Cure for viruses claimed

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I'm always playing the same fiddle here, but if only there were less people in the world, all these risks would be way less. If a crazy virus wipes loads of us out, well actually, great. And if it doesn't, we have some new cures. I say go for it, and I can only hope these companies developing this will be as responsible as they can be.

Reducing population is important, but doing it that way will just cause instability, not to mention the fact that people of fertile age would be affected the least and old people the most, so any reduction in population would only be temporarily.

[Pa'li Makto]

Maybe there are some diseases that can render people infertile and thus affecting anyone of fertile age?

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

For efficiency's sake, human lifespan should not be over 40 by any means. Reproductive prime is somewhere around 20, plus the time it takes to raise few mature offspring, should be all that is required for the existence of a single organism.

I think that makes only very little sense. For once, reducing lifespan to counteract birth rates would be a very crude instrument not used by any culture ever. Even cultures with long lifespans in the past use birth control by hebs or abortions.
But I guess your point is about people consuming more because they get older. So total consumption of resources for a 40 year old would be less than of a 70 year old. I cannot say that I know how the consumption impact depends on age, I can imagine that at some ages the consumption is more and in others less, but that may cancel itself out (e.g. a child needs more food and new clothes and toys but does not have a car, an adult has a car but needs less food, elderly people may need more medical care but again no car and not so many new clothes all the time). In any case, the consumption of people living longer will probably not go beyond twice the consumption of a 40 year old. So at best, such a shortened lifespan would half the consumption - I think it is much more desireable to have half as many people living a full life than double the population. Also it would not be that far fetched to half the consumption of one person, thus enabling a double lifespan. And in the end add to that that there is a certain contribution of all ages to the overall community (or at least should be). A 50 year old can contribute a lot in terms of work and wisdom - in our times, people are in school until they are 16 or 18. That is about half of the time until they are 40 and about 1/4 if the lifespan in 75.
Also in a healthy community, everyone is of service to the community. Unlike with some of the animals around, humans are cultural people - part of our being is stories and culture. This also has to be passed on, not just genes. Traditionally, older people serve that purpose, they tell stories of wisdom and experience to the younger and youngest and thus contribute to the continued existence of the culture that defines these people. It has only become different in the most modern times so that we now regard old people as simply getting a reward for their life of "work", but serve no other "purpose". (Gawd how I hate to speak in a language that is so demeaning ). Of course only from that can come the conclusion that they are more or less mainly a burden to society that costs resources, work, consumption, energy. From that perspective, the only "reasons" to let them live come from altruistic, moral or ethical thought. Because we like them, because we love them, because they are family members who deserve this. That is fair enough and it is very human, but it is not all there has to be.

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

If a crazy virus wipes loads of us out, well actually, great. [...] I can only hope these companies developing this will be as responsible as they can be.

This happened by the way in medieval ages. What came from it was a time of prosperity for those who remained alive, but also a rather dark time because of all that death. Another similar event was WWII which was followed by two decades of prosperity of those who made it. Certainly this is one option, but I think it would be kind of a poor statement if that would be the only way. About hope for companies being responsible: I say forget it. Can't happen. Unless they would make more money by doing so than otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Funnily enough, I'm well aware on women's perspective on this issue. I meant more pointing out that men also have a responsiblity, as from your post I got the impression that you were soley placing responsibility on women. Which is problematic, on a number of levels.

Haha, yeah got you! Definitely in a more practical sense and when it comes to the physical act of preventing unwanted pregnancies then yes, definitely guys should not leave it to the women. They also have to take repsonsability. So I guess Iw as speaking too much about the larger picture in which men probably will do so because they do not feel like they're the kings but rather face an empowered woman who can request and even demand this of him

Originally Posted by Isard

This however, is a scorched earth counter pathogen, if it detects any cells deviating from the norm, it kills them, ignoring the virus itself. Unable to reproduce, the virus dies.
There is no way for it to mutate its way out of this, because its not being attacked, its host cells are.

Wow - nice summary. Put it that way and it feels like once more this culture transposes its totalitarian approaches on the small scale.

[Aquaplant]

I never said one couldn't both reduced life span and consumption. That way even fever resources are consumed and the planet thanks. Then again one could achieve satisfactory results just by drastically reducing consumption, but that's quite difficult considering the state of our lives these days.