On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 05:58:00 -0800 (PST), Brian Davis
<brdavis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On Jan 7, 5:13 am, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised that more virii occurring in nature don't use it --
>> the sweat glands in the palms (merocrine?) seem ideal for
>> transfer...
>
>Except here you need physical contact, while a great number of virii
>(?)
I understand the question mark. I know "virii" looks odd, but I got
into the habit of using it because the spellcheck on a WP that I had
about 15 years ago balked at "viruses" -- it wouldn't even let me put
it into the spelling dictionary without creating a special exception
to the standard rules. Since every major dictionary lists it, who am I
to argue?
(Reading "genii" is a real stumbling block for me because it can be
the plural for either genie or genius, and I always think of the wrong
one.)
> avoid that, toughen up a little bit, and go airborn, which has a
>much better chance of encountering a new host. It just requires the
>host be close, not in contact.
Obviously a million airborne, each with a 1 in a 1,000,000 chance, is
a sure thing while a few hundred, each with a 1 in 1,000, is far less
effective, but considering the number of varieties, I would expect a
niche of contact-transmission diseases to thrive.
>> Result: a simple handshake leads to psychopathy.
>
>Or, for even more SFnal truth, a virus that does the opposite - makes
>an organism bond more strongly into social groupings in peaceful,
>friendly fa****on. Getting a bunch of organisms to willingly remain in
>close contact, while not being violently disfunctional, increases the
>odds of transmission... and breeding more potential hosts.
More from my cynical side than anything else, I suspect that it would
be a real trick to reduce aggression without significantly reducing
the *** drive.
--
|
