Possible Cure for HIV Discovered

[Wizz]

Yay! \

 

 

 

pureprayer wrote:

 

 

 

l0l0lpur34 wrote: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

 

 

 

True without Death we would all suffer, the reason we are still "thriving" is because we are in a, let's call it "Balance" of Life and Death. So Death in reality is the reason we live.

[l0l0lpur34]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

[Riku3220]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

[Zierro]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

 

 

Well since you're too thick-headed to go back and read my post (is it fear?), I'll just bring it to you.

 

 

 

Why do you think it is more morally righteous to keep our population high right now, just so we can run out of natural resources at a faster rate, thus ending the human race sooner? In a nutshell, it's all about moderation. If our population stays low at the moment, then the human race will be able to survive on this planet for longer - we'll have the opportunity to advance more. Oh and this has nothing to do with race or religion - so don't bring up the holocaust. It has to do with statistics.

 

 

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated

 

 

 

It depends... Was it right after WWII or right after WWI when the baby-boom occurred?

[tryto]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

 

 

Read my post. World war 2 killed less than 50 million, nothing on a geological scale.

 

Deaths from starvation and malnutrition yearly has been estimated at around 5m, figuring conservatively. World war 2 lasted 6 years, so over that period, around 30m would have died from malnutrition(using today's figures) That is more than all of the USSR's military and civilian causalities, which made up over half of the total causalities. The Earth's carrying capacity is massive. There is lots of space, lots of food, lots of energy, lots of water.

 

 

 

Over half of the food produced yearly worldwide is wasted. The 1st world uses the vast percentage of food, while having much less people. The 1st world uses more food than is healthy, while the 3rd world uses less than is healthy. There is a fundamental imbalance.

 

 

 

I'll quote myself last post.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Let's take space. Canada has 30 million people, in the second largest country in the world. The US is a bit smaller and has 300 million, and Russia is larger and has a bit less than the US, I believe. Canada could fit 50 million people easily, if you don't account for infrastructure.

 

 

 

The only positive outcome from world war 2 in this discussion is nuclear power, which would have been produced anyways.

[EdgedThesis]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

 

 

Stop looking into the direct consequences of things. With resource management (sometimes that means cutting back on things that consume them), we can increase the longevity of the entire race.

 

 

 

You're talking about keeping individuals alive in the name of some morally backed crusade against cold-hearted people who talk in terms of objective science.

 

 

 

Countless future generations for the sake of individuals? No. Some of us would rather that some people, even though the ethical pain is great, sacrifice themselves for the race as a whole.

 

 

 

Absolutely disgusting in the short-run. But with a long view you'll see that 'population control' might just preserve us all. All the culture, science, and philosophy we developed will persist in a Universe that is rapidly being seen as dark and lifeless.

 

 

 

Will you crusade against 'The Scientists' because we seem to have no regard for human life?

 

 

 

Then we will struggle against you--You who have no regard for the human species.

[PoorLepRecon]

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated

 

 

 

It depends... Was it right after WWII or right after WWI when the baby-boom occurred?

 

 

 

It was after WWII that the baby-boom occurred.

[fastortoise]

The argument that AIDS is a population control device has an underlining layer of racism, since the majority of the disease affects Africans. Say what you want, but if AIDS affected 15-20% of Americans you would'nt even DREAM of debating such a touchy topic.

 

 

 

Also, seeing as most Tip.Iters owe their lives to the researchers who provided us with defences against an extremely broad range of diseases, that argument is incredibly hypocritical. I know a lot of you love being the devil's advocate, but reading your posts make me sick.

[deathdrow]

The argument that AIDS is a population control device has an underlining layer of racism, since the majority of the disease affects Africans. Say what you want, but if AIDS affected 15-20% of Americans you would'nt even DREAM of debating such a touchy topic.

 

That isn't racism, it's just the fact that most people aren't personally affected by it. If there's underlying anything in the topic, it's ignorance. most people don't realize how many people it affects. And if they do and they're still opposed it's because they don't care.

[Riku3220]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

 

 

Read my post. World war 2 killed less than 50 million, nothing on a geological scale.

 

Deaths from starvation and malnutrition yearly has been estimated at around 5m, figuring conservatively. World war 2 lasted 6 years, so over that period, around 30m would have died from malnutrition(using today's figures) That is more than all of the USSR's military and civilian causalities, which made up over half of the total causalities. The Earth's carrying capacity is massive. There is lots of space, lots of food, lots of energy, lots of water.

 

 

 

Over half of the food produced yearly worldwide is wasted. The 1st world uses the vast percentage of food, while having much less people. The 1st world uses more food than is healthy, while the 3rd world uses less than is healthy. There is a fundamental imbalance.

 

 

 

I'll quote myself last post.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Let's take space. Canada has 30 million people, in the second largest country in the world. The US is a bit smaller and has 300 million, and Russia is larger and has a bit less than the US, I believe. Canada could fit 50 million people easily, if you don't account for infrastructure.

 

 

 

The only positive outcome from world war 2 in this discussion is nuclear power, which would have been produced anyways.

 

I think you've got the two wars mixed up. It was WW1 that had less than 50 million, WW2 had about 70 million. :?

 

 

 

And most of the land in Canada and Russia is tundra. Non-arable, extremely cold, close to no resources, and when the permafrost melts in the summer time houses are going to sink. Also what happens when we run out of coal and oil to keep these people warm? I don't think cereal will help us very much if we had to resort to fire for warmth...

 

 

 

@fastortoise: It's not that we don't care, it's that we're looking towards the future. LEss people means less rescources being used which means we can survive longer.

[Quoi_Tu]

The argument that AIDS is a population control device has an underlining layer of racism, since the majority of the disease affects Africans. Say what you want, but if AIDS affected 15-20% of Americans you would'nt even DREAM of debating such a touchy topic.

 

 

 

Also, seeing as most Tip.Iters owe their lives to the researchers who provided us with defences against an extremely broad range of diseases, that argument is incredibly hypocritical. I know a lot of you love being the devil's advocate, but reading your posts make me sick.

 

Think altruistically? You ask too much.

 

 

 

The sad part is that I am serious.

[EdgedThesis]

The argument that AIDS is a population control device has an underlining layer of racism, since the majority of the disease affects Africans. Say what you want, but if AIDS affected 15-20% of Americans you would'nt even DREAM of debating such a touchy topic.

 

 

 

Also, seeing as most Tip.Iters owe their lives to the researchers who provided us with defences against an extremely broad range of diseases, that argument is incredibly hypocritical. I know a lot of you love being the devil's advocate, but reading your posts make me sick.

 

 

 

I was talking about disease in general-- but sorry for any grief caused anyway.

 

 

 

According to Tryto, though, the reason we might run face first into the Earth's carrying capacity is because of improper resource allocation. Which is kind of sad.

 

 

 

This removes the need for any kind of plague or disaster-- It looks like the Earth is just fine for now. As long as we can figure out a way to distribute things well enough. Otherwise, maybe it won't be so good.

[DUELMASTER30]

 

Will you crusade against 'The Scientists' because we seem to have no regard for human life?

 

 

 

Then we will struggle against you--You who have no regard for the human species.

 

 

 

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to siggy this because it is one of the best arguments I've seen so far in this thread.

[l0l0lpur34]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

[i_love_burritos]

Desensetizaion is the main problem here. Westerners have become so flooded with such shocking images, babies with swollen bellies and flies their eyes, emanciated toddlers crawling on the ground. This has all become a passe. Not just famine nor pestilience but pure human suffering.

 

 

 

The thing is, human suffering has become nothing more than a 3 minute segment somewhere between sport and sport. Or a ill-placed Time column with meaningless statistics alongside Sarkozy or Koehlor signing a EU accord.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Images like this, (this one won the Pulitzer in 93' and then shortly after the photographer commited suicide after depression)

 

 

 

Sometimes I wonder will God forgive for the sins we've commited against out brother and sisters. To take the nihilistic approach, I say God is dead. There is no God, no God who is omnipotent, omnipresent and benevolent will allow this suffering on this Earth. What's the point of anything anymore ?

 

 

 

truly, is there anyone who can stand up and say, AIDS, is a good thing. Culling millions in the name of the natural human order is sick.

 

 

 

Again to the issue of resource allocation, would you purge an entire city, and entire generation, to justify meaningless death. By doing this you deny, any chance these people have of lifting themselves out of their poverty.

 

 

 

Ignorance and education, or lackof is the problem

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

[/hide]

 

 

 

He isnt saying its good that humans are dying. The point is without any death we would have outstripped our planets resources and would all be dead. That doesnt mean we shouldnt work for a cure for aids and what not, it just means that in a twisted way we do need such things until we advance our technology to help the earth maintain a much larger volume of people.

[l0l0lpur34]

[hide=]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

[/hide]

 

 

 

He isnt saying its good that humans are dying. The point is without any death we would have outstripped our planets resources and would all be dead. That doesnt mean we shouldnt work for a cure for aids and what not, it just means that in a twisted way we do need such things until we advance our technology to help the earth maintain a much larger volume of people.

 

we don't need mcdonalds and other status symbols of the overconsumption by 1st world countries but you seem to be happy with them. (I assume you were saying "do not need" by the rest of the sentance)

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

[hide=]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

[/hide]

 

 

 

He isnt saying its good that humans are dying. The point is without any death we would have outstripped our planets resources and would all be dead. That doesnt mean we shouldnt work for a cure for aids and what not, it just means that in a twisted way we do need such things until we advance our technology to help the earth maintain a much larger volume of people.

 

we don't need mcdonalds and other status symbols of the overconsumption by 1st world countries but you seem to be happy with them. (I assume you were saying "do not need" by the rest of the sentance)

[/hide]

 

 

 

No, we dont need mcdonalds, but no matter how efficient you make our food consumption there is still a limit on how many people the earth could sustain. If we remove death then wed all end up being starved to the closest thing to death we could reach due to overpopulation.

[____]

Everything would have been sweet if nature didn't get its arse handed to it by humans who started using medicinal practices to live longer than they should have, disease and viruses exist as a means of balance (for all species). HIV is the most bastard one of them all, but it's purpose is to kill the victim... if you want the solution to the erradication of HIV/AIDS then isolate them from the rest of the population who are clean and when they all die the HIV virus should, in theory, no longer be present within the human specicies.

 

 

 

Yes it is cold but the only method that would actually have a decent chance at working, bugger the drugs thing and let the virus wipe itself out by wiping out those it has currently infected. Nature just taking its course really.

[Alg]

Overpopulation issues aside, finding a cure for (Or at least something to help ease) HIV/AIDS would be good in that it would at least keep those infected from suffering/having an unpleasant life.

 

However, comparing this to eugenics is a bit inacurate... Eugenics is a belief that a certain combination if genes is perfect or superior, while HIV/AIDS can affect anyone, regardless of this (Except the few that are immune).

[Laura]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

[l0l0lpur34]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

[Riku3220]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

 

The human species is more important than the human life.

[Laura]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

Do you understand what overpopulation does to a species? Why should I value human life as anything more than carbon and water? I'm glad you have high morals for human life, but we can't save everyone, and if we did, we would lose everyone.

[l0l0lpur34]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

 

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

Ah, so in your opinion AIDS is only good if it isn't killing your pure aryan race?