If a Cure for AIDS was Invented...

[brunokiller]

One person would make a bastard load of money.

 

 

 

I think people will do less safe sex because it will take one risk down.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Not every country has the same resources as Japan. A GOOD WORKFORCE isn't something every country has. Sure you can say "they have the potential to" but it still means nothing.

 

Japan has good resources? What resources would these be?

[silver_wits]

the pregnancy rates will go up. :o

 

 

 

even males will get pregnant.[not really]

[scootlaboot]

the pregnancy rates will go up. :o

 

 

 

even males will get pregnant.[not really]

 

First male human to give birth gets Disney.

[silver_wits]

I would let my future husband enjoy the pains of childbirth instead of me if I could.... :twisted:

[Laura]

Although personally, I don't want a cure to be invented.

 

 

 

Please explain so this doesn't seem so disgusting. Are you joking?

Why am I joking? While I'm sure all of us here would love to save millions of people with a cure, it has effects other than so. Most of the virus is in third world countries, who have enough trouble feeding, housing, and supporting its own people. "Saving" 20 million people will only worsen this, causing even more suffering, loss of jobs, housing space, and competition for resources and food. And even then, they would continue to have unprotected sex, as there is a less of a consequence, increasing population. Why would you want them to suffer even more?

 

 

 

It's called a carrying capacity, and many countries are con their way to reaching it.

[Lateralus]

Although personally, I don't want a cure to be invented.

 

 

 

Please explain so this doesn't seem so disgusting. Are you joking?

Why am I joking? While I'm sure all of us here would love to save millions of people with a cure, it has effects other than so. Most of the virus is in third world countries, who have enough trouble feeding, housing, and supporting its own people. "Saving" 20 million people will only worsen this, causing even more suffering, loss of jobs, housing space, and competition for resources and food. And even then, they would continue to have unprotected sex, as there is a less of a consequence, increasing population. Why would you want them to suffer even more?

 

 

 

It's called a carrying capacity, and many countries are con their way to reaching it.

 

 

 

Deaths from AIDs in Africa has very little effect on population control. There was around 2 million deaths from AIDs in Africa in 2005, which is piss in the ocean, frankly.

 

 

 

"Many people believe that the AIDS pandemic will end the population explosion, especially in Africa, where population growth is very high and poverty reigns. Africans make up 10 million of all 15 million HIV- infected persons worldwide. Yet, the proposition that AIDS will sole population explosion does not stand up to reason. About 200 million people in Africa will be HIV infected by 2010, but the loss of 200 million people would not slow population growth. The 14th century's Black Death killed more than 50% of the European population, but by 1750 Europe had reached the population size it would have reached without the Black Death. The 200 million people who died violent deaths between the start and end of the two World Wars did not stop world population growth from peaking in 1970 at about 2%."

 

 

 

Trying to control AIDs in Africa diverts resources that could be far better used. Call me an idealist, but I won't accept slow and painful death as a means to limit population.

[Laura]

Although personally, I don't want a cure to be invented.

 

 

 

Please explain so this doesn't seem so disgusting. Are you joking?

Why am I joking? While I'm sure all of us here would love to save millions of people with a cure, it has effects other than so. Most of the virus is in third world countries, who have enough trouble feeding, housing, and supporting its own people. "Saving" 20 million people will only worsen this, causing even more suffering, loss of jobs, housing space, and competition for resources and food. And even then, they would continue to have unprotected sex, as there is a less of a consequence, increasing population. Why would you want them to suffer even more?

 

 

 

It's called a carrying capacity, and many countries are con their way to reaching it.

 

 

 

Deaths from AIDs in Africa has very little effect on population control. There was around 2 million deaths from AIDs in Africa in 2005, which is piss in the ocean, frankly.

 

 

 

 

 

"Many people believe that the AIDS pandemic will end the population explosion, especially in Africa, where population growth is very high and poverty reigns. Africans make up 10 million of all 15 million HIV- infected persons worldwide. Yet, the proposition that AIDS will sole population explosion does not stand up to reason. About 200 million people in Africa will be HIV infected by 2010, but the loss of 200 million people would not slow population growth. The 14th century's Black Death killed more than 50% of the European population, but by 1750 Europe had reached the population size it would have reached without the Black Death. The 200 million people who died violent deaths between the start and end of the two World Wars did not stop world population growth from peaking in 1970 at about 2%."

 

 

 

Trying to control AIDs in Africa diverts resources that could be far better used. Call me an idealist, but I won't accept slow and painful death as a means to limit population.

 

How do we control AIDS in Africa, I might ask? And those 15 million people would still be there if not for AIDS, for a few years anyways. That's 15 million people that need food, water, and shelter, resources that many places cannot handle. If so, how can they expect to support another 15 million?

 

 

 

The 200 million people who died violent deaths between the start and end of the two World Wars did not stop world population growth from peaking in 1970 at about 2%."

 

World being the key word. Not all countries were involved in the World Wars.

[purfishx]

Ohemgee, I love you Latios!! :twss:

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

Didn't think AIDS had a purpose before reading this thread. Those millions of people that die from AIDS each year kinda deserve it (excluding those who are born with the disease and the ones in Africa, I mean c'mon, there's nothing to do, you're not going hanging out with your friends, pissed off at not having anything to eat etc. so what else are you going to do for the whole day? :P ).

 

 

 

I hear those "stay safe, love life" at least once per day so just use a [bleep]ing condom!! And if they are no condoms, use your fingers!!

[Rebdragon]

For the last two posts on the last page, how do you two propose this be done? How do we somehow change the lifestyles that are drilled into us and make everyone better people for the common good, people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to save those halfway across the world?

 

 

 

Capitalism is unjustifiable. Socialism has flaws yes, but it is better than what we have now.

 

Fine, have fun up on your moral high horse. The practical bastards don't mind being on the ground.

 

 

 

Unless, of course, you can prove socialism produces more.

 

Not every country has the same resources as Japan. A GOOD WORKFORCE isn't something every country has. Sure you can say "they have the potential to" but it still means nothing.

 

Japan has good resources? What resources would these be?

 

Ever taken basic microecon? Humans ARE resources. And them Japanese humans are some good ones.

[Cyco_Reborn]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

 

 

 

Anyway, the human population probably would increase rapidly, either that or the abortion rate.

[megakiller32]

The government would keep it quiet, because the government invented AIDS.

 

 

 

THE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE, ITS A TRUE CONSPIRACY!

[The Observer]

I think that making a cure for AIDS would have much less of an impact than if a cure for cancer was found. You see, AIDS doesn't have special doctors assigned to each treatment as there is only one kind (using a whole bunch of drugs) and these can be prescribed through a regular doctor. To be honest, the doctors would make more money by curing, but the pharmacies would make much less.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ever taken basic microecon? Humans ARE resources. And them Japanese humans are some good ones.

 

Humans that barely have any room to live in, can't produce enough food for themselves, can't dig up enough ferrous metal from the ground to supply their industry, and can't even cut enough timber to supply their economy?

 

 

 

Yeah. Japan's secondary industry's fantastic. It has [bleep] all natural resources, though, and depends heavily on other countries for its survival.

[Yomyth105]

more sex i guess :mrgreen: all those scared ppl thinking theyll get aids will come out of the dark and have sex :mrgreen:

[Rebdragon]

Ever taken basic microecon? Humans ARE resources. And them Japanese humans are some good ones.

 

Humans that barely have any room to live in, can't produce enough food for themselves, can't dig up enough ferrous metal from the ground to supply their industry, and can't even cut enough timber to supply their economy?

 

 

 

Yeah. Japan's secondary industry's fantastic. It has [bleep] all natural resources, though, and depends heavily on other countries for its survival.

 

I forget, where were we going with proving that Japan doesn't have great natural resources?

[user1991]

For the last two posts on the last page, how do you two propose this be done? How do we somehow change the lifestyles that are drilled into us and make everyone better people for the common good, people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to save those halfway across the world?

 

 

 

Capitalism is unjustifiable. Socialism has flaws yes, but it is better than what we have now.

 

Fine, have fun up on your moral high horse. The practical bastards don't mind being on the ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capitalism isn't practical either. It creates a [cabbage]load of problems that people in the future will have to deal with. Capitalism has helped with technological advances, but we are past the stage where we need capitalism to give us those. .(and we didn't NEED them in the first place.) We would have probably advanced at the same level without such a "free market" but what I'm saying is that you could look at it that way and you wouldn't be totally wrong.

 

 

 

For the last two posts on the last page, how do you two propose this be done? How do we somehow change the lifestyles that are drilled into us and make everyone better people for the common good, people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to save those halfway across the world?

 

 

 

It's just a change in the zeitgeist. Personally, I just bring it up whenever I can, try to give as much to charity as I possibly can without me having to live on the streets (and even that you could possibly be considerred selfish).

 

 

 

It's not that I'm on a "moral high horse".. It's just that these problems have a relatively easy solution and it annoys me when people say stuff like "how do we change the way we have been taught to live" - well ffs it's only a CHOICE. If you're conscious of it it isn't hard at all.

[rangeor]

Ever considered that there isn't a cure for aids because doctors don't want there to be a cure for aids?

[Rebdragon]

You still havn't proved how socialism produces as much as capitalism.

 

 

 

Oh, and considering how long it's lasted and how much it has advanced nations, I'd say it's pretty practical mate.

 

It's just a change in the zeitgeist. Personally, I just bring it up whenever I can, try to give as much to charity as I possibly can without me having to live on the streets (and even that you could possibly be considerred selfish).

 

 

 

It's not that I'm on a "moral high horse".. It's just that these problems have a relatively easy solution and it annoys me when people say stuff like "how do we change the way we have been taught to live" - well ffs it's only a CHOICE. If you're conscious of it it isn't hard at all.

 

Capitalism isn't so dumb that it doesn't realize that people are greedy beings. Socialism, and to a further extent, Communism, don't seem to get that.

[Zierro]

Capitalism isn't so dumb that it doesn't realize that people are greedy beings. Socialism, and to a further extent, Communism, don't seem to get that.

 

 

 

That's such a circular argument though.

[Rebdragon]

How is the invisible hand a circular argument?

[Zierro]

How is the fact that people are greedy a justification for having things such as monopolies? Greed doesn't justify more greed. That's how it's circular.

[Quoi_Tu]

How is the fact that people are greedy a justification for having things such as monopolies? Greed doesn't justify more greed. That's how it's circular.

 

 

 

Socialism = Monopoly

[Zierro]

How is the fact that people are greedy a justification for having things such as monopolies? Greed doesn't justify more greed. That's how it's circular.

 

 

 

Socialism = Monopoly

 

 

 

Invisible hand = Monopoly

[Rebdragon]

This is why we have a certain degree of government regulation, to make sure those things don't happen. A perfectly free market is plausible but for a big economy it has it's problems. That's not to say that it still isn't capitalism, unless you want to argue that the US isn't a capitalist state.

 

 

 

I need to get off the internet. This place is far too [bleep]ing left.