Rio Olympics Will Be Cancelled Due to Zika Virus (probably)

seer of things wrote:

EBOLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BENGHAZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

turn off your tv... folks been dealing with this particular virus (and thousands of others) for eons

This ^

x 1000

Rx wrote:

That would be very sensible IF they did it. Don't hold your breath however.

With the way the World is now, eliminating both the Summer and Winter Olympics and getting rid of the IOC and all national Olympic committees would all be good decisions.

I know that sounds harsh, however every day I read the paper or listen to the news I get more convinced that Time is getting short for ALL of us.

Lord help us all at the End.

I'm not sure if I should be laughing at this ^ or just encouraging you to get back on your meds.

Women who have had zika may pass it on to their babies, even if they were infected prior to and not during pregnancy, so there the risks become substantially greater.

stochastic_track wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/leeigel/2016/02/03/zika-outbreak-means-it-is-now-time-to-cancel-rio-olympics/#2715e4857a0b5d370ec54f92

It's not looking good at all.

You folks remember a year of two back with the Ebola panic? Folks on these boards were saying that it was time to stockpile food, water, blankets and guns because society itself would be breaking down from a worldwide epidemic.

Ummm...

Folks, get a clue. Please. It's truly embarrassing.

Amongst a laundry list of issues, poverty is a problem that arose from overpopulation of humans. I never suggested anyone kill poor people, someone else on here did. I did however agree that poor people would make a better target in terms of population control since they tend to have lots of children. You are talking about poverty as an issue within a human social construct. I'm talking about humans as the species responsible for destroying the planet. To respond to you more directly, all was well on earth when we sat in the right place in the food chain as foragers. Once we smartened up we started to devastate everything in our path. Take for example the arrival of humans in present day Australia 45,000 years ago. Within one millennia most of the largest land predators were extinct. And this was at a time when humans were only equipped with fire and basic tools. Certain politicians and influential people to this day claim these animals were suddenly wiped out for a bunch of other unsubstantiated reasons. Do you have any doubts we are a plague on this earth. There is no answer my friend, we're all too deep into the $hit to do anything now.

Since we're all speaking objectively my observation is that you're a fvcking loon a$$hole. Kill all the poor people because the have the most children? Why not kill all the rich people because they have the most money. Then give all that money to the poor people and their children and all is well on earth again. All the rich a-holes are dead and the poor aren't poor anymore.[/quote]

SatansDengue wrote:

Amongst a laundry list of issues, poverty is a problem that arose from overpopulation of humans...

You are wrong right out of the box. The natural state of humans was ALWAYS what would be described in today's terms as poverty.

Small and deformed stature, death by disease and starvation, VERY short average lifespans, extremely limited intellectual and creative lives...this was the lot of humans LONG before anyone could in any reasonable way describe humans as overpopulating the planet.

More succinctly - nasty, brutish and short.

Try starting again from a position that isn't 100% WRONG.

[quote]SatansDengue wrote:

I never suggested anyone kill poor people, someone else on here did. I did however agree that poor people would make a better target in terms of population control since they tend to have lots of children.

[quote]

So you're ok with a "Final Solution" for a certain segment of the worlds population that you're not a member of

Try again, and when you respond next time try using more facts and evidence, and also consider the bigger picture. It is dead wrong to assume the life of an ancient forager was unfulfilling or miserable. You say by "today's terms" and therein lies the main issue. Since our early days we have set up social contraptions that keep us running the rat race our whole lives, in essence it's what has been destroying us. Consider these facts for a minute before you draw another emotional conclusion. In today's industrial societies, people don't need to know much about the natural world in order to survive. We have very narrow knowledge about different small fields and rely blindly on the help of other experts whose knowledge is also limited. There is some evidence that the average size of our brains has actually decreased. The average forager had superior knowledge of their immediate surrounding than most of us. After the agricultural and industrial revolutions arrived, people increasingly began to rely on the skills of others to survive, and new niches for imbeciles were created. As a result we have been passing on crappier genes to the next generation. Sure, collectively today's society knows much more than our ancestors, but at the individual level we are much less capable.The life of a hunter gatherer may not have been glamorous by today's standards, but they enjoyed a much more rewarding and comfortable lifestyle than most of the serfs, laborers and office workers who followed. It is common for people in the developing world to work up to 80 hrs a week (doing the same unrewarding redundant work all day) and then go home to spend the little time left with family and cleaning. Sure, our ancestors might have lived in rough terrains and faced harsh conditions, but they had more active, interesting and wholesome lives than we do today. Foragers had ideal nutrition and were less likely to suffer from starvation or malnutrition and were taller and healthier than the peasants you describe. Sure, average life expectancy was much lower, but that's mainly due to high child mortality rates. Contrary to what many think, foragers also suffered less from infectious diseases. Most of the illnesses and plagues we know today came during the industrial and agricultural revolutions. It is ignorant to think that a vast majority of the world's population can have a better standard of living by "today's terms". The reality is we have mainly created tiered classist societies which depend on the majority of the population being work bees who feed economies and the wealthy. That is an unchangeable fact. Tty to keep up or stick to things you know

U R Wrong From the Get Go wrote:

SatansDengue wrote:

Amongst a laundry list of issues, poverty is a problem that arose from overpopulation of humans...

You are wrong right out of the box. The natural state of humans was ALWAYS what would be described in today's terms as poverty.

Small and deformed stature, death by disease and starvation, VERY short average lifespans, extremely limited intellectual and creative lives...this was the lot of humans LONG before anyone could in any reasonable way describe humans as overpopulating the planet.

More succinctly - nasty, brutish and short.

Try starting again from a position that isn't 100% WRONG.

Not sure why you're putting words in my mouth. I said the current size of the human population is destructive and unsustainable. I never suggested any solutions to this problem since I am also human and have empathy. Someone who was butt hurt at my comment ignorantly asked if we should kill all the poor. Obviously I never suggested any of that. However, objectively speaking, if there were to be a reduction of our population, the poor would indeed make better candidates since they tend to have more children. Don't put words in my mouth, I made a logical statement, however discriminatory it might sound, it's not my opinion, it's simply a mathematical fact that poor people have more children. Do I suggest we kill anyone? Of course not, I don't want to die and don't want others to die. If that doesn't drive the point home, you should read this post over a few times, I'm sure it'll make sense to you eventually.

jamin in jail wrote:

[quote]SatansDengue wrote:

I never suggested anyone kill poor people, someone else on here did. I did however agree that poor people would make a better target in terms of population control since they tend to have lots of children.

[quote]

So you're ok with a "Final Solution" for a certain segment of the worlds population that you're not a member of

SatansDengue still agree with you. I understand what your getting at and actually trying to state. I am so sickened of this human so called race on this planet. I think we are a monstrosity on this particular planet in space and all universes across time. For me I would like an asteroid hit. One about 1/4 the size of earth. Kaboom its over, all done. Actually something like this, obviously will occur one day. The sooner the better.

I'm starting to regret my post

Yep, good riddance. I have to say it's not misinformed people that bother me, but those who are educated and still revere the human species.

Kaboom. wrote:

SatansDengue still agree with you. I understand what your getting at and actually trying to state. I am so sickened of this human so called race on this planet. I think we are a monstrosity on this particular planet in space and all universes across time. For me I would like an asteroid hit. One about 1/4 the size of earth. Kaboom its over, all done. Actually something like this, obviously will occur one day. The sooner the better.

Well excuse me. Kaboom would be best thing for this particular planet. Just my opinion....so screw you guys, I'm goin hooommmme.

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons calls for the use of DDT to fight Zika.

DDT, the miracle insecticide, was banned by a junk science scare.

Bring it back and save the Olympics.