NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, here's the deal. I am sitting in my language composition class on Monday, and we read "A Modest Proposal," John Swift's satirical solution to the Irish Potato Famine, namely, the subsidized production of Irish babies for use as an export good with the intent of cannibalization both domestic and abroad. On Wednesday, we are given an impressive assignment: Choose an area where there is debate about reform and offer a satirical solution.

Now it gets interesting. Yesterday (Friday), My buddy turns in his paper, and for the extra credit (more like leniency, but same diff) he reads his paper. The topic: HIV. The problem: obvious, a disease that is deadly, incurable, apparently spreading more and more quickly, and impacting our lives in more ways than one.

The solution: infect everybody with HIV and then provide HIV medication to all people, free of charge. How long you live becomes a matter of your personal health and future choices, which now carry a weight that he feels people will finally realize. It will also solve a lot of problems. First, as a disease, AIDS is almost uniquely deadly to humans, being a far less pathogenic agent amongst other species. This means that the human population will decrease substantially, to a point where our use of resources will not be nearly the same fifty years down the road as it is now. It won't destroy our species, as there are some humans that do possess an immunity to the virus. These people will be trained to create a new world of far less people. He calls it an expediation of evolution, which drew some sharp criticism from the religious right wingers in my class. What was surprising is that he pointed out to creationalists that most of those with genetic alteration that immunize them against HIV are Christian, a fact that shut most of them up.

I wondered how the NSers would feel about this, shall we say, loopy proposal. So here I am, asking my fellow national leaders how they would like to answer this question.

There only two restraints. No arguments that are highly motivated by self-interest, i.e, nothing about how good your particualr chances are of being HIV-immune. Also, no arguments that claim this is "violation of senses, prinicipals, tastes, and the rest." This was satrical, so, although I can not think of many people (there are a few) that would reccomend this, the arguments are presented with supporting logical reasoning. Thus, any arguments that are presented must be presented with quantitative evidence. My insane friend gave measures of human impact, a measurable fact which behaves according to scientific law(I=PxAxT). I ask that everybody here do the same. So post, if you're up to the challenge. Remember, here, evidence can be both logical and illogical at the same time.

Pro: If everyone had HIV, we could go back to casual unprotected sex.

Eh?

Somebody tries to stick that needle in me better be wearing body armor.

Eh?

Somebody tries to stick that needle in me better be wearing body armor.

Seconded...by a needlephobe.

I'll go one better than The Black Forrest. Anyone who tries to stick me with a needle infected with HIV is going to get a .223 caliber hole right between the eyes (I cannot guarantee the size of the exit wound, however).

It would cause massive, Dark Ages scale economic collapse due to severe worker shortages and falling productivity. A smaller world population is not desirable by any stretch of the imagination; a growing economy needs a growing population in order to provide new workers. Without a growing economy, technological innovation slows and overall quality of life begins to decline. Personally, I don't see an underpopulated, decaying world with stagnant technology and no future to be a desirable one...resources exist to be consumed, and we should use them to their fullest and most sensible potential.

Economic development gradually slows population growth down to equilibrium levels; as people get richer and better educated, they have fewer children. In fact, death has a massive economic toll on our society; it should be our goal to maximize longevity as much as possible so as to prevent more and more of our best and brightest from falling prey to the diseases of death and aging.

We should seek to improve the economic conditions of the fastest growing regions of the world and strive to maximize lifespans as much as possible so as to eliminate the plagues of death and aging. Also vital should be expansion in to space so as to utilize those resources to their fullest potential and to expand our ability to grow in numbers as well as in productive capability.

Eh?

Somebody tries to stick that needle in me better be wearing body armor.

Self Interest, therefore, not valid. Doesn't even approach the level of the challenge.

Where does the money to provide free medication to everyone come from?

I don't know if anyone would be immune to Aids and if you get aids you don't usually get cured of it you just control it and you pass it on to your children too. So we would just have a small population of humans with a desease that requires them to take frequent medication.

Where does the money to provide free medication to everyone come from?

Not to mention the money for keeping the vaccines up to date...this is going to be tough when the economy's imploding.

Self Interest, therefore, not valid. Doesn't even approach the level of the challenge.

Survival is self interest.

Survival is self interest.

Everything except pure altruism is self interest.

Okay, here's a good reason: These injections aren't good because they violate the rights of others and can cause them harm.

Personally, I don't see an underpopulated, decaying world with stagnant technology and no future to be a desirable one...

Unsustainability is the most likely cause of "no future."

We have to read that this weekend...wow! :eek:

Unsustainability is the most likely cause of "no future."

Yes, but it's possible to be sustainable while still growing an economy. They're not mutually exclusive. The entire key to sustainability lies in intensive growth and development of renewable/circular production methods; make things better and with fewer resources and you can grow forever without added strain on the environment.

For example, if I find a way to make a product 15% more efficiently, I can increase production 15% with almost no change

Eh?

Somebody tries to stick that needle in me better be wearing body armor.

Body armor would not be enough to get to me or those close to me.
There are ways to counter any type of armor. (Shoot at the head, Most bullet resistant armor will not stop knifes and swords, none will resist a speeding car or truck)

Sorry, I just can't resist :mp5: :sniper:

Yes, but it's possible to be sustainable while still growing an economy. They're not mutually exclusive.

Of course it is. What of it?

There's still the lingering fact that as we are right now, the situation is not sustainable... and if the rest of the world is to ever get the standard of living currently existing in the West, we will get much more unsustainable.

We have three choices that allow for reasonable human survival:

1. Reducing population growth.
2. Keeping the global system highly stratified by blocking development.
3. Radical conservation of resources, meaning a likely significant reduction in living standards for many in the Western World anyway.

I don't know if anyone would be immune to Aids and if you get aids you don't usually get cured of it you just control it and you pass it on to your children too. So we would just have a small population of humans with a desease that requires them to take frequent medication.

Protein pathways altered on the cellular surface provide the immunity to AIDS. In order to enter human cells, HIV must bind with CD4 proteins and a co-receptor, CCR-5 (found on Helper T cells, HIV's target of choice.) There are people that have altered forms of these proteins, a unique trait that prevent HIV from entering any of their cells whatsoever. Some people lack CCR-5 proteins entirely. Here. (http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66198,00.html)

Of course it is. What of it?

There's still the lingering fact that as we are right now, the situation is not sustainable... and if the rest of the world is to ever get the standard of living currently existing in the West, we will get much more unsustainable.

Well, of course. The status quo isn't going to work, and it's going to have to change soon in order to prevent severe economic losses from environmental destruction.

1. Reducing population growth.
2. Keeping the global system highly stratified by blocking development.
3. Radical conservation of resources, meaning a likely significant reduction in living standards for many in the Western World anyway.

3 is the only real option, since 1 will not be possible unless we develop the economies of the developing world, which will require more resources.

Not necessarily by any stretch. If we were to significantly increase the amount we recycle, switch our economy to one based upon renewable and biofuel resources, and design more efficient means of using the energy we do consume we could maintain a solid growth rate high enough to keep unemployment in check and living standards rising without increasing our consumption of environmentally destructive resources. And all of these are entirely possible, either with the technology we have now or with the technology in development. The only real barriers is economics, which is solving itself due to improvements in these technologies and the rising cost of the alternatives to these green technologies.

But then again, it's relative; for example, cars today are smaller and require far fewer resources to make than ones from the 1950's and 1960's, yet I don't think anyone can realistically argue that modern vehicles aren't superior in terms of safety, quality, and efficiency.

Not necessarily by any stretch. If we were to significantly increase the amount we recycle, switch our economy to one based upon renewable and biofuel resources, and design more efficient means of using the energy we do consume we could maintain a solid growth rate high enough to keep unemployment in check and living standards rising without increasing our consumption of environmentally destructive resources.

The problem is that "not increasing" isn't good enough.

The problem is that "not increasing" isn't good enough.

You have to stabilize before you can start to reverse the situation; it's as true with the environment as it is with an injured person. Stabilization means that the situation is under control and we can begin to reduce the amounts we consume and reverse the damage we have caused.

Going back to the logical ramifications of Worldwide AIDS:

While the pandemic will be a problem, the aftermath will see a situation similar to the fallout of the Black Death.

Before the Black Death, the barons, counts, earls, and associated nobles had so many peasants available that they charged high rents and gave out low wages. The survivors of the Plague found themselves in a very nice position. Rents decreased as the demand curve shifted left. And wages for working the land rose as the availability of labor decreased, creating a situation of scarcity. Now, what happens as we get another plague that is killing people off while those that are destined to survive it are breeding to bring the world to a population back to about 1 billion people?*

*Sorry, forgat to mention that a those that are immune or resilient will be given funded in a reverse One-Child policy that China currently implements. It will be phased out as the population of HIV+ people decrease and the population of HIV(0) people increase. I knew I was forgetting something that my buddy wrote about.

Before the Black Death, the barons, counts, earls, and associated nobles had so many peasants available that they charged high rents and gave out low wages. The survivors of the Plague found themselves in a very nice position. Rents decreased as the demand curve shifted left. And wages for working the land rose as the availability of labor decreased, creating a situation of scarcity. Now, what happens as we get another plague that is killing people off while those that are destined to survive it are breeding to bring the world to a population back to about 1 billion people?*.

No, actually the population and economy continued to decline long after the plague had ended in the the mid 14th century. There were nearly 130 years of economic decline and stagnation following the even.

Also, during the Middle Ages the economy was a lot less specialized than it is now; it wasn't hard for a farmer after the plague to simply get back to tilling his land, or a carpenter to switch over to barrelmaking or woodcutting due to labor shortages. Most consumer products were few and made at home, and most people were nearly self-sufficient.

That's not the case today by any stretch; modern occupations are not easily substitutable and losing huge numbers of the people in them will cause massive hyperinflation and total economic collapse. The goods and services we need are not able to be made at home, and the infrastructure we rely upon isn't going to be built or maintained by individuals. If you kill those people, not only will you have a crippling shortage of labor in every field, but people will see massive declines in their living standards either due to shortages of goods and services or due to hyperinflation caused by the soaring cost of virtually everything.

Everything will fall apart. This will be far more like the plagues that hit Rome in the 2nd and 3rd centuries with the corresponding after effects.

No arguments that are highly motivated by self-interest, i.e, nothing about how good your particualr chances are of being HIV-immune.Well considering I have Delta 32 there is no chance of HIV affecting me.:)

Yet, in all reality the chances of this ar about 1:108

Self Interest, therefore, not valid. Doesn't even approach the level of the challenge.
Why aren't responses based on self-interest valid? Self-interest is our most powerful motivator.

And anyway, the proposal has failed to demonstrate how anyone's life would be improved. Plus, with widespead immunosuppressed people, many other illnesses would have hosts and be able to mutate enough to wipe out the rest of the species.