Culling the Population

Reading an article this morning about Aids.
The amount of people dying from this disease is staggering, yet its not often talked about anymore.
Are we any closer finding a cure or at least a vaccination.
Is it allowed to continue to "cull" the populations of Africa, Asia etc?

Any Thoughts.

Originally posted by jehova620
Reading an article this morning about Aids.
The amount of people dying from this disease is staggering, yet its not often talked about anymore.
Are we any closer finding a cure or at least a vaccination.
Is it allowed to continue to "cull" the populations of Africa, Asia etc?

Any Thoughts.

AIDS is a pretty poor way to cull a population. It has historically taken years to develop after initial infection and is not immediately fatal in and of itself. A far better way to cull a population would be to assist the avian flu to make the full leap to humans, and then to make sure the populations you want to remain have a good, widely used, vaccine against the strain.
With a fatality rate of 72%, if you could ensure exposure, it'd be a lot faster than a slow wasting by AIDS.

The majority of AIDS related deaths in Australia are from the homosexual population and most of the heterosexual population don't give a #.

Yet in a country like Papua New Guinea where they recently held an Asia-Pacific Forum on HIV/AIDS, the majority of people infected has dramatically increased even though it is a heterosexual type of epidemic greatly affecting women.

It's all population control. HIV was created by man to kill man. And there is a very strong new strain of AIDS coming around that will make the original look like a bad cold. Don't kid yourself. HIV was created to control the population and it was purposely released to affect drug addicts, homosexuals and blacks (especially in Africa)......

AIDS is more about making people live in fear rather than culling the population. With AIDS on the brain, people cannot even engage in the purest act in the universe, unprotected sex.

I think it is a good way to cull a population, the extended incubation period before full blown AIDS insues, allows the disease to spread more easily to other hosts. It effectlively spread to large percentages of the populations, like it is doing in Africa and Asia and without the proper drugs available, the mortality rate will decimate their populations.

I agree it is a poor way to cull the population, but jawapunk's observation is a very good one (with such a long latency period people spread it before they know they have it!) I think it's poor because a lot of very important people also get infected by it through no fault of their own (e.g. nurses, doctors getting stuck with needles, paramedics and other educated people selflessly performing cpr and the like on a person with open lesions in their mouth) Sure, there are those new needles that kinda have an automatic spring-equipped sheath type device to counter this, but there are still ways they are infected (plus, these are not used in NEARLY the frequency they should be!) True, it mostly affects the poor, minorities and gays but I don't really buy it.

I remember professors, uh, professing that the fast food industry was a plot to eliminate minorities (the poor and minorities frequent such 'restaurants' in much higher numbers.) This seems to me more plausible, but as a professor once pointed out, "... but... The world still needs janitors and garbage men. (not to be insensitive... but wealthy people don't pick up others' trash and don't go to McDonald's.) Seems more likely, to me anyway, that if there is a plot to eliminate a certain group of individuals, fast food/tobacco/small unsafe cheaply built cars would be the way to go. That way, its targets are more discriminate.

I genuinely believe that the MAIN reason that AIDS is not kept front and centre of media and political attention is easy to explain.

If AIDS were a disease of middle aged white guys living in Europe and North America, then it would recieve the same attention that floppy-dick-syndrome does.

I see a great deal more commercial advertisments and scientific announcements for the latest breakthrough boner medication than for AIDS.

Here, we want to keep having sex, no matter what. In other parts of the world, sex can kill you....

You're right, but the "news" media does cover it a fair bit, just not corporate commercials. Companies that make HIV/AIDS drugs know their customers NEED them so... why pay money to advertise them? People that can't get it up... well, many of them are probably long term smokers and/or out of shape and therefore 'rising to the occasion' is a luxury, and could have been prevented... Plus, "good" people only need sex maybe a few times in their lives to make children, right?

[edit on 25-2-2005 by AlphaHumana]

If a disease were made to cull the population, then a fast acting disease would cause too much death too quickly. Wiping out half the population overnight would wreak havoc on every economy in the world. Jobs would go unfilled, garbage piling up in the streets, massive panic, riots, etc. A slow disease will give time to adjust and assimilate the changes in the population.

You are exaclty right. That is precisely why the Ebola virus hasnt wiped out everyone in Africa.

If the Flu could be made slightly more viral, it would pretty much be perfect.

Unfortunately, that is pretty much more likely than unlikely.