[geeks] Mr Bill?

[der Mouse]

>> Even the worst epidemics rarely get above about 30-35 percent local
>> kill, and epidemics that bad are usually so geographically limited
>> they are barely noticable on a global scale.
> Try the Black Plague.

What was its local kill rate?  50%?  And it was mostly limited to
Western Europe, wasn't it?  I'd be surprised if it even got into
double-digit percentages planetwide.

>> (It wouldn't take much to kill off most of us and make life
>> unpleasant and probably short, by modern standards, for most of the
>> remainder.  But to leave not even a few enclaves?  Or to be so hard
>> on them that they couldn't wait it out?  That would be tough.  [...])
> I dunno.  Our social structure is a little wobblely and our bunching
> up in cities is not very forgiving of massive change.  I fear more
> would die than necessary.

"Necessary"?  I'm not sure how fair it is to call any such deaths
"necessary".

> And if the number left is below what is necessary to build up the
> population, we're screwed.

Yes, but how big is that number?  I'm not convinced that more than one
breeding pair is actually _necessary_.  Are there any data on isolated
populations that give any reason to think we know this number?

> Don't want to find out.

Agreed.  Totally agreed.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B