Crosswords1 min ago
Extinction ?
Is the human race at significant risk of extinction from this Covid pandemic ?
Answers
Not at all derek. Sleep well and sleep sound. This is just one more little blip in mankind’s long history. We shall enjoy millions of tomorrow’s.
23:24 Tue 02nd Feb 2021
Although Best Answer goes to David Small ( thanks, Dave) out of sheer relief (phew!) and I shall be with dear old Capt. Sir Tom at celestial vet's reunions before too long, I agree with Mozz that this is one of nature's culls, which have occured many times over the centuries.
Thanks to you all for really good answers, no matter how brief.
Cheers. D
Thanks to you all for really good answers, no matter how brief.
Cheers. D
The notion that Covid would not destroy the human race because it would not wish to destroy its hosts is, frankly, nonsense.
This is a virus - it does not think or plan, or hold hosts in reserve for its survival.
It is an organism, it does not have plans for its future, like all viruses, while it has hosts, it will spread, and if its hosts died off, it would die as well.
But no human race is no where near risk of extinction.
In terms of the world population, the deaths from Covid are seriously small, and dropping as vaccines are developed to a point where it will join flu as something we live with.
This is a virus - it does not think or plan, or hold hosts in reserve for its survival.
It is an organism, it does not have plans for its future, like all viruses, while it has hosts, it will spread, and if its hosts died off, it would die as well.
But no human race is no where near risk of extinction.
In terms of the world population, the deaths from Covid are seriously small, and dropping as vaccines are developed to a point where it will join flu as something we live with.
// The notion that Covid would not destroy the human race because it would not wish to destroy its hosts is, frankly, nonsense. //
I'm not sure if this was addressed to me or not, but, if so, it's a misunderstanding of my point. It's common shorthand in, for example, evolution discussions to give agency to things that do not have agency, viz. for example, "Giraffes evolved long necks to easier reach leaves on tall trees." Clearly, the giraffes actually had no say in the process, and what is actually meant is something closer to "giraffes with longer necks were preferentially selected for over numerous generations, while those with shorter necks were unable to compete successfully."
It's the same here. A virus indeed has no "desire" in any way whatsoever, but it stands to reason that an organism that relies on spreading from host to host, but kills its hosts too quickly to achieve this, will be out-competed by varieties that are less deadly but more easily spreadable. This may in part explain why, so far, the mutations observed in Covid haven't significantly* increased the fatality rate, but do appear to have increased its ability to spread from person to person and its ability to infect people once inside the body. The latter is a useful trait; the former is not.
I'm not sure if this was addressed to me or not, but, if so, it's a misunderstanding of my point. It's common shorthand in, for example, evolution discussions to give agency to things that do not have agency, viz. for example, "Giraffes evolved long necks to easier reach leaves on tall trees." Clearly, the giraffes actually had no say in the process, and what is actually meant is something closer to "giraffes with longer necks were preferentially selected for over numerous generations, while those with shorter necks were unable to compete successfully."
It's the same here. A virus indeed has no "desire" in any way whatsoever, but it stands to reason that an organism that relies on spreading from host to host, but kills its hosts too quickly to achieve this, will be out-competed by varieties that are less deadly but more easily spreadable. This may in part explain why, so far, the mutations observed in Covid haven't significantly* increased the fatality rate, but do appear to have increased its ability to spread from person to person and its ability to infect people once inside the body. The latter is a useful trait; the former is not.
JIM - //I'm not sure if this was addressed to me or not, but, if so, it's a misunderstanding of my point. //
I don't believe I did misunderstand what you posted -
// It's almost certain that humanity is at no risk of extinction from *any* pandemic, really. It's not in any disease's interests to kill off all its hosts. //
That post infers that the virus has 'interests' in maintaining a batch of its host bodies - which as I pointed out, is not a valid suposition.
That may not be the point you intended to make - but it is the point you did make - as I have explained.
If your point was different, then I suggest that you expressed in a way that conveyed a different meaning.
I don't believe I did misunderstand what you posted -
// It's almost certain that humanity is at no risk of extinction from *any* pandemic, really. It's not in any disease's interests to kill off all its hosts. //
That post infers that the virus has 'interests' in maintaining a batch of its host bodies - which as I pointed out, is not a valid suposition.
That may not be the point you intended to make - but it is the point you did make - as I have explained.
If your point was different, then I suggest that you expressed in a way that conveyed a different meaning.
In that case, you should see the reply above. As a matter of pure pedantry, I completely accept the point you're making, but it's still the case that I was using a useful shorthand to replace a clunkier expression, as is common custom (especially when talking on a general interest board as opposed to specialists).
jim; I believe in evolution, which is indisputable, but not your strictly Darwinian interpretation of it, that is to say a series of blind accidental mutations arriving eventually to the Giraffe's neck.
Looking at the covid virus; if you wanted to design such a thing, it would take genius to do so, I find it hard to accept that it isn't without, what could be described as an amazing degree of 'cunning' or 'intelligence' underlying its attempt to outwit and destroy us.
(Stands back & waits for onslaught!)
Looking at the covid virus; if you wanted to design such a thing, it would take genius to do so, I find it hard to accept that it isn't without, what could be described as an amazing degree of 'cunning' or 'intelligence' underlying its attempt to outwit and destroy us.
(Stands back & waits for onslaught!)
Khandro - // I find it hard to accept that it isn't without, what could be described as an amazing degree of 'cunning' or 'intelligence' underlying its attempt to outwit and destroy us. //
Since in your view God created everything - the blame for Covid and the attendant misery and deaths lies fairly at his door.
If he created the virus - and in your view he must have, then to give it a sense of 'cunning' is simply adding malice to hatred.
Since in your view God created everything - the blame for Covid and the attendant misery and deaths lies fairly at his door.
If he created the virus - and in your view he must have, then to give it a sense of 'cunning' is simply adding malice to hatred.
AH: "That post infers that the virus has 'interests' in maintaining a batch of its host bodies - which as I pointed out, is not a valid suposition. " - if I may, I think what is meant is not that the virus is in anyway conscious, having interests etc, but that in nature, a parasite that kills its host is an an unsuccessful organism and is quickly evolved out of that trait. The common cold thus is a very successful coronavirus, we hope that Covid-19 mutations are to make it less deadly.
