this is a really horrible idea about AIDS but i thought of it once?

Question

i actually thought AIDS might have benefits! I took a class that had a lot of readings about aids, and over and over i read that the distribution of aids is related to poverty and poor malnourished people and ones who have to have sex for money are the majority who get it. apparently a lot of this is avoidable just if people have the means to live healthily. so my thought was, is aids a way of natural selection? its obviously very related to reproduction and it seems the perfect way to thin down societies that are too poor to support life and you can imagine that less population=more food and money for the survivors. before you yell at me: also aids is sort of forcing people to note the extreme poverty in those regions and take action. soooo much money goes into aids research, if we just put it into the economies of really hard hit countries wouldnt it do more good?

im saying its natural selection because they are poorer regions and cant sustain life. i'm not coming down on them "for living careless lifestyles", if i had no other option i would probably have sex for money.

*sigh* no one understands me

natural selection= certain members of a community are at higher risk of death because of characteristics that make them more prone to it. any diesease is natural selection really

the world is unfair thats how life has evolved to the way it is. face it. honestly..

haha someone thinks im a nazi. this is completely going the wrong way. :/

ok guy who mocked me with quotation marks and implied i wasnt a person: if my ideas are "like hitlers" then youre saying that evolution is a nazi. mother nature is a nazi? you know i find that rather humerous. its just that hitler did it with force and prejudice, but evolution does it naturally and without bias.

Answer 1

I am sorry you got so much abuse for this question. I believe you when you say you’re not racist, and you sound like a considered person. So I’ll try to be constructive as I explain why what you suggest was so appalling.

First you say that AIDS, acting like evolution, will eradicate those peoples in poverty and with too dense a population. You’ve admitted that AIDS is exasperated by bad governance and poor wealth. So effectively you are saying that the poor should be killed off.

Now consider what made them poor. I would assert that on a global level it is unfair trade and the exploitation of the developing nations that is largely to blame. The kind of project where the IMF lends a nation some money as long as it privatises all its national services and then a British company comes in, buys the services and double the rates etc. So what you’re saying is that evolution should favour the ones who exploit and punish the exploited.

There is also the problem of terrible corruption in the governments of AIDS stricken nations. There is an argument that the governments should be killed off, but the people under those governments are otherwise physically, mentally, spiritually and morally equal to those under democracies. So why should they die off?

Poverty is a deeply complicated political and social problem. There are many many answers to that problem. AIDS is not one of them.

I hope this convinced you, and please let me know if it hasn’t. And don’t be put off asking questions like this. If you genuinely consider these ideas, feel they are horrible but don’t know why, you should be able to ask for a valid argument without abuse.

Answer 2

Tell that one to the families all the hemophiliacs like Ryan White who died because of a bloody supply that wasn't properly monitored.

*sigh* I think we all understand that you have never watched a family member or friend die of AIDS. Ever know a 29 year old man who weighed 66 lbs four months before he died?


edit:
No, I understood what you meant. It's just a scooge too callous, though. Also reminiscent of the religious fanatic Jerry Falwell saying that AIDS was a punishment for homosexuals.

I just don't think that natural selection has anything to do with poverty lines.

But I am in agreement that a lot more money should be put into preventing it, rather than treating the disease after someone is infected. After all, AIDS is a death sentence no matter what country you're in. The only real difference between someone who gets it in the U.S. and someone who gets it in Africa is how long one can survive with it, and how much they might spread it around after they get it.

So yes, it would be much better to prevent the spread. And a quarantine, as mentioned by another answerer, would never have worked with AIDS. Because of the simple reason that HIV has absolutely no symptoms. Look at Greg Louganis and Magic Johnson. Who would have ever guessed that they were both ticking time bombs?

The prevention would have to go to the behavior of people. Not having promiscuous sex, and going for regular screening for the virus would be a step in the right direction.

Answer 3

I do see what you're saying. Perhaps we should treat the source of the problem, instead of the problem itself? It's sort of like throwing a band-aid to someone who just had their arm chopped off, "Here you go!"
I don't think there is a cure for AIDS. I think what needs to happen is that people need to stop having promiscuous sex (like I'm one to talk, I was pretty bad back in my day...but always protected!). If they do this, then maybe there won't be AIDS anymore.
Perhaps it is a form of natural selection. It's just too bad that so many innocent people are suffering as a result.

Answer 4

Re putting money into the economy rather than into AIDS research/prevention/cure, it would be hard to sustain an economy when your citizens are dying.

By your thinking, any epidemic would be considered natural selection. Should we just stop vaccinating all people in poor countries against disease?

Answer 5

No, what your thinking of is called "EUGENICS" and it was outlawed in the 1950's after Hitler. Although Hitler got many of his original ideas from America's Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century. Where they would sterilize the poor, uneducated, and "mentally infirm." By your own "definition" these are the people who would NOW have AIDS.

The reason people catch AIDS is varied, but every story is different, even if they sound the same. I think that you are truly a sheltered, ignorant person. You mean well in your own way, but the damage you "people" do trying to help is like the AIDS virus itself, your "goodness" does more damage than the disease. You think Hitler didn't think he was MAKING GERMAN LIFE BETTER? Of course he did! But, he was still a sick ****. Ronald Reagan never mentioned AIDS for 6 years in office, etc.

Answer 6

In certain countries. AIDS is an immediate death sentence. I know of an instance when I worked overseas. A guy was diagnois'd w/ AIDS. Tested positive. The doctor told his family he would be fine and curded shortly he just needed a shot. They patiently waited he got his shot & died within 30 sec. His family was told he died of a heart attack. Good cover. In alot of these countries they say they don't have a problem with AIDS. It's easier to understand why now.

Answer 7

The problem is that it doesn't kill fast enough. In our society, we try to extend the lives of everyone, if we would quarantine the infected when they first appear, the disease would have died out long ago. It's the same with starving people, if you feed them they just make more mouths to feed. The true cure is to limit the amount of kids that people have (example: each person could have only one child, one for her and one for him ). If you look at the population growth of the world right now you would see that the rich nations are slowing the amount of children that are born, while the poorer nations (or people) are over populating.

Answer 8

i totally agree with that...i also think that natural selection is unbiased...if you live a certian lifestyle that is draining on the race as a whole then you should be eliminated...just because we are humans does not mean that we are above the law of the jungle...survival of the fittest...soon someone will develope a vaccine for AIDs then nature will just mutate another disease...it is population control...and even with all of the people dying and sick there is still an extreme amount of stress on our enviroment due to overpopulation...even minute 6 football fields of rain forests are destroyed to construct the homes down the street....if i were nature i would be p-i-s-s-e-d off too and kill them with a disease!

Answer 9

Natural selection is not decided by a human, and an epedermic is usually not natural selection. What if one of those "hooker born" children grew up to be well educated and married your son or daughter? It's daoubtful, but what if.

Yes diseases like AIDS is needed though. Especially when the world is trying to figure out how to live longer, but want to try and outlaw birth control.

Answer 10

I understand what you're saying, but that's one of those things you should expect to get backlash for.... It went the wrong way when you decided to ask it.... People are sensitive! And that is just wrong to say! The process of logic and intelligent consideration is their, but it lacks compassion, and humans need that... It is an interesting query, a good question, but an absolutely horrible concept, and just plain... icky! You don't seem to have any real bias or prejudice from what I can draw from your presentation, but that's absurd to say.... Once more, it is logically applicable, but wrong on so many levels...