Young Writers Society

Hehehe... this debate is raging from all over the forum, so why not centralize it?

First... a warning! If anyone takes the below seriously, I am going to laugh at you. This is just fun.

Next... a little update!

ZZAP wrote:Likes biological sciences... Hey, did you know that swine are the mixing bowls for potential life threatning diseases and viruses? They help the foriegn bodies fully transpose into a state in which they can attack humans. When the people from the Old World found the Americas, guess what they brought with them? Yup. Piggies. It was the the flu within these animals (and the founders themselves) that killed most of the Native Americans in the New World. *winks*

Snoink wrote:What's really cool though is that they are modifying the genetic structure of a pig so that they're actually less prone to carry those diseases. :):)

Isn't science fun?????

ZZAP wrote:By the way, even by altering the pig's genome you fall into situations that arise from GMOs. Should people rely on genetically modified organisms as any source of food, resource, or living requirements? One must be cautious to not mix the altered genome with the standard one, as that may prove to be a big mistake pandemically. And who knows, maybe the most evolved influenza may not be stopped by the pig's immune system even with cytokine and/or chemokine enhancers. Ooops! Sorry. This is way off topic, meant to respond to Snoink about swine and mammals in general.

You have to realize that we humans have been genetically modifying things for a millenia. Even grain, which we now take for granted, had to be modified by our ancestors. Grain originally didn't split the way that it now does. Well... that wasn't completely true. The majority of grain didn't split at all. There were only a few exceptions of grain, which humans learned to eat. And then, very carefully, there became a process of pollenating these grain plants and letting them flourish while rooting the bad grain out. By doing this, we were in fact genetically changing the grain organism.

Throughout all of evolution, this happens by rooting out what is considered "bad" and replacing it with "good." So it's not so much of a matter of "Is it okay to change this?" We've been doing it for centuries! Nay, instead, it's a question of judgement. What is good and bad? Can we really discern these abstract terms? And then, of course, the lingering question: what if what is bad turns out being good and vice versa?

It's a question of philosophy.

But then, as you pointed out, there's another problem. Another problem is that evolution causes other things to evolve as well. It reminds me of Harry Potter. In the sixth book, a muggle says, "But for heaven's sake -- you're wizards! You can do magic! Surely you can sort out -- well -- anything!" The wizard replies, "The trouble is, the other side can do magic too." While we evolve to stop the nasty viruses in the world, almost as quickly as we find cures, viruses evolve and become even worse. It's really quite horrible. And then, our lovely drug known as penecillin is now becoming obsolete because we're over-vaccinating oyr crops of cows who may not even need the stuff, and making the viruses immune to the vaccine. ¡Ay de mi!

Yep. We're screwed anyway we try. By not genetically modifying anything, we're stuck in time and prone to terrible forms of disease, but by genetically modifying things, we end up creating even more deadlier diseases.

Perhaps that's what nature intended?

Hey, Snoink? Don't you think this would fit better as a PM instead of a random thread that seems to be between two people?

*blinks*

Wow. That's a really scary thought.

*eyes nearby food nervously*

Ah, but why continue to contribute to the path of evolution? Doesn't nature know best? You see, we may unlock something by genetically modifying organisms that might have a chance to turn 'bad' on us. But hence forth, doesn't everything have this chance when continuing this path of existance? I totally agree with you. I agree even more so. Why stay centralized in this period of evolution, why not contribute to this process of living? Eventually somewhere somehow this process will be initiated. Instead of lying back upon these excuses of contributions, we should all-hail and move on forward. With knowledge learned comes the ability to use it for the more knowledge to be learnt. While the Bush Administration continues to shade their view from full embryonic stem cell research, other plantations in different countries are in full production of research! This could be 'bad' for the Americans, so it turns into the 'other side has magic too' situation you talked about, kind of.

Here's what I say. With a genome lacking appropriate defenses like, the swine do, let's by pass this hinderance and raise above evolution's means of life. Wipe out all the pigs!!! As a threat to the existance to mankind, we need to solve it. We cannot do it by means of helping swine have better immune systems, because evolution will answer. Let's in turn, attack random evolution at its root! Since we already know how to genetically (near to it) manipulate DNA, who needs mutations and errors when we can control it ourselves? To allow the swine to present this threat, we need to answer with extinction. Food source, resource, and living standards are jeapordized for the sake of mankind's continium. By the way, I'm having fun with all this, and in no seriousness am I completely responsible for all my words. *winks*

~Z

Aha! Good idea ZZAP. Now let's take it further!

Since pigs are indeed the carriers of many horrible viruses, even more so than other animals, we have a dilemma. Let's say that, for some reason we decide to wipe out all the pigs and manage to succeed (which is already fairly unlikely). Now think of the consequences. Usually when an animal becomes extinct (at least in this day and age) it is considered a loss to society. With the environmentalists surrounding us, any loss of life, including animal life, is sorely missed. To purposely make an animal extinct, even the pig, is considered to be a terrible idea. No one would want to take part of the absolute extermination of pigs.

To be able to succeed, we would first have to change the view of life in everyone's minds. Instead of animals being precious, they are a nuisance. For pigs, this is a relatively easy thing to do. But for the animal kingdom? That would be a little trickier. It would involve educating the populance about the harms that animals can do do, and the reassurance that men will be able to conquer all that seek to destroy us. Given a human's natural yearning for some sort of "manifest destiny" if you will, this will be rather easy to do.

But it's not enough! Educating the masses can be helpful, but in the end it takes too long. Besides, with more education comes more philosophy and questions (terrible questions) about right and wrong. When wanting to exterminate an entire species, we do not want to make people think more than they have to! To do that would be unspeakable.

No, instead, there must be another way. People, instead of being driven by their education, must be driven by fear. Remember the mad cow disease? Remember the fear? Thousands and thousands of cow carcasses were burnt. And remember the bird influenza, how they were killing birds? Now, with that knowledge, we know how to strike fear in mankind's hearts. Education is too slow and tricky. By contrast, fear often propels mankind into making quick decisions about things that they ought to spend time thinking about. Instead of asking themselves, "Is this right or wrong?" they end up asking questions such as, "Will this protect our future?" And then they continue their plan to protect their future when they are actually dooming themselves even more. This, my friend, is what we want. History has proved that hasty thinking, intended to protect the future, often does the exact opposite.

What the next logical step is creating a horrible virus that is spread by pigs. Then letting it run through society. This, unfortunately, will kill plenty of people, but think of the action it will cause! The fear! If we intend to kill all the pigs, then this would be the best way to do it. Surely, many pigs will die.

But think of what this also does! Because these pigs can be wiped out since they're are disease carriers, why shouldn't other disease carriers be wiped out too? We're worried about bird flu. Why not kill all our birds?

We also have humans that have many contagious diseases. Why not kill them as well?

You see, right now, we are using genetic research to improve the lives of humans and stop diseases. But, as we know with our pigs, genetically modifting it is not the way to go. With diseases such as AIDS and HIV, which are very contagious, we must look to the benefit of mankind as a whole.

Of course, this will make people very queasy at first. For some strange reason, they do not like death of another human. Even just one. This is a problem that of course, must be remedied immediately. There are two ways that we mus appeal to: the extreme right and the extreme left.

To the right, we can claim that these deaths are for religious reasons and thus are worthy. After all, hasn't God turned a blind eye on them? Remember! We must not educate these people, because once they actually realize the truth, which is that God has never left those people's side, then we are in trouble. No. To help out this idea, we must make religious zealots - fervor without intelligence. And because this fervor runs on fear, then we are sure that God will not be present in their hearts, for after all, they will be too focused on their fears.

To the left, we can claim that these deaths are for the benefit of the people. After all, haven't they suffered enough? We should especially make them sound pitiable, for if they are pitiable, they are seen as being at the mercy of the ones who can kill them... who will kill them! Once we make them believe (and this shouldn't be hard) that there is no hope for these people's lives and that death would be more merciful, then we have power. They are too focused on their own feelings of the matter rather than what is right, and we can use that to our advantage.

With the agreement of both sides, left and right, we ensure that anyone who is trapped in the middle of these two groups is forced into one side or another and then is coerced into killing. This is easy to do, after all, weren't we the ones who came up with the two party system? Weren't we the ones who judge people in black and white rather than shades of gray? Because of the success of the "either" fallacy, we have a wonderful tool. There might be a small minority in the middle, but we can sneer at them, calling them the minority. Calling them too moderate. And then, our ultimate tool, telling them they are too weak to make up their minds.

What tools!

First it will start with HIV and AIDS... that is simple enough. Then, it will turn to things like diabetes, heart disease, asthma. Finally, anyone who isn't perfect will be killed off. Evolution will take its course... only the best will survive.



Your affectionate uncle,
SCREWTAPE

Give me 5 people like Snoink and I can destroy the world.

You see Snoink, you make it too complicated. Just wipe out all of the pigs and think about it later. Use private companies to accelerate the process and have the senate and UN debate about it while we continue the global assault of swine. You are using fear as a key essential in providing proof for the justification for your actions. You are speaking before acting, why not act and speak when necassary? Just delay the legal processes with this excuse of wiping pigs like how were are wiping out poultry. It is our essential goal, to eliminate the threat, not to make it justifiable for the public to agree with you. If you want to take over the world, you have to have a dictator's mind...

That is the bird flu you speak about, H1N1, not the transposed influenza virus (similar to H5N1). The swine are the key producers in allowing more and more genetic drift to take place. It is not the host or the vector that we are targeting here; it is the threat of producing one of the worlds deadliest viruses it hasn't seen since 1918. 40 million people are expected to die if it reaches to human infectivity, even more because of our better transportation then in the early 20s. You see, maybe a tiny little change could help prevent this transposition. Separate the farm industry from poultry and swine. Many of the chicken owners in far East and Asia, have swine in very close proximity to the birds, if not in the same housing. This would slow down the change, I think, and better prepare the society for its pandemic.

Again, you think too hard. We have our facts, and now we execute. You go through too much rubbish to effectively deal the world's fate. If you want to kill off the imperfections of mankind, then do it. If you give time for debate, then it will never initiate. As you saw in the Nazi Regime. Now. I'm not saying we should do this, I'm just making connections to past history. Wow. This is the second time I relate to German History today... *blinks* But it will be a quick control over a poverty-stricken country, and from these focal points we launch a world wide assault on pigs and humans alike! For the perfect and non-piggy! History will be re-written, and Kermit the Frog will marry one of his own kind! *does the dance*

Fine. Religion for my right hand, and the people for my left. All I need to do is squeeze, and I have the power from both sides.

~Z

Now is not the time for moderation ZZAP! Industry is certainly a good killer, but not an efficent one. If anything, they are more prone to legal delays then the government. To annihlate the pig, we must turn everyone against the pig. Not just a single corporation, but an entire civilization!

Do not be so hasty in implementing your plans, or you will follow Hitler in his failure. The general public must be persuaded to kill them all. Without this persuasion, time works against us. It may take a long time, but a federal investigation would ensue and this would mean an end to our activities. When politicians are pressured by the people, then they will not investigate us, but how to best aid our efforts! Time becomes our ally instead of our enemy. Using corporations won't ensure that all pigs are killed either, only the pigs that they own. Using governments would ensure that all pigs, public and private, would be annihlated wholesale.

In any case, the sooner we implement our plans, the weaker our argument would be. Killing the entire pig population when only 10 people has died from disease isn't justified to the people. If 10 million die from it, then it is! 40 million dead people will make our argument that much more persuasive!

40 million dead humans will be better than an entire civilization dead, and if we do not let 40 million die first, we will not be able to justify annihlating the pigs, thus dooming our civilization to plague.

Grif's right. You can't just use private companies, because when I say mankind, I mean all of mankind. At this point in time, we are too concerned with the environment. If an oil rig dumps all over the ocean, everybody goes absolutely crazy about what has happened. They imagine dead seals and fish floating around. So, because there are so many pigs in this world, we would barely even start the killings before there is an uproar. Remember what I said about fear makes people decide hastily? Same here. The government will immediately put a stop to this killing of pigs, and may even put them on the endangered species list -- not good. And, though admitedly, corporations will do illegal things if it gives them monetary value, they will probably not do this. The money for illegally killing pigs would not be, I should think, high.

We cannot rely on companies and private institutions and corporations to carry this out. Nay, to do so would be madness. To succeed, completely and utterly, we must change the mindset of all mankind to consider killing a "necessary part of life" that should be done "for the benefit of mankind." Otherwise, it will not be done.

As far as Hitler goes, his work was already being done before he went into office. Germany had suffered greatly from World War One, and they were struggling economically. The morale was low, and everyone was looking for a leader who would bring them together. Of course, the best way to bring a large group of people together is to unite them against one cause. The targets? Anyone who succeeded when Germany fell. That included most of the European continent and, of course, the Jews who succeeded. So his work was cut out for him, and all he needed to do was to lead his people.

In our case, the hatred against these swine isn't real. There are not many who are seething mad about swine. What we have to do is to create this hatred, and the best way to create this hatred is fear. Otherwise, we're not going to succeed.

Ack. What. TOO MANY BIG WORDS.