Replies

Well Redpoll, I don't think anybody's quite talking about the "collapse of civilization". Although there was some apocalyptic talk coming out of the World Economic Forum (in fact, they even said it could be a 21st century "Black Death"), I think even their "Worse-Case scenario" stopped short of forecasting the end of the world.

As I'm sure you'll agree, a pandemic could certainly screw up some main elements to civilization for a bit (like business, travel, public services, etc.), but after the virus began winding down, they would recover, as usual.

"A human flu derived from bird flu would be far less deadly."

In all likelihood, you're right. It's important to note, however, that both the 1957 and 1968 pandemics, which were both very mild, were recombinants that popped up after mixing in pigs. With the H1N1 and H5N1 strain, such mixing is not necessary. The virus in 1918 went straight from bird to human, without the mixing vessel. This means the virus doesn't need to lose any of its deadliness in a recombination process.

I agree with you - I was referring to the writer of the article, who appeared to relish the thought of impending chaos, and I'm really, really tired of hearing about how awful things will be in the near future from the threat of (fill in the blank). I prefer faith and hope in my worldview. I grew up in the 60s, where I was fed a daily diet of imminent collapse from nukes, overpopulation, pollution, science run amok, computers taking over the world... in the 70s I was told that the world would run out resources, there would be global famines, an ice age was coming, Nixon was going to be the next Hitler... or was that Reagan as the next Hitler... or George Bush, yeah, he was a CIA guy... anyway, you get the idea.

I would prefer not to see an epidemic of anything, of course. I can't stop one, either. Relishing gory details feels like a waste of time to me, that's all.