8 ms·

There is so much about this disease that is still unknown, the mere thought that it might lie dormant then flare up again like some sort of herpes infection(the

There is so much about this disease that is still unknown, the mere thought that it might lie dormant then flare up again like some sort of herpes infection(the mention bi-phasic but it could be much worse) is terrifying. One possible positive if there is such a thing is that if "Wuhan Fever" becomes a pandemic that kills off a large enough portion of the global population maybe it will solve the global warming crisis or at the least slow it down.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
JamesBarney 7y ago
The upside of your family dying in that car wreck is you'll save on your health insurance each month.
- sigmaprimus 7y ago
  Good point, but I would think even the current travel restrictions being imposed by various countries must result is a reduction of greenhouse gas production. I would also imagine that there may be a reduction in holiday travel plans just out of fear of being quarantined. Not to mention the effect a global recession would have on CO2 production.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    And, with global demand for oil dropping, gas will get cheaper!
hurrdurr2 7y ago
You had me until the second paragraph. Perhaps we can have a way to reduce global climate change without mass suffering and death.
triceratops 7y ago
> a pandemic that kills off a large enough portion of the global population...will solve the global warming crisis The global warming crisis is a crisis because it has the potential to kill off a large portion of the global population. I'm not an expert or anything but a pandemic that does the same thing doesn't seem like an improvement.
_bxg1 7y ago
Yikes.
nickysielicki 7y ago
You’re being downvoted, and I don’t agree with the conclusion you’re drawing or the framing of it as a positive thing, but I find it surprising how many people are uncomfortable with the notion that global warming is fundamentally about population control. I don’t think there’s a realistic long term solution to global warming that doesn’t implicitly include mass sterilization (through policy and incentives) and, as a result, what amounts to genocide. The earth can’t support an infinite amount of people, and if the natural tendency is for the earths population to grow beyond what the environment can support, that means that the right to exist on this planet will become a limited resource that’s subject to all the same economic rules as any other limited resource. Don’t forget that the main contributor to global warming is agriculture, not SUVs. I think it’s morally cheap of people to talk about the seriousness of global warming and the necessity of solving it without thinking far out about what sort of world they’re imagining. There must be global one child policies. They must be enforced strongly. Consumption must be limited. And it’s all dependent on the idea that all governments are unified enough to enforce policies against their people that run against basic human desires, while also holding every other government accountable for enacting similar policies, and none is corrupt enough to break the rules. I agree that global warming is real. I agree that it’s an incredible danger to humanity. But when you consider the type of world necessary to actually follow through with fixing global warming, you come to the conclusion that it’s a world that’s best ruled by a totalitarian global government where the norm is that most are robbed of basic human experiences like eating well and having children. Is that even a world worth saving? So to those responding that this parent comment is in bad taste, I agree, but I am someone who is doesn’t believe in trying stopping global warming to begin with, so I’m allowed to not see a silver lining in mass death. Are you? If you’re not okay with my parent comments reasoning but you do believe that global warming must be stopped, I have to wonder what you think solving global warming is going to be like in a few hundred years, and if you’re prepared for the moral hazards much worse than this.
- sigmaprimus 7y ago
  I appreciate the well thought out reply and accept that you feel my comment was in bad taste. It probably is way too soon to be discussing such things, especially while the pandemic is currently taking lives. That being said, considering the solutions to over population of the earth that you listed, a pandemic almost seems like a righteous act of God that would be accepted by all nations.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

JamesBarney 7y ago

The upside of your family dying in that car wreck is you'll save on your health insurance each month.

sigmaprimus 7y ago
Good point, but I would think even the current travel restrictions being imposed by various countries must result is a reduction of greenhouse gas production. I would also imagine that there may be a reduction in holiday travel plans just out of fear of being quarantined. Not to mention the effect a global recession would have on CO2 production.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  And, with global demand for oil dropping, gas will get cheaper!

hurrdurr2 7y ago

You had me until the second paragraph. Perhaps we can have a way to reduce global climate change without mass suffering and death.

triceratops 7y ago

> a pandemic that kills off a large enough portion of the global population...will solve the global warming crisis The global warming crisis is a crisis because it has the potential to kill off a large portion of the global population. I'm not an expert or anything but a pandemic that does the same thing doesn't seem like an improvement.

_bxg1 7y ago

Yikes.

nickysielicki 7y ago

You’re being downvoted, and I don’t agree with the conclusion you’re drawing or the framing of it as a positive thing, but I find it surprising how many people are uncomfortable with the notion that global warming is fundamentally about population control. I don’t think there’s a realistic long term solution to global warming that doesn’t implicitly include mass sterilization (through policy and incentives) and, as a result, what amounts to genocide. The earth can’t support an infinite amount of people, and if the natural tendency is for the earths population to grow beyond what the environment can support, that means that the right to exist on this planet will become a limited resource that’s subject to all the same economic rules as any other limited resource. Don’t forget that the main contributor to global warming is agriculture, not SUVs. I think it’s morally cheap of people to talk about the seriousness of global warming and the necessity of solving it without thinking far out about what sort of world they’re imagining. There must be global one child policies. They must be enforced strongly. Consumption must be limited. And it’s all dependent on the idea that all governments are unified enough to enforce policies against their people that run against basic human desires, while also holding every other government accountable for enacting similar policies, and none is corrupt enough to break the rules. I agree that global warming is real. I agree that it’s an incredible danger to humanity. But when you consider the type of world necessary to actually follow through with fixing global warming, you come to the conclusion that it’s a world that’s best ruled by a totalitarian global government where the norm is that most are robbed of basic human experiences like eating well and having children. Is that even a world worth saving? So to those responding that this parent comment is in bad taste, I agree, but I am someone who is doesn’t believe in trying stopping global warming to begin with, so I’m allowed to not see a silver lining in mass death. Are you? If you’re not okay with my parent comments reasoning but you do believe that global warming must be stopped, I have to wonder what you think solving global warming is going to be like in a few hundred years, and if you’re prepared for the moral hazards much worse than this.

sigmaprimus 7y ago
I appreciate the well thought out reply and accept that you feel my comment was in bad taste. It probably is way too soon to be discussing such things, especially while the pandemic is currently taking lives. That being said, considering the solutions to over population of the earth that you listed, a pandemic almost seems like a righteous act of God that would be accepted by all nations.