Disease and Natural Selection
 

First, an interesting story to provide a little context for this discussion.

LINK
So, this new strain of HIV progresses to AIDS faster and is resistant to current treatments. Considering how difficult it is to contract HIV in the first place, do we really have much of a social responsibility to work towards helping irresponsible drug-users that routinely have unprotected sex with multiple partners? At what point do we sit back and let nature take its course with the refuse of the species, rather than forcing the hand of nature to use sharper swords sotospeak? Where do we draw the line, if at all?

Personally, I am interested in protecting the general populace, not those who intentionally and repeatedly put themselves and others in harms way. This applies to more than disease -- if someone gets drunk and hops into their car and drives into a tree, that's a shame, but they are not worth saving over the child that he didn't even notice hitting on the way to the tree. Now, the obvious question is "Who decides who to help?" but ideally this would be decided by anyone and everyone -- the innocent bystander, the judge, and the surgeon. Ultimately any blame would rest on the shoulders of fate and natural selection.

It's all a matter of degree. People do make those decisions every day. I'm not going to try to stop them. If the Dr. doesn't want to treat the crazy HIV guy then he doesn't have to. And if he doesn't want to treat me because I abuse alcohol, then that's his perogative. People in these kinds of situations aren't usually asking for help, I know I don't expect anything from anybody, so if you want to deny me something, go ahead. If I can't afford it I'll die anyway.

The only problem I see with this is when people make general assumptions about people without sufficient evidence. Like if a Dr. assumes a black patient with a GSW is a gangbanger, and thus less deserving of treatment than the rich white kid that was just brought in.

We're all guilty of something, if you want to let homosexuals and black people and alcoholics die off, that's fine. Just hope that those who hold a grudge against you don't get into power and decide to cut you off.

Considering the life span of someone that contracts this new strain of HIV, there's a good chance that this strain will be short-lived. Those with it will have little chance of treatment due to it's resistance, and since they won't live very long once they get it, the odds of them passing it on in that time are kinda slim.

This does, however, pose some interesting problems. Viruses have a tendency to mutate very often. What would happen if HIV (especially one that is very strong and resistant) became airborne? We'd be fucked.

Everybody is potential "refuse". It just takes the right circumstances. Childhood physical or sexual abuse, leading to drug use and addiction, and early death. It happens every day, continuously. And it's a tragedy.

Your use of "natural selection" is concerned, AIDS seems to be killing a lot of intelligent, capable, productive, creative people in our society. So I really don't understand your point.

AIDS is killing a lot of intelligent, capable, productive, creative, and sexually active people. Natural selection selects for traits, not just those seen as "good".

Imagine your son dying of AIDS. Everyone of the men who died out there with a bad needle or a quick lay with the wrong person is someone's son, and every woman a daughter. Tell their parents that nature should have used sharper swords.

And how would this superior strain magically fail to spread to the fine, upstanding patriots of America, when its inferior has already decimated the lives of innocent millions around the world?

We protect the weak, because they are all around us. We protect them because they may become strong, as all children become adults. We protect them because we were weak once and we may be weak again.

All people are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happ--oh, except for that guy over there with the needle in his arm. I'm sorry, your son doesn't count. Fuck him, he's a failure. Because I said so.

Does sexual activity make you one of the refuse of society and thus unworthy of life? The fact is that while AIDS does start with our lowlives, it creeps its way into nice society as well. Nature has been killing us all since the dawn of time and it uses whatever swords are necessary.

My post was actually a critique of raveneye's attack on the mention of natural selection. He/she seems to think that in order for it to be natural selection those weeded out must be inferior in other areas, and tried to defend them on the grounds such as intelligence or creativity. I was trying to point out that the only relevant factor in this example of natural selection is sexual activity, and that the only negative assigned to it is the possibility of it leading to death.

Well, my apologies then since I was arguing that point as well. I was using your quote as a springboard for my idea and didn't mean to slight it.

The only "inferiority" that someone who has contracted aids has, is that they don't have an immunity to the virus.

seretogis, how about leaving booby-trapped cars in the street to discourage car-theft? That would help weed-out undesirable elements in the society. Or maybe we can consider mixing poisoned drugs into the regular distribution channels, those dirty homo-junkies wont know what hit them. Nice and clean, just send the ambulance round to pick up the refuse in the morning. Or, what would be really good, would be to round up all the undesirables into easily administered centres, provide them housing, put them to work, and then, once they have served their purpose, we could gas them and use their bodies for pet food or glue. It's the kindest thing for them really, no better than animals when you think about it. Compared to AIDS, we're doing them a favour, eh?

people make mistakes, I made mistakes, you made mistakes, these people are just rather unlucky in that their mistakes had consequences extremely severe. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

That said, this new strain they are making a fuss about may not be a new strain at all. It has not been properly studied and until it is I am rather skeptical. If more cases develop, or more specific information surfaces I will probably accept it much more easily.

Good God, who would ever want to live in a world like that? "Fate" and natural selection certainly play a role in our lives, but if those were the only operators governing who lives and dies, any idea of fairness or mercy or altruism would go out the window as well. The world would quickly become a brutish place where competition for survival would be the greatest good. If natural selection is the only criteria I have to worry about, then I might see your children as a threat to my children's survival, and therefore worthless to me. Natural selection, right? If I believe your children are eating food my children ought to have, can I kill your children? Can I eat your children? That's what animals do in the wild, obeying the laws of natural selection--is this what you propose society should aspire to be?

We help people who we think don't deserve help because of the principle of the golden rule, an idea propagated through just about every society there ever was. There is always the promise that by helping others as a rule we may be helped someday when we need it (and might not deserve it, in the eyes of those helping you).

Drug abusers and drunk drivers are a drain on society's resources, but so are the overweight, the undereducated, smokers, tax-evaders, etc., etc. When do we choose to ignore their needs? This line of thinking goes nowhere. If we eliminated through attrition every person who needed help sometime in their lives, I can't imagine that we would enjoy a peaceful existence with whoever was left.

You risk sexually transmitted disease by having sex or sharing bodily fluids with someone you do not KNOW to be free of them. Risk is the possibility of sufferingharm or loss; danger. If you put yourself in danger, you risk yourself. If you have unprotected sex or transmissions of bodily fluids, you run the risk of dying because of AIDS. If you wish to aviod the possibility of this disease, simply practice safe sex (or don't have sex).

It is more simple than natural selection. Say you have a head of letuce on your dinner plate and the big guy in front of you has a hamburger on his. You take a risk of being beaten if you take his hamburger. You have the option not to take the hamburger, or you can take prcautions to ensure your safety when you get the hamburger. If you simply grab at it, you run the greatest risk of an ass-whooping.

I know I'm 100% safe because I don't share blood or bodily fluids with anyone (besides the wife who was tested with me before out marriage, and does not have the ability to cheat). If you take precautions - contraceptives, tests, abstainance - you can be safe, too.

The man who is infected with this terrible strain of HIV took a serious risk in having multiple male sex partners and unprotected anal sex. He ran the risk, now he has to pay for the risk he took. It's very sad, but it was his decision.

I'd say that the right to life has more to do with protecting people from being unjustly killed by others than with trying to save people from themselves.

The neat thing is that natural selection can produce populations that behave cooperatively because the net fitness of the population is increased by the individuals' willingness to help each other out rather than saying "fuck you scum of the earth, fend for yourself".

BTW, Last I heard the fastest growing rate of HIV infection was in the mid-20s white female group. Dirty whores.