This certainly COULD happen. "Flu-like" illness though is very non-specific - would this be an actual influenza virus or something else? Maybe a variation like Avian flu that becomes transmittable between humans?
One thing that is now in our favor is that we have the entire science of epidemiology and much better understanding of spread of diseases, plus better science for treating them. So while this is possible, I think it's unlikely to be this serious unless there are already a lot of other society-disrupting factors, or it is engineered as a biological weapon.
I agree with your points about better science for treating them, but disagree with your conclusions.
Certian diseases (like HIV) have been almost impossible to cure (although AIDS patients can lead a full, normal life with the new meds).
There is a better understanding of diseases.....but also greater overpopulation, a blatant disregard for the laws of nature, and new technology (like rapid air travel) that facilitates the spread of disease.
The fact that humans are destroying the Earth should be taken into account.
As an example, global warming has allowed certain disease-carrying tropical mosquitoes to spread further north.....so now we have zika in the United States. It's the same thing with dengue fever, LaCrosse encephalitis, west nile, and so on.
I believe that we actually have to care about our planet and do what's best for everyone if we don't want this state of affairs to get worse.
It means emancipating women, allowing free access to birth control, and recognizing that consequences cross international borders.
A lot of conservative, religious people on this forum disagree with me, but I'll run an argument by you.
Everyone says that climate change is "only a theory", that it "hasn't been proven", and that scientists have an ulterior motive in pushing for renewable energy.
Ok.....so what about the Cold War?
Our country spent trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons, espionage, and so forth because the USSR might attack us.
There was no proof that the Soviets were these shuffling, drooling, moral monsters who were just waiting for the slightest excuse to nuke us out of existence. The suspicion that they might do so was more than enough justification to defend spending trillions of dollars over several decades.
Why does this double standard exist?
The stakes--if the scientists are right--are much higher than the consequences of a nuclear war.....although I concede that the consequences of unmitigated climate change occur slower than a nuclear war.
Why the double standard? And ask yourself whom you would rather trust: politicians (most of whom seem to be crooks just by virtue of their existence) and military people, or scientists who gave us vaccines, MRI, anesthesia, aseptic surgery, and so on.
Even if you disagree with me, please tell me that you see my points.
