Ambition
I always get suspicious of people who post such arguments and then never post again in the same thread. I hope you will.
Hope you don't mind me taking you point by point on this one.
Quote:
|
I think that (Mother Nature/Earth/GOD/Fate/any other belief you might have) has put AIDS on this planet to in a way control population.
|
Your theory clearly implies a thinking agent, and that is going to lead to the question of whether you have a religious God in mind? Nature does not 'think' and would not do X to achieve Y. Furthermore, if an agent has done this, does it have a moral aspect, or is it purely practical?
Quote:
|
Think about it, it's something that really doesn't discriminate in any way.
|
If HIV is just 'nature' then of course it doesn't (consciously) discriminate and this means nothing. If HIV is a tool used by a thinking agent, then it certainly does seem to discriminate - you are far more at risk if you can't afford protection, if you share needles, or if you are a homosexual male (in the UK at least).
So either what you say is meaningless or it is wrong.
Quote:
|
The ones most at risk are the most promiscuous, the ones that also have the highest risk of reproducing.
|
HIV first spread in the West within the homosexual population and those in this group at still in the highest risk category in the West. Yet these people are at virtually zero risk of reproducing.
In the Third World the risk is now spreading to the unborn babies of infected parents. One in ten of those infected are children. Yet they are neither promiscuous or in any way blameworthy (should you or anyone else choose to take a moral line).
Quote:
|
I'm just saying that AIDS is here to get people to relax.
|
Do you really think AIDS has made people relax? Surely it has made the world a more dangerous, cauitous, suspicious and tense place.
Quote:
|
It just affects the unlucky few
|
If it only affects a few then it is a rubbish form of population control.
Sadly it affects many millions.
AIDS does lead to the premature and painful deaths of millions of people. Therefore it keeps down the population.
If HIV were intended to be a population control tool then we would have to conclude that the agent using it was either cruel, ignorant or ineffective. It does not lead to a stronger population. In fact the strong, who you would expect to have more sex, are at higher risk. Instead it kills the fit young adults in a population, leaving the very young and the old to be orphaned and unsupported. Eventually the old will die and none will replace them. The population will shrink and become increasingly burdened by the rising proportion of infected sufferers. This is certainyl a way to limit population size, but it is crude, brutal, and, if not cure is found, risks sending some populations into terminal decline.
Quote:
|
Just a thought, or I could just be nuts.
|
If the choice is binary, I'd go for option two.