What does the future hold? (No Spam)

Hill-Shatar · Post by **Hill-Shatar** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:35 pm

Eventually, the sun is going to go poof and we're (all of us) screwed at that point anyway.

Io take it you alos know that our sun wont go bang. It will just expand and swallow up Venus, Mercury, Earth and perhaps Mars before burning out and becoming a nebula.

Or sun doesnt go bang.

I do see some validity in Mag's earthquake idea. It's not a matter of the world exploding or anything like that, it's simply a fact. At some point, an astreoid is going to hit that's big enough to have a major impact on the earths ecosystem, at some point a huge volcano is going to blow and kill thousands at least, and at some point a major earthquake is going to happen that's going to change the shape of the landscape in whatever region it occurs in. it's not a question of if, it's simply a question of when. It wouldn't surprise me to see a major quake in the in the time period he expects to see one.

*nods* Vesuvius, if they dont have at least a two week warning.

And tectonic activity will eventually get worse on Earth without the interference of an asteroid.

Anyways, be lucky that you live when you do when you have proper quarantine procedures. Althpough your explanation goes somewhat off the mark in some cases, thats pretty much what happens... things evolve, natural slection happenes, diseases become immune.

BTW, woah, I come back and this is a doomsday thread.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 7:50 pm

yes, I was aware of what is going to happen to the sun. "poof" was easier to type

As far as my explanation going off the mark, I wasn't trying to write a detailed dissertation, just trying to say things in as broad and simple (least amount of typing) way I could. Mostly just saying that we tend to overplay our own role in some of the natural actions that go on around us at times. Kinda the same way a lot of people tend to view the current state of affairs in the world as drastically worse and more barbaric than they've always been. I just don't see it that way.

Deadalready · Post by **Deadalready** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:48 am

In the future:

*Income tax will be automatically calculated.
*I will own a computer that will never freeze, crash, lockup or fail on me randomly.
*Starcraft Ghost will come out.

~

I'm expecting a war though.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:34 pm

[QUOTE=Bloodstalker]As far as the whole science creating the super virus, I don't think it's any more of a pronlem now than it's ever been. Polio, Turboculosis, Small Pox, and a host of other diseases have all caused the same level of destruction in their time that any super disease would today. Plagues have existed since the beginning because some virus or another came along that our immune system couldn't deal with. Tith or without antibiotics, killer virus will evolve and wreak havoc on a population. While I agree that viruses are evolving due to the anti-biotics, they'd evolve the same in response to our own imunne system. I don't see any disease as being a super disease. My stance is that you can't get deader with a new virus than you could in the past with Small Pox or TB. As far as diseases spreading worldwide, that has little to do with the potency of the disease and everything to do with the modern world and how easy it is to move between continents. the bubonic Plague didn;t spread from Europe into North America bacuse there was no travel path for the disease to get here. Had there been flights between the continents as there are now, it would likely have been a worldwide catastrophe.[/QUOTE]
Well BS, your stance is noted, but according to my expert sources (read: my girlfriend) incorrect. The case of TB that I was talking about is drug resistant TB.

[warning: boring TB diatribe coming up]
My understanding is that TB is treatable by two different types of drugs, Types 1 and 2. The Type 1 drugs are more effective and very cheap, and the usual drugs that people get to treat TB. However, TB, in some cases, can become resistant to Type 1 drugs. The Type 2 drugs are not widely available and not as effective, but if the Type 1 drugs don't work... well, let's just say that TB doesn't just 'go away'.

Did you know that a relatively high percentage of the population in Russia ends up in prison at some point in time? (It similar to the US in this regard- drug offenses, etc.) Unfortunately, in the Russian prison system there is a big TB problem. And, furthermore, the only drugs available in the prison system are the Type 1 drugs, to which TB is sometimes resistant. Add it up and what you get is a situation where TB can mutate and adapt and be exposed easily to a general poplulation.

[/diatribe]

Does this make sense BS? Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, so I usually choose not to think about it too much.

GB doesn't have a resident epidemiologist, does it? We need an authority to clear this up...

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:38 pm

I may not have understood, but I thought BS's point was that at worst things would revert to the way they were before we got effective drugs in the first place. Some people were immune in the past so diseases didn't wipe everyone out. It isn't a pleasant prospect, but there is no reason to believe it will be fatal to the species. Or is there?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:11 pm

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]GB doesn't have a resident epidemiologist, does it? We need an authority to clear this up...[/QUOTE]

We have an expert on immunology I think (Hill). If you are interested, I can ask some professionals I know, one of my best friend is a virologist, and I work with two epidemiologists.

However, as far as I know, Bloodstalker is right in his reasoning that viral and bacterial diseases should prove no more problematic in the future than they have been hitherto in mankinds history. It is correct that resistent TB exists now, but just think of all the time - except less than the last 100 years - before treatment for infectious diseases existed.

It must be understood that a virus or bacteria, in order to be successful, cannot wipe out its' entire host population since it means death of the bactera/virus itself. That's the reason why many immunologists believe Ebola and Marburgh are quite new diseases, they are not yet in balance with their host, they kill too many too fast for its own good. Yet, although these diseases have among the highest lethality % we know of in infectious diseases, about 35% survive an Ebola infection.

Hill-Shatar · Post by **Hill-Shatar** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:20 pm

Sorry, placeholding for future reply to Cuchlain. However, if I went into the specifics... well, it gets boring, considering that the classes I learned it in felt like I had to stuff a cork in my ears to keep the knowledge in.

Just follow what C Elegans is saying for now, its pretty much the baseline for what it is, and therefore easier to follow... it makes sense and can be easily disputed on a lower level, without me having to refer you all to papers that only CE will understand.

In a little bit I will post more, when I am not wrestling with the computer.

Sorry if reading this has been a waste of time, but I may not be able to reply to his for a while... one of the reasons I tend to spam more, it takes about 5 seconds to do so.

Jaypee · Post by **Jaypee** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:23 pm

Darkness, death and doom.