Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Wforcier
| Reward Points: | 98 |
| Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 92% |
| Arguments: | 95 |
| Debates: | 2 |
In other words if you're engineering a virus, you make sure that at least 50% of the population cannot be affected, and you do this by selecting for an allele that only occurs in 50% of the population.
First, would this facet destroy the randomness contention that you suggested in your initial argument about the randomness of a bio-weapon on the species. Isn't the ability to select these 50% of the population deny the ideology of randomness?
Second, though I do not advocate for it, I do not understand what is the issue with human extinction. Are humans not create an adverse affect on the biosphere and the species sheltered within? Would it not be beneficial if the plague you suggested sterilized the entire human population and left humanity to die out?
Original post: how make hawiies volcanos go rampant by makeing a nuke explode about a mile under them?
Rephrase: Regarding your idea about creating a landmass in the Pacific Ocean, how do you suppose we would do this? Do you mean, for instance, we cause Hawaii's volcanoes to erupt via the detonation of nuclear weapons beneath them?
|
||||||||||||||||||||
