Wuhan virus was built by lab ?

[WanderingFool0]

25 minutes ago, toast said:

Again, facts got bended to the benefit of a stupid CT. 201 wasnt run by the Bill&Melinda Foundation. It was run by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in cooperation with the Bill&Melinda Foundation and the WEF.

Yeah, thats why Microsoft is working on the development of Death Star 2.0, I´ve heard from reliable sources.

"

Quote

NEW YORK, Updated Oct. 17, 2019 – The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, with the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will host Event 201, a multimedia global pandemic exercise on Friday, Oct. 18, 2019, in New York City. The public may register and participate in the simultaneous virtual exercise in English, 8:50 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT at centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/. The exercise underscores the need for global public-private cooperation to mitigate economic and societal impacts of severe pandemics.

http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/191017-press-release.html

In the events own press statement and even in your response you admit that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were one of the three organizations responsible for event 201. So what are you arguing about, which organization did the most work and go the most billing:? In any case the B&M Fondation was involved with event 201 and that is not some conspiracy theory.

Edited February 8, 2020 by WanderingFool0
typo

[Abaddonire]

16 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I don't know if this virus is really an engineered bio weapon or not of course, but I don't think it is all that unlikely as many seem to think.

It is thought unlikely because as a means of population reduction it is beyond useless.

16 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I just find it interesting that you have so many wealthy and powerful people, that repeatedly say the world population needs to be reduced,

People say that because it is a simple matter of fact.The planet has limits. It can only sustain a limited population. There is no escape from that fact. Your options are to do nothing and thus contribute to human extinction as we will eat ourselves out of the eco system. Do you want to merely sit there and watch it happen? Or do you want to do something about it? Because there is plenty we can do about it.

The problem with the CT types is that they take that fact and invent a whole kettle of crazy. No it does not imply "culling" of the population, nor inventing pointless viruses that have no hope of doing so. But Bill Gates is correct. Simply making contraception available would go a long way towards population reduction. Once the reproduction rate falls below 2 approx, the population declines all on it's own. No further action needed.

However, to do so requires empowering women to take control of their own reproductive health. And that is the part that really scares you. 

[WanderingFool0]

7 hours ago, Abaddonire said:

It is thought unlikely because as a means of population reduction it is beyond useless.

People say that because it is a simple matter of fact.The planet has limits. It can only sustain a limited population. There is no escape from that fact. Your options are to do nothing and thus contribute to human extinction as we will eat ourselves out of the eco system. Do you want to merely sit there and watch it happen? Or do you want to do something about it? Because there is plenty we can do about it.

The problem with the CT types is that they take that fact and invent a whole kettle of crazy. No it does not imply "culling" of the population, nor inventing pointless viruses that have no hope of doing so. But Bill Gates is correct. Simply making contraception available would go a long way towards population reduction. Once the reproduction rate falls below 2 approx, the population declines all on it's own. No further action needed.

However, to do so requires empowering women to take control of their own reproductive health. And that is the part that really scares you. 

Well I am firm anti-population reduction advocate personally. Overpopulation has been calculated and predicted incorrectly since Malthus. I think the main problem from our abundant population arises from humanities collective failure to launch and instead continuing to try to live in an old outdated and inefficient fashion,

Since the 60s collectively humanity discovered the science and technology and received the ability to begin moving off of the planet. Collectively we have been extremely lax in our effort to do so, since we went to the moon. After that, the United States congress continually cut NASA's budget and they have had to cancel many planned projects due to lack of funding. If those projects had been funded and NASA allowed to continue it's original plans, we would have had a moon base by the  80s, we would have landed on mars in the late 90s and had a colony started by the 2000s.

The governments have been holding us back and holding us down on this planet and if they would have done their due diligence we would be much further on or way to removing excess human population off the surface of the planet and begin removing unneeded human sprawl choking out nature and instead utilize the top soil of the planet for agro-dome farming and cultivation of nature and natural  renewable resources. Those who want a simple agrarian hunter lifestyle can stay on the planet and those who want the high tech modern lifestyle can go to space.

I would say if we utilized and managed the planet like that, it could easily be the bread box of the solar system, supporting far more people than we have now.  And the main problem I have with the anti-population agenda is that, to actually move out into and begin harvesting and utilizing the vast resources of the solar system, we will need a lot more than 8 billion humans.

Humanities problem in my opinion is not one of overpopulation, it is their lack of desire to leave the cradle long after they should have.

As far as women and men's responsibility in reproduction, I have no idea why you would think that would scare me?

[Abaddonire]

Just now, WanderingFool0 said:

Well I am firm anti-population reduction advocate personally. Overpopulation has been calculated and predicted incorrectly since Malthus. I think the main problem from our abundant population arises from humanities collective failure to launch and instead continuing to try to live in an old outdated and inefficient fashion,

Since the 60s collectively humanity discovered the science and technology and received the ability to begin moving off of the planet. Collectively we have been extremely lax in our effort to do so, since we went to the moon. After that, the United States congress continually cut NASA's budget and they have had to cancel many planned projects due to lack of funding. If those projects had been funded and NASA allowed to continue it's original plans, we would have had a moon base by the  80s, we would have landed on mars in the late 90s and had a colony started by the 2000s.

The governments have been holding us back and holding us down on this planet and if they would have done their due diligence we would be much further on or way to removing excess human population off the surface of the planet and begin removing unneeded human sprawl choking out nature and instead utilize the top soil of the planet for agro-dome farming and cultivation of nature and natural  renewable resources. Those who want a simple agrarian hunter lifestyle can stay on the planet and those who want the high tech modern lifestyle can go to space.

I would say if we utilized and managed the planet like that, it could easily be the bread box of the solar system, supporting far more people than we have now.  And the main problem I have with the anti-population agenda is that, to actually move out into and begin harvesting and utilizing the vast resources of the solar system, we will need a lot more than 8 billion humans.

Humanities problem in my opinion is not one of overpopulation, it is their lack of desire to leave the cradle long after they should have.

As far as women and men's responsibility in reproduction, I have no idea why you would think that would scare me?

So instead of doing what we can right now, you prefer to rely on an imaginary sci-fi solution that does not exist and may never exist and certainly cannot exist if we have already borked our planet.

Enjoy your delusion..

[WanderingFool0]

31 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

So instead of doing what we can right now, you prefer to rely on an imaginary sci-fi solution that does not exist and may never exist and certainly cannot exist if we have already borked our planet.

Enjoy your delusion..

It's no delusion we can do that right now. We have been sitting on the technology to do it for over 60 years. The speed and level of the outcome is directly proportional to the manpower and resources invested in the endeavor. It only seems impossible, because we spend very little of our population in manpower and very little of our resources to the endeavor. At the current rate and speed of exploration it will take many hundreds of years to do anything. That is what happens when all the projects are based on a few thousand people and of those a couple of handfuls ever getting to space. If we had tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands people working in factories for manufacturing of prefab parts, ship pieces and equipment and thousands of people in space building the foundations of the move it would take far less time than it does now..

I would wager that if even something as simple as having given NASA the DODs budget we would already be in space, on the moon and around the other planets right now. But as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. You pay for war that is what you get, if we would have paid the same to the space effort we would have it. 

Also, I would say looking at the advancement in technology with automation and A.I., in the future there will be the need for less and less people to do the majority of the production of our consumer trinkets and even clerical and other work. Human beings right now are starting to become about as useful as horses after the automobile. It is already happening with many of the companies returning to the US from China. A lot of them when they came back built brand new fully updated and automated factories employing a fraction  of the workers, than their Chinese factory or their original us factory before they went to China ever employed. Colonization of space isn't some delusion, it is a collective global effort that could utilize the population that will be replaced by automation and give them something to do and could be an endeavour that could actually fuel the global economy for the far foreseeable future.

Sorry to the OP for being off topic from the thread discussion, which isn't really about overpopulation.

Edited February 9, 2020 by WanderingFool0
typo

[Piney]

10 hours ago, Abaddonire said:

Simply making contraception available would go a long way towards population reduction. Once the reproduction rate falls below 2 approx, the population declines all on it's own. No further action needed.

Which is why Japan's population is falling and if the Catholic Church allowed birth control there would be a lot less people world wide.

There's nothing more horrible than watching a Indigenous Latin American couple with 12 kids because they can't use birth control and they are all starving. 

[Abaddonire]

1 hour ago, WanderingFool0 said:

<snip for brevity>

All of that is flat out wrong. Hurling money without end does not solve the pragmatic problems of space travel. Cosmic rays simply don't care how rich you are, nor how big your budget might be. They just kill you.

 

And your stream of sci-fi nice-to-haves is merely that.

[Abaddonire]

Just now, Piney said:

Which is why Japan's population is falling and if the Catholic Church allowed birth control there would be a lot less people world wide.

There's nothing more horrible than watching a Indigenous Latin American couple with 12 kids because they can't use birth control and they are all starving. 

Yup. But the wandering fool wants to perpetuate that, for some reason.

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

All of that is flat out wrong. Hurling money without end does not solve the pragmatic problems of space travel. Cosmic rays simply don't care how rich you are, nor how big your budget might be. They just kill you.

I already said in another thread we need to send oncologists to Mars first. 

[Abaddonire]

Just now, Piney said:

I already said in another thread we need to send oncologists to Mars first. 

Not an unfair observation.

Nevertheless, Wanderingfool claims we have been sitting on the technology to go pinballing around the solar system like demented pokemon for 60 years. I would love to know what this mysterious technology might be.Nobody else seems to be aware of it bar WF. At this point I am guessing it involves some oddity of physics or UFOs, but WF ain't saying, so that is mere speculation.

I could speculate a far more plausible path to manned solar system exploration off the top of my head with ease. Using nothing but what we have to hand. Alas, nobody has pockets sufficiently deep. Or even the will to do it. 

Would it not, therefore, be a far better thing to sort our local problems first? WF disagrees.

[toast]

1 hour ago, WanderingFool0 said:

I would wager that if even something as simple as having given NASA the DODs budget we would already be in space, on the moon and around the other planets right now. But as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. You pay for war that is what you get, if we would have paid the same to the space effort we would have it. 

I agree with you on the DOD budget issue but with a different target. I`m all for space exploration and space flight but it would not make sense to spend all the DOD money, or 90%, of it into space related things to make a Perry Rhodan fantasy come true.

It would also not make sense from an economic point of view because the return on investment cannot be calculated or even suspected. If there would be a ROI, it would be limited to a very little part of the worlds population, which would strengthen the situation we are currently in, means, too much poor people on the planet, still incurable diseases and too little education, on a global scale. We cannot escape from our global problems, which all of them are man made, just by moving to another planet or to an artificial habitat somewhere out there.

Quote

Also, I would say looking at the advancement in technology with automation and A.I., in the future there will be the need for less and less people to do the majority of the production of our consumer trinkets and even clerical and other work. Human beings right now are starting to become about as useful as horses after the automobile.

Thats your other dream but it cannot work as you think. Yes, the development of automation and AI goes ahead with very big steps but the mission isnt for the benefit of the global population. If it would, the leading governments would had presented the general plan already but not one of them did it so far. Because there isnt one and the issue is handled by governments like a pile of dog poo. Dont touch it. Replacing manpower by, lets say 50%, by automation and AI would sunk the whole global economic system if there would be no general free salary and politicians who (want to) talk about free salary today are booed and marked as some kind of communists/socialists.

 

 

[Piney]

15 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

Would it not, therefore, be a far better thing to sort our local problems first? WF disagrees.

That's why India's space program get's me p***ed. Fix your bloody infrastructure and feed your people first, 

[Abaddonire]

7 minutes ago, Piney said:

That's why India's space program get's me p***ed. Fix your bloody infrastructure and feed your people first, 

I would like to come up with a counter to that, but I fail for lack of finding a single one. National prestige? I have no idea.

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, Abaddonire said:

I would like to come up with a counter to that, but I fail for lack of finding a single one. National prestige? I have no idea.

"Keeping up with the First World" 

Then there's the 'Space Force' dreck in the U.S. as it's infrastructure collapses. 

[Abaddonire]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

"Keeping up with the First World" 

Then there's the 'Space Force' dreck in the U.S. as it's infrastructure collapses. 

 

7 minutes ago, Piney said:

"Keeping up with the First World" 

Then there's the 'Space Force' dreck in the U.S. as it's infrastructure collapses. 

Once, the US was a driving force for everything. Something to aspire to. These days, it is heading non-stop toward being a third world country. I don't much like that, but I am glad I am not in it.

 

But we have wandered wildly off topic. Best to get back on track.

[Grim Reaper 6]

To date 3229 people have recovered from the 2019-nCoV Acute Respiatory Disease in China, and 15 have recovered in other countries. 

John Hopkins Medical Center best link for statistics 

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Here is the worst case sinario if this Virus isn't controled

https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/04/two-scenarios-if-new-coronavirus-isnt-contained/

Peace

[WanderingFool0]

3 hours ago, toast said:

I agree with you on the DOD budget issue but with a different target. I`m all for space exploration and space flight but it would not make sense to spend all the DOD money, or 90%, of it into space related things to make a Perry Rhodan fantasy come true.

It would also not make sense from an economic point of view because the return on investment cannot be calculated or even suspected. If there would be a ROI, it would be limited to a very little part of the worlds population, which would strengthen the situation we are currently in, means, too much poor people on the planet, still incurable diseases and too little education, on a global scale. We cannot escape from our global problems, which all of them are man made, just by moving to another planet or to an artificial habitat somewhere out there.

Thats your other dream but it cannot work as you think. Yes, the development of automation and AI goes ahead with very big steps but the mission isnt for the benefit of the global population. If it would, the leading governments would had presented the general plan already but not one of them did it so far. Because there isnt one and the issue is handled by governments like a pile of dog poo. Dont touch it. Replacing manpower by, lets say 50%, by automation and AI would sunk the whole global economic system if there would be no general free salary and politicians who (want to) talk about free salary today are booed and marked as some kind of communists/socialists.

 

 

Automation is coming regardless of whether it benefits the population or not. Because, with the rise of automation even cheap labor becomes to expensive and the companies will switch to those systems because profit is always their bottom line.

A report in 2017 said as many as 800 million jobs will be lost to automation by 2030. In 2019 the Office for National Statistics in England said 1.5 million jobs in England are at high risk to be replaced by automation.

 

Quote

Up to 800 million global workers will lose their jobs by 2030 and be replaced by robotic automation, a new report from a consultancy has found.

The study of 46 countries and 800 occupations by the McKinsey Global Institute found that up to one-fifth of the global work force will be affected.

It said one-third of the workforce in richer nations like Germany and the US may need to retrain for other jobs.

Machine operators and food workers will be hit hardest, the report says.

Poorer countries that have less money to invest in automation will not be affected as much, according to McKinsey.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42170100

 

Quote

Some 1.5 million people in England are at high risk of losing their jobs to automation, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

It says 70% of the roles at high risk of automation are currently held by women. Part-timers and the young are the next most at risk.

The ONS analysed the jobs of 20 million people in 2017 and found 7.4% of these were at high risk of being replaced.

It has developed a "bot" to show the risks for particular occupations.

The ONS defines automation as tasks currently carried out by workers being replaced with technology. That could mean computer programs, algorithms, or even robots.

The three occupations with the highest probability of automation are waiters and waitresses, shelf fillers and elementary sales occupations, all of which are low-skilled or routine.

Those at the lowest risk are medical practitioners, higher education teaching professionals, and senior professionals in education.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47691078

 

Whether people like it or not the genie is not going back in the bottle. Technology is going to continue march forward and it is going to change everything. Workers in general are going to become more and more obsolete in the system we have now. The elite; the bankers and corporations aren’t going to keep people around and give them universal welfare. At some point many of the advocates for depopulation are going want to start culling the “Useless feeders” , because birth control, which I am all for, despite what other posters may seem to think, is not going to be enough to reduce the global population sufficiently.

You may all think my thoughts and ideas are too sci fi and that is fine, I disagree, but I can say one thing, depopulation is only ever going to work with a whole lot of a killing a whole lot of people, which I am against.

 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by WanderingFool0
typo

[+and-then]

On 2/3/2020 at 2:33 PM, Abaddonire said:

And then that virus vanished without trace.

Actually, H1N1 is still out there in the environment, it's just that humans now have herd immunity.  The same thing eventually happens with all new viruses that infect humans.  The Spanish Flu was just one that managed to mutate effectively for a longer period and it had devastating consequences for young, strong victims.  It actually caused a violent overreaction by the host's immune response.

That virus caused an outbreak in the U.S. that was relatively mild early in its spread.  After it went to Europe and returned, it had become a monster.

[Eldorado]

Senator Tom Cotton Thinks Coronavirus is a Bioweapon

https://www.ccn.com/tom-cotton-thinks-coronavirus-bioweapon-china-mounts-feeble-response/

[Abaddonire]

2 hours ago, Eldorado said:

Senator Tom Cotton Thinks Coronavirus is a Bioweapon

https://www.ccn.com/tom-cotton-thinks-coronavirus-bioweapon-china-mounts-feeble-response/

So let me get this straight. You are citing a republican who is utterly unqualified to hold any opinion on bio anything, as quoted by a crypto currency crank site that intentionally changed it's domain name so as to get confused with the actual CNN thus dishonestly gaining unintended hits as an authority about what now?

 

Would you like to buy a bridge?

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Abaddonire said:

You are citing a republican who is utterly unqualified to hold any opinion on bio anything,

If you read the piece you'll see that he is posing a challenge to them to answer some questions and be more open with info.  He knows politics and knows how to poke an adversary.  

[Eldorado]

Covid-19 was NOT built in Wuhan Lab, says expert.

"There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find"

UK Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/a6392ee6-4ec6-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

Windsor Star Detroit: https://windsorstar.com/news/world/no-the-coronavirus-was-not-genetically-engineered-in-a-wuhan-lab/

[Great Old Man]

One of scientists of China claimed that this Wuhan corona started in Laboratory of Wuhan.

Scholars Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao published a research journal titled 'The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus' on Research Gate, where they claimed WCDC 'hosted animals in laboratories for research purposes', including 605 bats captured in the Hubei and Zhejiang provinces.

and Botao Xiao is quite famous scientist who gets government fund from China.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/coronavirus-actually-started-secret-wuhan-21506739

 

you can read his research journal here

https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by Great Old Man

[Great Old Man]

I heard that some corrupted china scientists sell their lab animal to market before....

very suspicious.

[Princess Serenity]

On 2/15/2020 at 6:27 AM, Eldorado said:

Covid-19 was NOT built in Wuhan Lab, says expert.

"There is no evidence whatsoever of genetic engineering that we can find"

UK Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/a6392ee6-4ec6-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

Windsor Star Detroit: https://windsorstar.com/news/world/no-the-coronavirus-was-not-genetically-engineered-in-a-wuhan-lab/

They know this for sure? They could be dividing attention away from the lab.