That's a good point. However, given the volume of conspiracy videos and other material about this, and how much easier it ought to be to replicate using todays technology, don't you think it would be more likely to be anon who recreated the result based on those, than a naive engineer reinventing it from scratch without any context?
It's hardly illicit research, and has been happening for a while.
I'm pretty sure everyone involved (other than the kids earning a fortune) would prefer for science to figure out exactly what, if any, is going on, and replicate it in something like a dialysis machine.
Strangely, there's also a lot of noise about rejuvenating effects (such as telomere lengthening) of high pressure oxygen, causing some people to sleep in hyperbaric oxygen tents.
What we need is for rich people to throw a lot more money after this, so we can figure out if there's anything worth doing, and then mass reproducing it.
It doesn't seem to be that bad in Europe, or maybe just where I'm at, although it's been nearly two years since I strolled through a bookstore. I guess there's a business opportunity for someone to open a wholesome publishing company.
SO, Why should I care?
That' s a good question. My answer is we should care because we're better than that. If we can be callous about genocide for any reason, are we really worth preserving ourselves?
Also the overall description of situation is a false dichotomy. There are more options than that. Options for the elite, of course - you and I can do nothing except respond according to our nature.
I'm well aware of the state of the world, and where trends are going, as well as what we can expect from upcoming technologies, or even do with current technology if we could be bothered. That wasn't my point at all.
My point was that it's not okay to be coy when supporting mass murder. If you can't say it outright, without dressing it up in flowery phrases, maybe you should rethink. So go on, be explicit: "I want most of the world to die, because my life would be better if they weren't in my way. I'm better than them." I assume you're also okay with someone else thinking they're better than you, and killing you and your family?
Maybe it's even morally right. Historically though, people with such ideas have turned out to be less than ideal role models.
That aside, spending resources on encouraging a one-child-per-family program in the parts of the world that can't manage themselves, and withholding aid to those that declined, would avoid all the morally dubious slaughter, and get some of the same results.
those who practice Civil Disobedience will prosper. And We will have a world that is no longer Over Populated. So,.. I ask again. Shall we even try?
That's basically agreeing with the perpetrators that the outcome of genocide is desirable, and asking why bother fighting it?
Now I like to bash Bill Gates as much as the next guy, possibly more, but it seems this graph leaves out the number of wild polio cases that were prevented because of the vaccine, since we have no way of knowing those.
Why does a sovereign nation need to ask permission to do anything?