Possible Cure for HIV Discovered

[Quoi_Tu]

By the way, I don't think it's right to allow diseases like this to spread because it's a 'population control'. It's the duty of society to allow ourselves to live longer and better. Population, for now, is not an issue. By the time it will be, we would have probably colonised the moon or something.

 

Plus, it's an extremely inefficient and costly population control. Why anyone would think it's a good means of keeping population down is beyond me.

[Laura]

To all of the people saying AIDS is a population control: You would talk differently if it were to happen to you, your loved ones or anybody else in your "inner circle". You talk disgustingly. AIDS will wipe out an ENTIRE generation in Africa, and you say:"meh, population control is necessary" ? Education is the key here! AIDS is a miserable disease.

And we can see how that's working out. Disgustingly? Surely not. While I applaud your support for common human morals, it simply cannot be so. Africa you say. While the world falls in turmoil with capitalism, and the poor have little food to themselves, can you honestly say that we can simply add a few more million? The effects of said cure would have devastating effects on the economy, food, and of course, population.

 

 

 

Have you ever heard the phrase, "People will always want diamonds. People will always want gold. But people will always need land." Figures, the one thing we can't make.

 

 

 

Anyways, your argument regarding loved ones or yourself with the disease is blatant bias in our human nature. Of course I'm going to care more about my Aunt Sue or Uncle Joe over Mrs. Shrew on Dr. Phil. The point is, we cannot continue to rise at the exponential growth that we are, it's got to end sometime. Attempting to make us invincible doesn't slow that down any, obviously.

[mmmcannibalism]

OT: Couldn't this kill the person too?

 

 

 

yes, but this is the very early trial. With time this would only have a signifgant effect on the hiv, even so, if you had aids wouldnt you risk an increase in your rate of cancer to cure it? Not an expert but how manageble is it to maintain an otherwise normal life with hiv in a 1st world country?

[Zierro]

I guess it comes down to whether you agree that the term "overpopulation" should exist or not. Call me heartless and narcissistic, but I think the less people the better. We're going to reach a point where resources, land, and maybe even animals are going to become very scarce compared to our sweeping population. I'd also like to add that litter adds up. The lower we keep our population now, the longer the potential for increasing our specie's existence throughout the years will become.

 

 

 

If you want to make the "morally right choice", why do you favor high population for the moment as opposed to continuing humanity for a longer period of time?

[Riku3220]

I guess it comes down to whether you agree that the term "overpopulation" should exist or not. Call me heartless and narcissistic, but I think the less people the better. We're going to reach a point where resources, land, and maybe even animals are going to become very scarce compared to our sweeping population. I'd also like to add that litter adds up. The lower we keep our population now, the longer the potential for increasing our specie's existence throughout the years will become.

 

 

 

If you want to make the "morally right choice", why do you favor high population for the moment as opposed to continuing humanity for a longer period of time?

 

Two words: Moon Colony.

 

 

 

I say we send Australia first, to see if it's safe.

 

The Aussies are great!

 

 

 

Can't say the same about them Brits though... :P

[Distracted]

I guess it comes down to whether you agree that the term "overpopulation" should exist or not. Call me heartless and narcissistic, but I think the less people the better. We're going to reach a point where resources, land, and maybe even animals are going to become very scarce compared to our sweeping population. I'd also like to add that litter adds up. The lower we keep our population now, the longer the potential for increasing our specie's existence throughout the years will become.

 

 

 

If you want to make the "morally right choice", why do you favor high population for the moment as opposed to continuing humanity for a longer period of time?

 

Two words: Moon Colony.

 

 

 

I say we send Australia first, to see if it's safe.

 

 

 

Pff, why would you want to longen the human struggle? I mean, what the hell is the point if we stay here... Nothing. (wow, that sounded... emo/nihilistic)

 

 

 

Lol, moon colony? I'd send out Britain too.

[purfishx]

I guess it comes down to whether you agree that the term "overpopulation" should exist or not. Call me heartless and narcissistic, but I think the less people the better. We're going to reach a point where resources, land, and maybe even animals are going to become very scarce compared to our sweeping population. I'd also like to add that litter adds up. The lower we keep our population now, the longer the potential for increasing our specie's existence throughout the years will become.

 

 

 

If you want to make the "morally right choice", why do you favor high population for the moment as opposed to continuing humanity for a longer period of time?

 

Two words: Moon Colony.

 

 

 

I say we send Australia first, to see if it's safe.

 

The Aussies are great!

 

 

 

Can't say the same about them Brits though... :P

 

How about Thailand?

 

 

 

I was more Africa... I'm thinking they're desperate atm.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

I don't know how to feel on this. Sure it's great but I always used to think to myself that AIDS/HIV and pregnancy were the greatest "I Told You So" momentrealisation thingies.

[scootlaboot]

 

I don't know how to feel on this. Sure it's great but I always used to think to myself that AIDS/HIV and pregnancy were the greatest "I Told You So" momentrealisation thingies.

 

Is it lonely up there....on your pedestal.

 

 

 

Even though a cure for Aids would be awesome. This version just screams zombie outbreak for some reason. And not the cudly necromanced ones either.

[transcript80]

To all of the people saying AIDS is a population control: You would talk differently if it were to happen to you, your loved ones or anybody else in your "inner circle". You talk disgustingly. AIDS will wipe out an ENTIRE generation in Africa, and you say:"meh, population control is necessary" ? Education is the key here! AIDS is a miserable disease.

And we can see how that's working out. Disgustingly? Surely not. While I applaud your support for common human morals, it simply cannot be so. Africa you say. While the world falls in turmoil with capitalism, and the poor have little food to themselves, can you honestly say that we can simply add a few more million? The effects of said cure would have devastating effects on the economy, food, and of course, population.

 

 

 

Have you ever heard the phrase, "People will always want diamonds. People will always want gold. But people will always need land." Figures, the one thing we can't make.

 

 

 

Anyways, your argument regarding loved ones or yourself with the disease is blatant bias in our human nature. Of course I'm going to care more about my Aunt Sue or Uncle Joe over Mrs. Shrew on Dr. Phil. The point is, we cannot continue to rise at the exponential growth that we are, it's got to end sometime. Attempting to make us invincible doesn't slow that down any, obviously.

 

 

 

So.... for you, a disease is a means of population control? I see you point. In a sense it is. Disease tends to arise in densely populated area's, usually when hygene fails (cholera, TB).

 

 

 

But is that a reason not to combat it? In the medieval time we had the plague, smallpox, later diseases like polio that crippled people, and recently, vaccinations against meningitis. In your view, population control mechanism. I'm pretty sure that you had your vaccinations when you were a baby. Your life would be pretty miserable (provided you lived out the disease) when you didn't have had them.

 

 

 

While I agree that overpopulation is a problem in some areas, this is not a reason to let HIV ravage entire societies. From economical reasons, the people who live, stay poor because of a generation missing. 15 year olds without education cannot build up a country, they need older generations to educate them at least. Education about HIV and sexual morals is ALWAYS better then doing...well...nothing in your case.

 

 

 

And: seeing your loves ones suffer is the PRIME reason for wanting to combat disease. You'll see when you're in the middle of it (I hope not, of course). Combatting disease is not striving for immortality, but to end suffering. I know we have to die SOME DAY.

[Ren0gade]

just read another interesting article which talks about certain gene's and such in people making them immune to the virus but the therapy has a high fatality rate... pretty interesting, check it out http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html

[PoorLepRecon]

The idea that HIV can be a population control is reasonable, but it is only delaying the inevitable. Eventually, even with the diseases we have nowadays, the world population is still increasing. The answer to our lack of land lies in space, by building stations in orbit, on the moon, and on other planets. The more people that are allowed to die by HIV nowadays is just one more person who will not be able to help us create a solution to this problem before it becomes worse.

 

 

 

Also, we have no idea how the virus will mutate in the future, perhaps 100-200 years in the future. We should take any opportunity we have now to get rid of the disease, instead of allowing it to thrive and perhaps mutate itself (out of chance) so that our current methods are useless.

[Laura]

So.... for you, a disease is a means of population control? I see you point. In a sense it is. Disease tends to arise in densely populated area's, usually when hygene fails (cholera, TB).

Yes, it is. In fact, it should be considered the most important population control. Education isn't going to fix a population, because people, when having sex or children, don't care about the society as a whole. Well, that would be ridiculous.

 

But is that a reason not to combat it? In the medieval time we had the plague, smallpox, later diseases like polio that crippled people, and recently, vaccinations against meningitis. In your view, population control mechanism. I'm pretty sure that you had your vaccinations when you were a baby. Your life would be pretty miserable (provided you lived out the disease) when you didn't have had them.

No, my life probably wouldn't suck without them. Most common diseases I have been exposed to aren't preventable. Statistically speaking, my chances of coming along hepatitis(really the only vaccine I can think of that I've had, besides Gardasil) are slim. And that's not generally something that sweeps societies. Anyways, the black plague, should be considered (without morals) a great form of population control now. What was it, a third of Europe was wiped out? While I'm sure that wasn't looked upon then as it is now, but imagine if all of those people that died suddenly had two or more children. The population, using a web effect, would be much greater today as a result. You said that my example would be the absence of combating it, I don't think that's entirely true. We are and will forever attempt to combat whatever we fear, in this case, disease. But rather, as a good for society, we would choose not to combat it.

 

While I agree that overpopulation is a problem in some areas, this is not a reason to let HIV ravage entire societies. From economical reasons, the people who live, stay poor because of a generation missing. 15 year olds without education cannot build up a country, they need older generations to educate them at least. Education about HIV and sexual morals is ALWAYS better then doing...well...nothing in your case.

It's a problem everywhere. And, HIV hasn't ravaged many societies yet. Education is the problem. Even with education, people continue to produce offspring, with or without HIV. This leads to dramatic population increases, especially in places such as Africa and Asia where the doubling rates are exceptionally low. China, as an example, only has about 10% of usable area for farmland. So where does their population come from? Why is it still sustainable? Capitalism. Capitalist forms of government in other countries where populations continue to grow, yet they still have enough for exports. That cannot always continue. Eventually, those supplying countries won't have enough excess to sustain any other country but their own.

And: seeing your loves ones suffer is the PRIME reason for wanting to combat disease. You'll see when you're in the middle of it (I hope not, of course). Combatting disease is not striving for immortality, but to end suffering. I know we have to die SOME DAY.

You assume I haven't? Of course, like many, I have lost loved ones to various sorts of diseases and cancers, that doesn't change my stance on the issue.

[Orpheus]

To all of the people saying AIDS is a population control: You would talk differently if it were to happen to you, your loved ones or anybody else in your "inner circle". You talk disgustingly. AIDS will wipe out an ENTIRE generation in Africa, and you say:"meh, population control is necessary" ? Education is the key here! AIDS is a miserable disease.

And we can see how that's working out. Disgustingly? Surely not. While I applaud your support for common human morals, it simply cannot be so. Africa you say. While the world falls in turmoil with capitalism, and the poor have little food to themselves, can you honestly say that we can simply add a few more million? The effects of said cure would have devastating effects on the economy, food, and of course, population.

 

 

 

Have you ever heard the phrase, "People will always want diamonds. People will always want gold. But people will always need land." Figures, the one thing we can't make.

 

 

 

Anyways, your argument regarding loved ones or yourself with the disease is blatant bias in our human nature. Of course I'm going to care more about my Aunt Sue or Uncle Joe over Mrs. Shrew on Dr. Phil. The point is, we cannot continue to rise at the exponential growth that we are, it's got to end sometime. Attempting to make us invincible doesn't slow that down any, obviously.

 

 

 

Technically, we won't grow exponentially forever. It'll work as a logarithmic function of sorts, and it'll peak off at one point.

[mmmcannibalism]

Technically, we won't grow exponentially forever. It'll work as a logarithmic function of sorts, and it'll peak off at one point.

 

 

 

Im thinking of a piece wise function, exponential up to a point then working like a logarithm.

[l0l0lpur34]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep]ing eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep]s, I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

[pureprayer]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

[l0l0lpur34]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

 

I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

[pureprayer]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

 

I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

 

Posts need to be read. The holocaust was murdering and killing of religion.

 

 

 

Im not going to get into this argument people flame me for stuff like creating off topic arugments/

[Orpheus]

I really am skeptical of this though. Sure, we could eradicate the virus, but mutating is could make it the worst epidemic the world has seen since the black plague. It's a risk that will have to be taken, since the population is already reaching a peak point, I don't think the earth could handle too many more people.

[deathdrow]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

 

I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

 

the holocaust was a war about religion, and they slaughtered millions of people, how could that be a good thing? But disease is good in the sense that it stops the world from being more overpopulated than it already is, and without diseases, we'd live much longer, produce more offspring, and end up killing ourselves out of starvation, because we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves. There would also be huge amounts of pollution, and that could affect the water, and make it undrinkable, thus killing lots and lots more people. So in the long run disease is a good thing. your just looking at it through a very narrow point of view.

[Orpheus]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

 

I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

 

the holocaust was a war about religion, and they slaughtered millions of people, how could that be a good thing? But disease is good in the sense that it stops the world from being more overpopulated than it already is, and without diseases, we'd live much longer, produce more offspring, and end up killing ourselves out of starvation, because we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves. There would also be huge amounts of pollution, and that could affect the water, and make it undrinkable, thus killing lots and lots more people. So in the long run disease is a good thing. your just looking at it through a very narrow point of view.

 

 

 

Exactly. Remember what Barihawk said back in the homosexuality thread, you need to toss aside your opinion and look at the full picture, even outside the box on situations.

[Alg]

It's progress, at least.

 

I'd post something involving biology like many others have, but I'm probably not as informed as they are... :lol:

 

A stab at it:

 

Though I did draw a (small) connection between the virus in Michael Crichton's Andromeda Strain and this. A quote along the lines of "a parasite that kills its host is not a very effective parasite" (paraphrased), though unlike that novel's virus, HIV/AIDS does give the host a chance to spread it.

 

A species' main goal is to ensure its survival, isn't it? Evolutions and mutations are there to assist that, the ones that work are the ones that are spread. HIV/AIDS does this, so do humans, which is why the virus mutates to counter any potential threats, and why there are some people who can resist it.

 

(Ironically, see Sickle Cell- The gene causing it gave resistance to Malaria, so it spread in the Mediterranean/Africa. Unfortunately, a pairing of both of those genes [Recessive, I believe the term is?] caused it.).

[Zierro]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

 

I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

 

 

 

The holocaust involved the intentional murder of people based on ascribed statuses. If someone gets AID's by rape or other involuntary means, then I do think they deserve the vaccination. Other than that, it's all on them for sleeping around or shooting up. I don't think society should have to suffer because other people are making bad decisions. Oh and read my last post before you try to claim that your ideas are the most morally righteous.

[killerbeer0]

Anyone theorizing a deadly mutated super-AIDS is an idiot.

 

 

 

The point of this is that it would mutate so fast it couldn't reproduce.

 

 

 

Besides the super disease that could kill everyone already exists. Lets hear it for our good friend Ebola!

[tryto]

Anyone theorizing a deadly mutated super-AIDS is an idiot.

 

 

 

The point of this is that it would mutate so fast it couldn't reproduce.

 

 

 

Besides the super disease that could kill everyone already exists. Lets hear it for our good friend Ebola!

 

 

 

Pfft, the reason Ebola is less deadly is because it mutates way too fast, thus ending epidemics extremely fast, and it kills it's victims with lightning speed, reducing the chances of infecting others. Also, most of the strains aren't airborne.

 

 

 

For population control people; There is a clear connection between birth rate and standard of living. They are inversely proportional. As standard of life, life expectancy rate, and other factors increase, birth rate drops like a stone. This is because when you expect your child to grow to adulthood, you don't feel the need to have ten, just so you can have two that survive.

 

 

 

Look at any 1st world country. Our birth rate is often lower than the death rate. More and more people choose to only have 2, 1, or zero children. Meanwhile, the reverse is true in countries with zero infrastructure, infested with malaria and other diseases, and with crappy standards of living.

 

Look at the consumption per person in 1st world countries where virulent diseases are rare. It's very very high, and we support relatively few people. Meanwhile, the consumption per person in Africa is nearly nothing.

 

 

 

The earth currently produces 2,264 million metric tons of cereals, which is the staple food of the world. If each person consumes 2,000 calories per day, 2,264 million metric tons of cereal will support a little bit over 10 billion people. This is JUST cereals.

 

 

 

If we consider energy; nuclear fission should be able to support our needs for quite some time in the future. There is much more uranium in the earth than we can use in the foreseeable future. If we ever get nuclear fusion figured out, we have nearly infinite energy from the seas.

 

 

 

If you want to consider that, with the gain of many billions from the lack of need to treat the symptoms of aids(if we cure it), then that money could theoretically be pumped into nuclear fusion research.

 

I foresee arable land being less of a problem in the future; hydroponics are already a valid solution, and getting into that more can only help.

 

 

 

Dr. Malthus was wrong in 1798. We've only improved our abilities to produce food, energy, water, and other resources since then. We have not had a Malthusian Catastrophe, as he predicted.