Frank Fenner died on November the 22nd. His first expected time of death was during the mid 50's when he knowingly injected himself with a virus in order to prove it's safety. In 1980, he announced to the world that smallpox no longer existed outside of laboratories. Earlier this year, he announced to the world that we would be extinct within 100 years. To come to this conclusion marks a drastic change in the way he thought thirty years ago.
And there in lies one of the problems. Optimism is only short lived. Almost by definition (at least in my experience as a pessimistic realist).
Humanity can't cope with positivity. We see it in the news. Only one day in three gives us a positive news story and these are usually shunted to the end of the paper or the report as a 'human interest' story.
For Frank Fenner to inject himself with Myxomatosis, a virus which he had studied strictly for it's fatal capabilities took optimism. He did it for the express purpose of proving its safety for humans. And his gamble paid off. Myxomatosis was used for 40 years to keep the rabbit population controlled in Australia.
For Frank Fenner to announce that smallpox no longer existed took optimism. Everyone knows about carriers. His announcement marked the point at which vaccines were made. If there was even one carrier who managed to pass on the disease, there could have been monumental casualties before the vaccine was distributed again. Now smallpox only exists in two places, a vault in Atlanta, and a vault in Koltsovo. Here it is used to study virology and to develop vaccines for other diseases.
For Frank Fenner to announce that the Human race was doomed, all he had to do was look around. He gives a few reasons. Overpopulation (he is quoted as saying "If you want to protect children from the vast number of infectious diseases, vaccination is by far the best way to do it. If on the other hand, you wish to act against overpopulation, don't vaccinate anyone, including your own children.") key among them. Other reasons include Global Warming or Climate Change and a lack of food (causing wars as a result of the distribution).
I don't particularly want to answer any of these as I think I've discussed most of his concerns in some way or another during my time here. However, what I want to do is consider briefly the difference between his optimism and his pessimism.
For his optimism he risked death at his own hands.
For his optimism, he worked day and night for something that would statistically never affect him.
For his optimism he was rewarded with a literally changed world.
For his optimism, he achieved something that had never previously and has never since been done (the eradication of a infectious disease in humans).
For his pessimism, he gave up.
And there in lies one of the problems. Optimism is only short lived. Almost by definition (at least in my experience as a pessimistic realist).
Humanity can't cope with positivity. We see it in the news. Only one day in three gives us a positive news story and these are usually shunted to the end of the paper or the report as a 'human interest' story.
For Frank Fenner to inject himself with Myxomatosis, a virus which he had studied strictly for it's fatal capabilities took optimism. He did it for the express purpose of proving its safety for humans. And his gamble paid off. Myxomatosis was used for 40 years to keep the rabbit population controlled in Australia.
For Frank Fenner to announce that smallpox no longer existed took optimism. Everyone knows about carriers. His announcement marked the point at which vaccines were made. If there was even one carrier who managed to pass on the disease, there could have been monumental casualties before the vaccine was distributed again. Now smallpox only exists in two places, a vault in Atlanta, and a vault in Koltsovo. Here it is used to study virology and to develop vaccines for other diseases.
For Frank Fenner to announce that the Human race was doomed, all he had to do was look around. He gives a few reasons. Overpopulation (he is quoted as saying "If you want to protect children from the vast number of infectious diseases, vaccination is by far the best way to do it. If on the other hand, you wish to act against overpopulation, don't vaccinate anyone, including your own children.") key among them. Other reasons include Global Warming or Climate Change and a lack of food (causing wars as a result of the distribution).
I don't particularly want to answer any of these as I think I've discussed most of his concerns in some way or another during my time here. However, what I want to do is consider briefly the difference between his optimism and his pessimism.
For his optimism he risked death at his own hands.
For his optimism, he worked day and night for something that would statistically never affect him.
For his optimism he was rewarded with a literally changed world.
For his optimism, he achieved something that had never previously and has never since been done (the eradication of a infectious disease in humans).
For his pessimism, he gave up.
No comments:
Post a Comment