) then why will it now?

Our take and method of dealing with it have changed. 

Samus Aran said: highwaystar101 said: People have always attempted to heal the sick, just because they haven't been going to doctors thousands of years doesn't mean that it's not part of human nature. You even said that before the 1800's people used to visit faith healers, why? Because that was one of the ways we tried to treat the sick. The point is that we've always tried to heal the sick, regardless of the method, whether it is a church or a doctor. If we don't acknowledge disease as something that effects a whole community, then humans don't stand any chance of survival. The old methods (churches etc) didn't do well and life expectancy was low due to disease. But now we have better methods, so we can stop things like the black death from being so rampant. Our take on it hasn't changed, just our methods of dealing with it.   That's the whole freaking point. If diseases didn't endanger us at all when we did pretty much nothing(and with nothing I really do mean nothing, trusting in god to cure you won't do much by it self) then why will it now? Our take and method of dealing with it have changed.

They did endanger us though, how many people died from the black death because we had no natural immunity? Their method of dealing with the black death wasn't good, and so most of Europe died. They tried to stop it through, it's just that their method was wrong (for obvious reasons). We now have a better understanding of disease and so we can prevent it more effectively than people did during the black death.

W've always wanted to prevent the spread of disease, this is our take on it, it hasn't changed. We haven't always been able to prevent it, but now we can because our methods have changed.

 

Disease has ravaged whole civilisations in the past because their has been no natural immunity, and no method to prevent it. To ignore a disease like swine flu where again there is no natural immunity, even though we have the method to prevent it, is just plain foolish.

You really don't get it do you? First of all, no one tried to prevent the spread of diseases in the new world. Because quite frankly, no one cared.

The whole point is that even if they didn't do anything decent to prevent diseases we still survived, we weren't even endangered- at all. I never said anything about ignoring diseases NOW.
The fact that we prevent diseases is only normal because no one wants to die or see his beloved ones die. And the state doesn't want their people to die for obvious reasons.

In the past, a lot of these pandemic outbreaks have been seen as a punishment of (a) god by the way. They believed that they couldn't do anything about it because it was god's will.

Samus Aran said: You really don't get it do you? First of all, no one tried to prevent the spread of diseases in the new world. Because quite frankly, no one cared. The whole point is that even if they didn't do anything decent to prevent diseases we still survived, we weren't even endangered- at all. I never said anything about ignoring diseases NOW. The fact that we prevent diseases is only normal because no one wants to die or see his beloved ones die. And the state doesn't want their people to die for obvious reasons. In the past, a lot of these pandemic outbreaks have been seen as a punishment of (a) god by the way. They believed that they couldn't do anything about it because it was god's will.

I get it. Your stance is that pandemics have occurred and yet we survived comfortably.

I understand your point that they did nothing of substance and humanity survived, however, humanity has been ravaged by disease that we have no natural immunity to on more than one occasion, and often the damage has been costly. Humanity survived easily, not even threatened, but the damage was immense, tens of millions have died.

My point is that even though we are not endangered, we want to prevent as many deaths from disease as possible, whether it's a million or 6.8 billion.  Preservation is a natural trait of humanity for various reasons (you gave two in your post). We want to prevent swine flu from becoming a vicious pandemic which kills tens of millions, it is what we do. That's it, that's my point.