See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
Actualy for effective population control one has to target the breeding population, and neither Covid nor this new virus is doing that in any significant numbers.If the goal is population control you obviously want to target the older generations and sickly people to thin out the herd. After you receive your results from months of feedback from all across the world you make the required changes to have a little more aggressive virus, fine tuned to thin the herd drastically.
No. If you remove the breeding population you will end up removing too many humans and possibly cause the extinction of the human species. If there is no one to breed and you kill off majority of everyone you end up with a population that can no longer procreate nor sustain the world. It wont be able to recover.Actualy for effective population control one has to target the breeding population, and neither Covid nor this new virus is doing that in any significant numbers.
How to take over the world, China edition.Your preferred target would be to thin out the sick and elderly. There after a more aggressive strain to thin out people who are susceptible but not sickly. That way you got rid of the old and sickly, and also a few billion healthy people.
the beta test of something worse,Whut?
Exactly how deadly do imagine COVID-19 to be?
Bubonic plague happens every year. Only reason it has made the news this year is because everyone is fixated on infections at the moment. And the news sources know most people are going to think it is something unusual.2020 can stop it now. Now it's just becoming a pita rather than a difficult year.
Freaking fires, floods, rona, bubonic plague, bloody overachiever of a year.
Multiple problems with this. The virus kills the wrong people if population reduction is the aim. Even if it killed more younger people it would still be an unreliable, blunt instrument. Then there is the issue with trying to collect data from what is essentially a totally uncontrolled experiment with a long list of variables. Assuming you can collect useful data you have to know exactly how to change the virus to make it do what you want. Can you make it more infectious, more deadly and change the vulnerable group at the same?How long would it take to analyze and collect data of an engineered virus if all tests had to be done ethically and in a controlled environment? I would assume a long time. The logistics and paper work to get volunteers to willingly subject themselves to a virus, and the amount of people you will need to establish the characteristics of said virus would bare astronomical costs, not to mention the moral ethics of said experiment.
The time frame is also significant. Now why not release said virus into the world? The benefits are you have 1000s of doctors doing the research on your behalf for free, and with such a large testing group, all variables come into effect. Its the greatest science experiment of our time.
If the goal is population control you obviously want to target the older generations and sickly people to thin out the herd. After you receive your results from months of feedback from all across the world you make the required changes to have a little more aggressive virus, fine tuned to thin the herd drastically.
How would you tailor a virus to kill only unskilled people under a certain age?Taking into consideration that we are overpopulated and already reached a point where machines and software can do so much, now would be the best time to thin out the world population. Majority of labor can already be replaced with software and hardware. Why even care about the millions of deaths if its for the greater good? Do you know those families being torn apart?