Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

60,000 Antelope Died In 4 Days, and No One Knows Why

Posted by Soulskill on from the it-was-the-one-armed-man dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Saiga antelope has been hunted to near extinction. They've been put on the endangered species list, and they play a vital role in the ecosystems around Russia, Mongolia, and Kazakhstan, where their grazing helps get rid of fallen plant matter, which is prevented from decomposing by the cold temperatures. But earlier this year, a huge die-off hit the Saiga antelope herd in Kazakhstan, felling over 120,000 of them in a few short weeks. Scientists say an entire group of 60,000 died within a four-day span. The cause of this die-off is still a mystery. The researchers suspect some sort of bacteria, and early on pointed to Pasteurella strains. But those bacteria don't usually cause this much damage unless something else has weakened the antelope. "There is nothing so special about it. The question is why it developed so rapidly and spread to all the animals," one researcher said. They're looking into environmental factors, but nothing else seems too far out of the ordinary.

206 comments

  1. As they say by codeButcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... that buck stopped there.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    1. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Home, home on the range, where the deer and the an... erm.. deer and more deer graze?

    2. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but nothing else seems too far out of the ordinary: BOREDOM.

    3. Re:As they say by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Forget about the deer, I hope they've got refrigerator trucks out there collecting all that free hamburger meat.

    4. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't eat the meat of something that fell over and died of non-violent causes.

      The reasons for this should be rather obvious.

    5. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We'll make jokes about stones when the only thing remaining is us and stones. :-(

    6. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anybody seen that American dentist lately??

    7. Re:As they say by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      If they find the cause and find it's not harmful to humans, especially in cooked meat, what's does it matter?

    8. Re:As they say by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Its irrelevant. By the time you conclusively determine whatever killed the beasts isn't harmful to humans the meat will most likely have spoiled.

      Lots of bacteria that might be destroyed by cooking fills the host will harmful toxins that may not be destroyed by cooking before the host dies. By the time you work all this out it will be to late for other reasons.

      Basic survival rule: if you don't know what killed it, scratch eating it off the list of possibilities.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:As they say by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      You don't eat the meat of something that fell over and died of non-violent causes.

      The reasons for this should be rather obvious.

      Why would that stop a greedy corporation from trying to feed it to you anyway?

    10. Re:As they say by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Mostly that if it actually did kill a lot of people, the corporation would take a lot of heat for it. The corporations do frequently try to push the limits on that, and the punishment for that isn't nearly severe enough. But they do actually take considerable steps to avoid having it happen accidentally, and it's really not in their best interest to do it deliberately.

      The biggest problem is in ground beef. If you add one infected animal to the hopper, you can make millions of pounds of meat dangerous. That's expensive.

      Note that I'm not a fan of industrial meat production, and I avoid it. That has more to do with concern for animal welfare during their lives, and with flavor: if an animal is going to die for my dinner I want it to taste less bland than the meat you get at grocery stores and most restaurants. Plus, a few environmental issues. And yeah, safety is a bit of a concern... but they do want to avoid killing people. Bad for business.

    11. Re:As they say by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Violence makes the meat taste better.

    12. Re:As they say by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure Kazakhstan has some serious food quality controls /s Seriously though, it was a tinfoil hat joke not to be taken so seriously lol

    13. Re:As they say by OneSizeFitsNoone · · Score: 1

      Some say a trigger-happy policeman did this mess.

    14. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...says McDonald’s, and other dimwits

    15. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, 60,000 deer die and no one cares, but you shoot 1 lion and people have a shit fit.

    16. Re:As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll make jokes about stones when the only thing remaining is us and stones. :-(

      Don't worry, someone somewhere with a underdeveloped sense of humour will find a reason to blame it on some white christian male (or a whole white culture).

    17. Re:As they say by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I wince every time I see "bacteria" used instead of "bacterium". It's as bad as "reiterate".

    18. Re: As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "acceptable risk"

    19. Re: As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been there, they don't. The food is not bad, but meat is sold in open air markets in unrefrigerated conditions. Once I requested to see a dish in a restaurant and I was led back to the storage area and shown the raw meat instead. It was not reassuring, but I ate it anyway and enjoyed it. Horse meat is very common, and I would be surprised if some of that antelope didn't make its way into the food supply. Wasting food sources is a big taboo in their culture. They mock you for not eating the core of an apple, only the stem should be left.

    20. Re: As they say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading /. just makes me sad anymore. Don't you guys care about anything or anyone? I'm about ready to have AI take over.

  2. They were cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    and I know why: Donald trump wanted to further deny climate change, and by killing that many cows he can sell their meat at the black market, and tell the public barack obama did it to fight climate change, killing innocent cows to "save the world" from "their farts".

  3. The remaining few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The remaining few will have an evolutionary advantage over whatever kill the rest of them. Until a dumb ass human shoots them, that is, to put "the rarest specimens" up on his wall and brag about it.

    1. Re:The remaining few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wanted to eat the last of a species.

    2. Re:The remaining few by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      I always wanted to eat the first of a species.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:The remaining few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You yourself don't seem that smart making that comment.

    4. Re:The remaining few by silentcoder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You should eat Donald Trump. He represents the first in a new species related to Orangutans but without the intelligence.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:The remaining few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all of the advances in genetic engineering, maybe someday soon you two could get together for a meal.

  4. Probably a conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By house cats, sick of the cat food they get

  5. Now we need... by benjfowler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...a pandemic to cull the human herd too.

    I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

    1. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...a pandemic to cull the human herd too.

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

      Y'know... unless you're one of the 4 billion that was killed off...

    2. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      By the sounds of it the "genetic diversity" between your parents wasn't much to talk about either.

    3. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might find out that the ones you want dead aren't the ones that would die. The ones that would be able to save us would probably be the first to go, as they're "not fit" to survive what follows. Islamic State would probably have more survivors than the "developed" world.

      Your statement assumes that all humans on this planet are fungible (because "equal" has a different meaning than the mathematical term here), but that's not the case. 4 billion of one kind dying maybe be worse than 4 billion of another kind. I'm assuming that the ones with guns will not do much dying if they can help it (access to medicine being easier to them, as they have "insurance")

    4. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What medicine after the doctors die, the universities that train new ones collapse and the rest is fighting for the remenants of the "healthy society" of the past?

    5. Re:Now we need... by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What an ugly sentiment.

      --
      Dark Reflection
    6. Re:Now we need... by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term.

      And you're dead wrong, even if all the cadavers mysteriously and magically turned into basic mineral components and were sprinkled all over the planet (instead of rotting wherever they dropped dead, contaminating air and water with diseases durably over the following weeks).

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      Long-term, a forcibly reduced population would mean a lot less human capital (which is our true ultimate cap for progress potential), and a lot less competition for the same environmental resources, incentivizing a higher waste of these resources. Also, we'd be losing a lot of diversity, setting us back evolutionarily, and we'd just end up with more numerous but less adaptively fit individuals. This effect is well known and observed in all kinds of living organism populations, from bacteria to complex, social animals.

      Oh and, if you'd honestly believe killing people is ultimately doing people a service, you'd have started killing already. Or are you just a cowardly homicidal hypocrite ?

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    7. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL at you misunderstanding that 'fit' in today's terms has very little to do with being fit to survive - often those with the most resistance to disease are the ones who are fittest. Vaccines FTW!

    8. Re:Now we need... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Chances are the 4 billion wouldn't mind.

    9. Re:Now we need... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Feel free to lead by example. Until you do, why should anyone listen to you?

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    10. Re:Now we need... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And yet a hell of a lot of environmentalists and other leftists heartily endorse this viewpoint. :( It's a common yearning that frequently makes it to the silver screen in the form of thinly veiled disaster movies.

      I'm actually surprised it's already 2015 and still nobody has released a human-terminator virus like in "12 Monkeys".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    11. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to claim you're Jew if you post as an anonymous coward

      ...you antisemitic blob.

    12. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While lauding human potential, you omit cost, which considering how many people with even modertely useful degrees are under or unemployed; you're not getting those sunk costs back. And that is going to get worse as the population climbs.

      Regarding diversity, the Idiocracy argument applies, as that diversity is heavily skewed in one direction, which ends up not being diverse at all. It takes more than sheer numbers.

      Not advocating for any instance of a Final Solution (god knows no one is wise enough to select for best charecteristics), but this feel good, best of all possible worlds handwaving disregards very real problems the human population will face in the coming generations, and simply putting a smiley face on it insures a bloodbath will follow,

    13. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just as long as you're not one of them, right?

    14. Re:Now we need... by stongef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't worry, we are doing everything possible to cultivate a bug like this. My money is on a modified version of the bird flu, as easy to catch as a cold, but with the lethality of H5N1 (59%). It's brother H1N1 was the cause of the 1918 pandemic, which only killed between 3 to 5% of it's victims. We are currently creating the ideal environment for this bug to emerge in the chicken CAFOs. I'd bet on China for the point of origin. A million chickens in a big barn, bathing in their own feces, away from the lethal (for the bug) sun rays. Now THAT is bioengineering at its best ...

    15. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the consumer base, huh? Did you think about that? Who are the corporations going to sell their crap, if over half the people drop dead? The only business, that going to have a field day, literally, is the undertaker business.

    16. Re:Now we need... by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Informative

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      Many extinct species would beg to differ.
      http://news.discovery.com/anim...

    17. Re:Now we need... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know why some people think that population reduction can only occur through mass-murder/pandemic. People can have less babies you know.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    18. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You funny!

    19. Re:Now we need... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      [citation needed], and also false dichotomy. With current practices, the Earth is provably over its carrying capacity. We have the technology to fix the problems, but do we have the will? Film at eleven.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The decision to reduce human population may not be an academic one in the next 50 years, if you believe in Limits to Growth

      http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=326

    21. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's hardly a matter of one political bend or another - I just had Jehova's Witnesses on my porch trying to tell about the world that is to come, and how only the really good people will be in it (making for a much smaller population, they emphasized) and God's going to clean everything up...

      But you'll see it as a trope in fiction of all stripes. There's some terrible disaster, and mankind re-emerges into a form that somehow fits the political biases of the author. A lot of people imagine that being in horrible circumstances like that, fighting for survival with less technology and an awful lot fewer people would make for a simpler, more real world and yearn for it.

      Not that long ago, here on Slashdot, a bunch of people were explaining to me that in such a world, as a woman, I would go back into my biologically ordained role of reproductive servitude, which struck me as saying a lot more about their preoccupations, I thought, than anything else, but then people always seem to project their fantasies into these scenarios. (Especially since I'd already mentioned that I was in my forties, as well as being a martial artist and martial arts instructor and having an awful lot of skills useful in such a society.)

    22. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      How do you go about convincing China, India and Africa to stop having so many kids? China did pretty good with their one child policy, but frankly the other two are out populating the rest of the planet.

      Most of the developed world is in a population decline. The US is net positive because of our massive illegal immigration problem, if that was stopped we would also be on the slow population decline.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    23. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...a pandemic to cull the human herd too.

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

      I think I know a good place to start.

    24. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People have been claiming we were hitting peak population since we hit 1 billion. Improved technology has prevented true overpopulation from happening. Those places with an actual growing population will either die out, or figure out a way to deal with it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    25. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about the drastic decrease in the bio-diversity of everything else on the planet?

    26. Re:Now we need... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many extinct species would beg to differ.

      How can they do that? They're extinct.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    27. Re:Now we need... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, use some kind of contraception, but that's for nerds and fags right?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:Now we need... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong.
      The logistics of dealing with that many dead bodies all at once would simply overwhelm the systems of even the most advanced and richest countries. Emergency management simply could not keep up. Bodies would lie in the street, rotting, attracting pests and disease... and the other 3 billion would die soon after as they are overwhelmed by those.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    29. Re:Now we need... by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      It's been stopped. In fact the US's nett migration rates have been negative for many years now.
      More people leave the US to go live in Mexico than enter the US from Mexico - and that's with legals INCLUDED.

      There is no immigration problem, there is only rich exploiters desperate to have the people they exploit blamed somebody other than themselves so they invented a scapegoat. Getting the downtrodden to turn on another downtrodden group and blame them for their woes as opposed to blaming the people doing the trodding down is a political trick as old as civilization.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    30. Re:Now we need... by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term.
      > 4 billion humans dropped dead
      > we'd all be better off
      > 4 billion ... dead ... all be better off

      So trivially we wouldn't "all" be better off, because this plan involves extinction of 2/3rds of humans, and they would assuredly be much worse off (being dead). It seems unlikely that the remaining third would be all that much happier about the situation.

      I don't think your sentiment is all that common. Interestingly, the folks who believe it don't seem to start with the obvious (offing themselves), but instead find some religious purpose in subtly trying to spread this genocidal misanthropic philosophy.

      Well, let me offer you an assertion: No, we wouldn't be better off. We'd be much worse off. The inability to act against a bunch of vague potential threats is more of a feature of our species, not a bug. It serves as a drive to develop systems where people, in contributing to the system, help both themselves and those around them. The only reason we can support this many humans enjoying life at the same time is because a lot of these systems already exist, in some imperfect form or another, and they have vastly decreased human suffering and increased human pleasure over a very brief window in history for humanity.

      The reason the philosophy is so dangerous is that it encourages potential mass murderers to conspire with some nebulous goal of "future improvements". You can literally justify *anything* with such a philosophy. Why not focus on things that definitely help now and almost assuredly help later, instead of assuredly cause untold anguish, and maybe "help" later? It seems that the focus is driven by an intense desire to see others come to harm. The "we'd all be better off" is just to try to sell the poison.

    31. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or you could not go full retard and try to drag politics into this.

      The data is all available at census.gov, you can look at it yourself. The population of the US is growing by less than 1%, and all the growth is due to immigration (illegal and legal). This isn't a political statement, stop trying to drag politics into it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    32. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it will take quite a while for the population to drop if a low reproductive rate is the primary driver of population reduction.

      From the point of view of the impact humans have on the environment, there are already way way too many people living on this planet. I don't think the current population is unsustainable, but I don't think there is a realistic way of stopping this amount of people from being majorly harmful to the environment. That may be why some people only consider the mass-murder/pandemic route as ways of population reductions, as they have a impact much quicker than people just not having babies.

    33. Re:Now we need... by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting about your martial arts skills! I had a wonderful vision of you kicking the crap out of a misogynist basement dwelling neckbeard in a post-apocalyptic setting. :-)

    34. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False premise. They realize there are other methods, however, even a cursory study at let us say, the entire history of the planet, leads them to assume the most frequent and obvious causes are the most likely. Contrary to your observation that people can have less babies is the simple fact that on average, they are having more. Many documented studies show that people tend to continue having children even in hard times, and simply kill them when them things get too bad, or start a fight with neighboring tribes. It takes a special defect in DNA to voluntarily take yourself out of the gene pool. DNA wants to survive. That's all it does. I suppose if nature were more amenable to humans, it would come up with a better scheme, but nature seems to not fight entropy as much as us, and will tend to not expend much energy on things that don't matter.

    35. Re:Now we need... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How do you go about convincing China, India and Africa to stop having so many kids?

      China has a negative population growth rate now.

      India's population growth rate is slightly positive, but decreasing steadily. They should be negative growth in another decade or three.

      Africa is a whole 'nuther issue. Of course, what Europe, North America, China, and India have in common is increasing standard of living. - maybe that would work for Africa too....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet a hell of a lot of environmentalists and other leftists heartily endorse this viewpoint.

      Lie.

    37. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Wal-Mart in my town in northern VA does overhead announcements in Spanish, not English. I disagree.

    38. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's likely that the places you prefer this happen are also those with the greatest genetic diversity of humans.

    39. Re:Now we need... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      So what have Japan, Italy, Estonia, and (until the recent immigrant influx) Germany done to collectively damage their DNA so badly?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    40. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      As charming as fantasy as that might be, one really would hope that common interest might have us focusing on such pressing needs as food and shelter. ...I guess it would depend on just how thin resources were on the ground.

    41. Re:Now we need... by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      I think if 4 billion humans dropped dead next week, we'd all be better off long-term. We're probably overdue for something like this anyway, given how little genetic diversity humans have.

      Emphasis added.

      The dead would not be better off in any term. Plus, you appear to assume that you'd remain among the living.

      Will you demonstrate the courage of your conviction by leading the way and making a personal sacrifice? Because simply waiting for something to happen and the outcome to be determined by nature's lot does not make you more noble than anyone else -- everyone is already doing that whether consciously or not. The difference appears to be that you're hoping for it to happen.

    42. Re:Now we need... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      No. Those places will still be breeding grounds to feed back into western nations in the form of immigration.

      Nature abhors a vacuum; even if it's based on population.

      Your solutions are as follows:
      A-, Conquer dictatorships around the world and attempt to foster democracy with a functioning rule of law.
      B-, Build a wall with sentry guns to keep them on the other side.
      C-, Genocide via nuclear or biological.

      'C' is pure evil. Effective yes, but evil!! 'B', can work, that only so long as there isn't a revolution or radical change in prior governance. Considered short-term in the span of a few generations at best. 'A' is the best long-term solutions, but also the most difficult as it takes influencing and changing the culture of a "western" mindset adoption.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    43. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he was insulting Germans. See? that's the problem with fuckin cunt's that feign offense at the drop of a hat.
      It always starts off with a bunch of good 'ol boys hanging a nigger in a tree, and invariably ends up with a white cop with a bullet in the back of his fuckin head.
      I guess its better that we legislate against hate speech and raise an entire generation to abandon any sense of culture so that the real sociopaths who commit atrocities can be duly ostracized on message boards. The important thing is we get our shifty cell phone feeds into the 6 o'clock news on time, so we can all enjoy a little human suffering over dinner. I mean, what's the point in living if you can't sit back with a glass of wine and re-affirming on a nightly basis that there are bigger assholes than you in the world?

    44. Re:Now we need... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      And what would a 4-billion cullig do to our genetic diversity?

    45. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use of contraception is a negative gene survival tactic. If people with a certain ideological stand procreate at lower levels than people with an opposing stand then the number of supporters of that ideology goes down. Also gen lines which do not procreate become extinct. For any kind of socialist democracy with programs based on citizen participation a reduced number of taxpayers is not a good thing. So anyway you look at it, long term population collapse is not a good thing for western democracies.

    46. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is diminished returns?

    47. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But increasing their standard of living will destroy their native culture and must mean the White Man is forcing them to change to a new culture and that cannot be tolerated! We must keep them in their current, impoverished state because that's the only way they can be authentic and not oppressed by the White Man. So poverty for Africa really IS for their own good!

      -S. J. Worker

    48. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily HIV is already doing god's work in africa. We just need to convince people to stop sending them drugs to treat it.

    49. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect! Go ahead and lead by example please!

    50. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's for people that aren't in awe of life. Or think that they have moral authority to muck about with things way above their pay grade

      Using contraception does not imply either of those things. And you know it.

    51. Re:Now we need... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Wishing 4 billion humans dropped dead indicates there's something seriously abnormal with your mental processes. Nearly every human on earth will think you're a dangerous whacko.

      On the other hand, wishing 4 billion humans would stop breeding is much more palatable, while accomplishing the exact same environmental goal. A significant percentage of the population in rich countries now are voluntarily going childless anyways, you just have to convince the people in poor countries (which are responsible for almost all of the population growth) to do the same.

    52. Re:Now we need... by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't know. My answer to the future would be O'Neill Cylinders. That would solve the future population problems.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    53. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      S. J. Worker

      You misspelled "strawman"

    54. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hardly people on the left. There's a lot of Republican and other right wing groups that would happily exterminate anyone that wasn't a white, SUV driving, Walmart shopper.

    55. Re:Now we need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's too simplistic an analysis. Contraception exists in the natural world, including as a built-in mechanism in many animals. There can be very good survival benefits to not getting pregnant at the wrong time. IIRC, lionesses, for example, can reduce their fertility during famines.

    56. Re:Now we need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Education, particularly of women. There's a good talk (TED, I think) about how Bangladesh had tried all kinds of ways to reduce it's world-leading birth rate. None of them really worked. Then there was an unconnected program to send girls to school, and the birth rate fell through the floor.

      By the way, the population growth rate of India has been declining since the 80s (and is currently less than the US in the 90s), and China's is currently less than the US. The world population growth rate is also in decline, and is currently less than the US in the 90s.

    57. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you go about convincing China, India and Africa to stop having so many kids?

      Simple. Stop foreign aid. That's pretty much the reason why they're having/able to have so many kids in the first place. It's not our responsibility to help impoverished countries anyway.

    58. Re:Now we need... by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      An 8 billion human population is overall better for mankind and also arguably for the planet, than just 1 billion.

      Many extinct species would beg to differ. http://news.discovery.com/anim...

      Why do you hate evolution?

    59. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuck level: Top cuck.

    60. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being in your forties you have already well passed the timespan in which you can have healthy children. Children born from mothers over thirty have a much higher rate of getting autism.

      (Guess why autism rates are skyrocketing? That's right, women having kids well past their thirties because they were too busy having a job. Thanks feminism.)

    61. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great rebuttal, ten outta ten. What debating skills.

    62. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made a wild, accusatory claim with absolutely no evidence behind it. It is absolutely appropriate to respond by calling it a lie.

    63. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why don't you do the gene pool a favour and go fuck yourself?

    64. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Benjamin Fowler is a piece of shit. The only good side of what he proposes would be if he's one of the 4 billion to drop dead.

    65. Re:Now we need... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Added bonus: Educating women will end Islam. At least as it is practiced today.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    66. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is mindblowing how far up your ass your head is. How retarded do you have to be to not spend 5 minutes checking to see if the US population is actually shrinking? It is easily available from the US census bureau that we are still slightly growing. And if all the illegals left tomorrow, that would be great for the middle class. Companies would have to hire Americans at the market rate to harvest their crops, and longer term, hire engineers to design automation and robotics to do the harvesting and other menial jobs, technicians to support and maintain the machines, all at healthy wages. The flood of illegal aliens has stunted the growth of this very logical progression.

      It is a FACT that citizen children of illegals use our social safety nets ~70% of the time, compared with the general population at ~30% and its just the tip of the iceberg. Illegals are a net drain on a first world society with safety nets and the time when we bend over and take it is over, so shut the fuck up and get out of the way, or get crushed.

    67. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >this is what the left actually believes

    68. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother started having kids in her thirties and my brother and I are fine. Definitely, definitely fine. We're also very good drivers.

    69. Re:Now we need... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      No that's what you believe that the left actually believes.

    70. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      Being in my forties, it's a toss up whether I'd manage to have children at all, and autism is hardly the only thing that increases with maternal age (I seem to recall that there are some risk factors associated with paternal age as well). This was, in fact, my point - even if it was a high priority for their postulated struggling post-apocalyptic community to make babies (and seriously, I think you want to make sure you have the basics covered before you get on with the breeding) I am just not your best candidate. I'd always figured that if I hadn't had kids by the time I was thirty-five - and I was aiming for late twenties - I wasn't having them. However, my ex rather abruptly decided that he wanted not to have kids, and for me to quit my job and take care of him... well, hence the ex part.

      (Between my martial arts students and my undergraduate research students, I pretty much get any need to nurture taken care of, and I might make a better teacher than I would a parent. I have a twisted enough sense of humor than I regret not inflicted my genes on the next generation - but when I looked into donating eggs, while apparently I looked like a great donor, they said I'd have to lay off of the training for a month, and, well, no.)

      "(Guess why autism rates are skyrocketing? That's right, women having kids well past their thirties because they were too busy having a job. Thanks feminism.)"

      There are so many things wrong with this line. First of all, you're pulling out one factor that is correlated (let us repeat together, correlation does not imply causality) and trying to put all the increase in autism rates (which are hard to track anyway because diagnostics have changed so much) at its feet. The research simply doesn't support this - this is clearly far more about your political agenda than about the science. Especially since the science shows linkages to paternal age as well.

      (Just a couple of abstract links: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... )

      But it's equally asinine to lay women having children later because they have jobs at the feet of feminism. Hell, you could just as strongly make exactly the reverse argument, that feminism in its current form arose in part because of women entering the workforce and achieving such a degree of economic independence. This isn't something that just happened - you're looking at the results of huge changes with industrialization, better medicine, the rise of birth control*, increasing automation of housework, and so on. Do you want to have an economy that works? Well, from where we are right now, women have got to be in the workplace in large numbers - it's not some hobby, it's economic necessity, both on the individual household level and in terms of our country.

      * And seriously, for all the guys who seem to fantasize about a time when women would be forced to be homemakers because they got pregnant just like that, isn't it awfully nice to be able to have sex without worrying about having kids? I am highly pro-birth control myself. Yay, more sex, fewer worries.

    71. Re:Now we need... by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      Despite my self imposed limits, my family generally has tended to be kind of ridiculously fertile - in my generation there are almost forty first cousins (though admittedly some of my uncles and aunts went through multiple marriages to manage this feat.) My grandmother had my youngest and favorite Aunt, a retired CSI who now does medical auditing, when she was 46. ...of course, increased rates doesn't mean the absolute rates are high, just that they're higher than they would have been.

      Eh. I've always been extremely careful about birth control (I just had this talk with my sixteen year old nephew, pointing out that the familial rates of fertility might suggest that he be a belt and suspenders man if he wants to avoid paternity), but were I to become pregnant at this point in my life, I would be hard core about pre-natal testing, but it's not unlikely that I'd carry to term. Not something I'm seeking out - and I had a few guys audition for "father of my children" once I left my ex - but an experience I have mixed feelings about missing out on.

    72. Re:Now we need... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Lots of people in "awe of life" use contraception. They just aren't in awe of every single sperm and egg in their bodies. They want some control over how often these get together. As science develops, they will also want to control specifically which sperm and eggs meet, to avoid genetic disease.

      Eppuor se muove, crucifix boy

    73. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDIOT - higher production costs increase prices for finished products

    74. Re:Now we need... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      considering how many people with even modertely useful degrees are under or unemployed; you're not getting those sunk costs back. And that is going to get worse as the population climbs.

      Unemployment has nothing to do with population numbers. Many (most ?) countries in this world enjoy low unemployment figures with growing demographics.

      No, diversity is not skewed in any direction. A vast number of different factors help or hamper in the reproductive success of any given individual, and as the population increases, even that growth generates new factors, and those new factors also tend to create layers of new factors of their own, etc. For example species that evolve mating rituals also end up evolving strategies that circumvent those rituals, and counter-strategies for detecting these 'sneakers', etc. And changing conditions eventually disturb any dynamic equilibrium they might get at. It never ends at any given point.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    75. Re:Now we need... by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      The same applies: I think it's a bad thing, just as it would be a bad thing to see happen in humans.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    76. Re:Now we need... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      True autism rates are not skyrocketing.

      What is skyrocketing is the number of middle class parents claiming that their precious snowflakes are "on the autistic spectrum" due to behaviour that thirty years ago would just be thought of as slightly annoying and self centred.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    77. Re:Now we need... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That rather depends on how the 4 billion is distributed, doesn't it? If it included all the females I suspect it'd go down rather steeply within 80 or so years.

      Let's suppose it was uniform across race, sex, age, eye colour, blood group, yada yada - just as if they were drawn at random. Given that the population was at that level within my lifetime and we seemed to cope OK I'd say there'd be no effect at all.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    78. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thing culling 3,418,059,380 would be enough. Like all slashdotters, I have no need for women anyway.

    79. Re:Now we need... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      My understanding was that the part of our genes that are race specific is actually smaller than those which simply vary from individual to individual. If that is true then I would think that any death is some reduction of diversity.

    80. Re:Now we need... by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Aside from the typo above, this is a good point. What if the people were all in a single geographical area? Would the world be better off if everyone in N & S America died next week? All US politicians, maybe, but everyone in the Americas would really damage the word economy and the benefit to overcrowding in the remainder of the world may be nonexistent. Or what if the event killed everyone over/under a certain age?

      Perhaps the better option would be to just stop trying to cure diseases we have today, that would be a step in the direction the OP seems to want to go in. Or maybe, just maybe, the planet could easily a decent multiple of the number of people currently on it & we need to focus on social/political issues that get in the way.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    81. Re:Now we need... by JazzLad · · Score: 1
      gah, as much as I hate to reply to myself,

      the planet could easily a decent multiple

      should have read:

      the planet could easily support a decent multiple

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    82. Re: Now we need... by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      "Collapse"? Slowing the rate of increase isn't collapse.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    83. Re:Now we need... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Just like it did to Christianity a hundred years ago.

    84. Re:Now we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educating girls has the greatest effect on population growth, but it's a two-generation progress.
      What seems to work best is giving the mother a washing machine and cable television.

      Here's the washing machine talk- http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine?language=en

      Here's a blurb about the television -- http://blog.ted.com/oster_cable_tel/
      (Sorry I can't find the whole discussion at this time.)

    85. Re:Now we need... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unemployment has nothing to do with population numbers. Many (most ?) countries in this world enjoy low unemployment figures with growing demographics.

      Well, that's stretching the point a bit, isn't it? First, there's no way it has nothing to do with population numbers. Second, there's not just both unemployment and underemployment; there's also reported unemployment and actual unemployment. Are you simply reading official figures? They are often lies.

      Is it really enjoying low unemployment figures if A, the figures are bullshit and/or B, you're working your ass off but not really meeting your needs?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    86. Re:Now we need... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People have been claiming we were hitting peak population since we hit 1 billion.

      So, sometime in the early 1800s. Now take a look at what's happened to ecological diversity since then. Check out the PPM of CO2. Examine the mass of the forests, forested area is relevant but what we really want is active and healthy biomass. That is, if what we want is a predictable climate that doesn't shit all over the spreadsheets...

      Those places with an actual growing population will either die out, or figure out a way to deal with it.

      Often by ignoring externalities, usually pushing them off directly onto someone else who suffers for it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    87. Re:Now we need... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Don't know why you're wittering about race, it's Irrelevant. Are you one of those people who reads words but not sentences?

      Any person born after 1974 inherited the genes of 2 people born before 1974. You won't have had many mutations in a few decades. Therefore, effect on diversity = nil.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    88. Re:Now we need... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      > > Many extinct species would beg to differ.

      > How can they do that? They're extinct.

      "Would". As in if they weren't extinct, they would say that. Oh wait, no they wouldn't!

    89. Re:Now we need... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Well.. you were talking about assuming the population reduction was uniform. (I didn't feel like pointing out how unlikely that is). I ignored sex in your comment since it's kind of hard to reproduce without one of each. As for age.. I ignored that because anyone who is no longer of reproductive age is no longer going to contribute. So.. I was left with race.

      As for your 1974 thing.. it's pretty nonsensical. First of all, your pre-1974 parents may or may not still be alive. Even if they are they are unlikely to have any more children so even if they are alive they aren't making any permanent contribution to the population's genetic diversity.

      Then you go on to talk about mutations over a few decades. WTF? That sounds like a creationist explaining evolution! Yeah, you are right, there won't be many mutations in an individual over 41 years. Where do I begin with this one though?

      First off, most of the interesting genetic changes happen at conception, not the random mutations that result from replication errors within an organism's lifepan.

      Second... who says you have to be the origin of a 'new' gene for your death to influence genetic diversity? Any organism could carry a gene that is rare but was inheritted from some other many generations past. Does one even have to have the last copy of the gene in existance to reduce diversity by dying? One less of a rare gene may still be more than zero but it reduces the possiblity that the gene will be propogated in the future. There is a reason we don't wait until an animal population is down to one male and one female before putting them on the endangered species list.

  6. Graaaaains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is how The Pronking Dead starts, you know.

  7. Re:You didn't listen by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who will be the next victims of our inaction? Gnus?

    I don't see how global warming could lead to the extinction of Free Software Foundation.

  8. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We warned you about global warming, and you didn't listen. Who will be the next victims of our inaction? Dolphins? Housecats? Gnus?

    Are you kidding? I've been listening to the gnus every day.

  9. They were raptured by jfdavis668 · · Score: 5, Funny

    These deer were actually God's chosen people, and have been raptured. We all have to live through the end of days.

    1. Re:They were raptured by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Mod +1 Funny.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re: They were raptured by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      Dear oh dear, lucky it wasn't 144,000 of them.

    3. Re: They were raptured by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It was at least 120,000 over a few weeks. No doubt someone just mis-estimated.

    4. Re:They were raptured by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Lol if you believe these fairytales.

      It was actually me. I was hungry and trying to bulk so I ate them all.

    5. Re:They were raptured by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the only worthwhile comment here.

  10. Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antelope were trying to free their friends but they were unplugged

  11. Maybe by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Walter Palmer bought himself a Chu-ko-nu

  12. Environmental factors by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

    They're looking into environmental factors

    Yeah, I think it was probably something in their environment as well.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Environmental factors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like what? Nuclear spills? They have a history of lost nuclear subs, subs catching fire in port, or incidents like those in Cernobyl and Kyshtym.

      What is it this time?

    2. Re:Environmental factors by disposable60 · · Score: 1

      Cyanide gas leaking from melting 'perma'frost?

      --
      You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
  13. Putin knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was western spys...

    1. Re:Putin knows by jason.sherry · · Score: 1

      Putin knows... he was on a hunting trip those 4 days. He should stick to his self-imposed limit of 10,000 antelope per day.

  14. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh come on, like you never wanted to hunt down RMS...

  15. Not saying it was aliens but... by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was aliens.

    1. Re:Not saying it was aliens but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Antelope mutilations are up this year."

    2. Re:Not saying it was aliens but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must have gotten bored with abducting cows from rural US.

  16. Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something in the water perhaps? Seems about the only way that you can get such large group of not-that-social animals diseased at about the same time..

  17. They knew too much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Donald Trump's pilatory electoral chances riding on the unique fur of Russian antelope, no one can know.

  18. Re:You didn't listen by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

    The next victims will likely include ourselves. As for the dolphins, as the most intelligent species of the world, they will find a way out.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  19. Fun Time with Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The researchers suspect some sort of bacteria...

    This should of course read "some sort of bacterium". You wouldn't say that "a sedan is a kind of cars".

    Heil Grammar!

    1. Re:Fun Time with Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't say that "a sedan is a kind of cars".

      If you're the kind of person who says "60,000 antelope" I wouldn't be so sure.

      I don't get how the mistake in the title was made. It was correct in the submission.

    2. Re:Fun Time with Grammar Nazi by mirix · · Score: 1

      Antelope is already plural, like sheep or deer.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
  20. Biowar agent release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever heard of Biopreparat? Look up Ken Alibek fka Kentajan Alebikov.

  21. Well.. by red+crab · · Score: 2

    The troll comments posted here so far just show how ignorant Slashdotters are about wildlife and environment, in general.

    1. Re:Well.. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      Then please enlighten us with your profound knowledge and wisdom.

    2. Re:Well.. by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 2

      agreed... in the last bunch of years audience quality dropped significantly...I suspect a whole bunch of IFLS and fanboys are swarming everywhere..Truth is almost never a pure color...and science is a complex matter... I appreciate the work people like deGrasse are doing...but they should remember we don't need to create a generation of closed minded did-you-publish-1000-papers-already 'scientists' ... or it will be worse than religion... sometimes world changing discoveries still come out one 'crazy' genius or even by the amateur botanist.. science should be inflexible in repeatability and logic, but not carry other dogmas or elitist behaviours..

    3. Re:Well.. by tylikcat · · Score: 1

      I've wondered a lot about the average age of posters, and if that has changed. A lot would be explained (including some matters of timing) by a strong influx of the 15-22 year olds.

    4. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In truth, Slashdotters are pretty ignorant about almost everything... Scroll through the comments, it's like overhearing conversions at a 4th grade lunch table.

    5. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it, rather a troll comment usually indicates the commentor has such an advanced awareness of the subject that engaging in trite blubbering and reciting of common facts between dullards is mind numbingly painful. The careful troll is usually able to seize on a nuanced aspect of the topic and turn it into a debate in itself. Usually, these tangential discussions prove to be more intellectually stimulating if not limited by some freakish moderator with more mod points than sense. Of course there is always the danger that it turns into a name calling tirade of personal attacks when an asshole like you chimes in with a haughty fuckin attitude and decides to proclaim how the world would be so much better if we all just turned into clones of his royal fuckwadness.
      Oh dear, I think I see your point. Fine then, go ahead and enlighten us unwashed masses about your superior understanding of wildlife and the environment. Just don't turn it into one of those climate Nutter debates, you don't want to blow your façade of being a pretentious fucking knowitall.

    6. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In truth, Slashdotters are pretty ignorant about almost everything... Scroll through the comments, it's like overhearing conversions at a 4th grade lunch table.

      Yes, a 4th grade lunch table at a school for autistic kids who are good with computers.

  22. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nah, we live all over the world. It will take a lot of climate change to destroy ALL of the suitable habitat for humans.

    A population crash is likely, though.

  23. This is Kazakhstan we're talking about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is some of that super toxic hydrazine reached the ground from the Russian Soyuz launch failure in May.

    1. Re:This is Kazakhstan we're talking about by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      My guess is some of that super toxic hydrazine reached the ground from the Russian Soyuz launch failure in May.

      Chemistry 101: Abort, Retry, Fail

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  24. Well on their way by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > 60,000 antope in 4 days

    Wait. WHERE'S CARTMAN?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Well on their way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Up about 120,000 xp.

  25. Re:You didn't listen by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

    It's going to take a while, seeing as they can't hold a screw driver.

    --
    Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  26. Re:You didn't listen by EvilSS · · Score: 2

    We warned you about global warming, and you didn't listen. Who will be the next victims of our inaction? Dolphins? Housecats? Gnus?

    How about we warn the dolphins, then wait until after the housecats then start doing something?

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  27. Whose fault is it? by umghhh · · Score: 1

    Putin's!!!!

  28. Who counted them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love how the article left out this critical piece of information.

  29. Climate Change? by Krakken · · Score: 1

    Interesting: "their grazing helps get rid of fallen plant matter, which is prevented from decomposing by the cold temperatures". I wonder if bacteria or other pathogen may be thriving because of temperature increases?

  30. They came to terms with reality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They accepted the fact there is a possibility that Trump could be president of the US of A.

  31. Re:You didn't listen by Flavianoep · · Score: 0

    It's going to take a while, seeing as they can't hold a screw driver.

    At least, they are not screwing the world, nor driving other species into extinction.

    --
    Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
  32. progress? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the Saiga are all gone, will the developers finally get the land access that they paid for?

  33. Pasteurella multocida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    P. multocida WILL kill you in a week, no, ifs, ands or buts about it. I know this first hand.

    It's got to be transmitted to you first and usually, that's from a bite.

    If a mosquito or biting fly has become a transmission vector, this is a massive problem for all advanced land based animals on this planet.

    1. Re:Pasteurella multocida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's put it this way, it's got to get below the skin. This is why cat bites, dog bites, rabbit bites that lead to infection will most certainly kill you if they give you a P. multocida infection.

      It's how the komodo dragon kills its prey, not by bite, but by infection.

      I spent a 4 days in the hospital on IV antibiotics with a P. multocida infection and my Dr.'s neighbor died of one.

    2. Re:Pasteurella multocida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how the komodo dragon kills its prey, not by bite, but by infection.

      Myth.

    3. Re:Pasteurella multocida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pasteurella multocida, haemolytica etc are respiratory pathogens of cattle/sheep/goats etc.
      However, finding Pasteurella sp. in the lungs of these dead animals would not be surprising.

      This bacteria is also normal flora until stress, or other environmental factor, triggers physiological changes in the animal allow the bacteria kick into high gear.
      Colonization of an animal's respiratory system occurs by nose-to-nose contact or perhaps heavy environmental contamination (as in the back of cattle truck).

      Stress plays a significant role in the initiation of disease.

  34. Russian saigas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Next time don't name your antelopes after an automatic shotgun

  35. Maybe by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Anyone have eyes on where Walter James Palmer is right now?

    --
    -Styopa
  36. Been you to have any spike, mon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run, run, run, run, run, run, run, run. Run, run, run, run. Run, run, run, run. Run, run, run, run, run, run, run, run. Run, run, run, run. Run, run, run, run.

    They didn't set the gearshift for the high gear of their soles.

  37. Would if they could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many extinct species would beg to differ.

    How can they do that? They're extinct.

    What part of "would" didn't you understand?

    1. Re:Would if they could by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Many extinct species would beg to differ.

      How can they do that? They're extinct.

      What part of "would" didn't you understand?

      The part where you would have missed the joke.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Would if they could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was supposed to be a joke?

      Uhm . . .

      No kiddin'?

  38. Re:You didn't listen by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

    If you're not careful, a dolphin will screw you.

    --
    Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  39. "felling"... For Christ's sake. American stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't use the word "fell" to describe animals dying. You use it to describe cutting down a TREE. Fucking American idiots.

  40. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you seen that smug motherfucker? Tell me you don't want to shoot it down.

  41. Acacia Tree is Suspected by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

    The current explanation, pins this on the Acacia Tree and this only happens when the antelope population is too large.

    I couldn't find full articles that weren't behind paywalls, so this will have to do as reference: http://arthurmag.com/2010/01/0...

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  42. It's a sign. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humans are part of nature, an apex predator. But we have been slacking off, all the ecology movement has done is slow down our rightful predatory instincts to kill off tasty tasty food. Our lack of action has been noted by Mother Nature and she has no mercy. So it is the vegans fault. Humans need to do their best to eat the animals Mother Nature / God provided for us. It's a sign.

  43. Re:"felling"... For Christ's sake. American stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually that is a perfectly acceptable use of the word; try looking it up in a dictionary. Moron.

  44. Re:You didn't listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0620... For a species that lacks horns, they're mighty horny.

  45. Something water bourne perhaps? by Julz · · Score: 1

    How about the Naegleria fowleri amoeba mentioned in a later article. It appears to be getting more resilient and prevalent. Could it also be there? Or perhaps a similar amoeba?

    --
    When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
  46. Peek child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We hit peek child according to Professor Hans Rosling. His presentation is on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziWnOCCQlgY

    1. Re:Peek child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I used the wrong word. Should have been peak. At least we'll get some funny / snarky comments and I was anonymous :)

  47. Bioweapon? Biological Contamination? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kazakhstan has been a hotbed for bioweapons research since the Cold War days...and well after. Initially the Soviets conducted research there, but after Kazakhstan split off from the Soviet Union, the laboratories fell into disrepair and the scientists lost their jobs. The US has been building a new biological threat research laboratory on the same grounds where an old Soviet lab stood. Google the "Central Reference Laboratory Kazakhstan". As a matter of fact, it was due to open this month. Is it too much to speculate that perhaps this was a result of either accidental contamination or unacknowledged testing?

  48. I know the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... It's Global Warming (TM). Hurry up, call Al Gore! His Green (TM) corporations can save us!

  49. If you don't bleed the corpse by fonske · · Score: 1

    ... the taste of the meat is disgusting.

    1. Re:If you don't bleed the corpse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except because protein...

  50. Nobody by Amanitin · · Score: 1

    expected the Spanish inquisition

  51. Re:You didn't listen by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    So I hurd.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  52. Climate Change by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    The summary pretty much answers it's own question:

    "...their grazing helps get rid of fallen plant matter, which is prevented from decomposing by the cold temperatures."

    It very will could be that "Climate Change" has caused slightly warmer temperatures, which has hastened the decomposition of the food they depend on. With less food, the animals become weaker and more susceptible to sickness. Similarly and possibly in conjunction with, the bacteria in question may become more prevalent in slightly warmer temperatures.

    All of this is speculation, but both could probably be determined with a bit of study.

  53. Re:You didn't listen by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

    Hope springs eternal.

  54. Obviously by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Putin went hunting.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.