# Is AIDS nature's response to over-population? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2001, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721 "2001-05-28T00:50:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Holly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/48db29/32.png) [@Holly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Holly)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2001, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/41 "2001-06-05T03:26:07Z")
elfkin: > [@](#): > > This plant, as a last ditch survival method, in which it tries to avoid extintion, during the peak years in snowshoe hare overpopulation produces a substance that is bitter, which keeps the hares from eating it. Since they’re avoiding their main food source, they starve in significant numbers. Eventually the plant population recovers, and the plants no longer produce the bitter substance. (I tried the link, but it didn’t work.) In any case, the way this is worded, it sounds like the plant **purposefully** makes itself bitter. I’d like to know what mechanism causes the plant to become bitter when the hare population is high. Also, it seems to me that the hares (at a normal population level) might give the plants some benefit; otherwise, why wouldn’t all the plants be bitter _all_ the time? As one of these individual plants, wouldn’t your chance of survival be much greater if you were always bitter- unless being bitter caused some hardship (i.e. using too many precious resources)? Are some of the plants bitter all of the time, and only the bitter ones survive because they’re not eaten? AcidKid: > [@](#): > > I’m not going to type “Prove that nature is not sentient” but I ask you to consider that nature produces sentient beings. > I wouldn’t be so quick to dimiss something that produces sentient beings as non-sentient. Nature also produces beings which have the ability to echolocate. So, I wouldn’t be quick to dismiss something that produces echolocating beings as non-echolocating. I think sentience is overrated by humans. Sentience happens to be our one trick in our bag that allows us to reproduce and prosper. For us, it’s our ticket to survival. Sentience wouldn’t give bats an advantage; they’re pretty well suited to what they do, and larger brain size would hurt rather than help them. We tend to view “Nature” (with a capital N) as sentient, because we are sentient. From the bat point of view (if they _had_ a point of view) echolocation would be the epitomy of evolutionary progress. It’s just difficult for us to comprehend non-sentience, especially when non-sentient organisms show what seems to us to be a good plan. Too many hares? The plants become bitter. Too many people? Disease will decimate the population. These things happen, but sentience isn’t necessary for them to happen. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2001, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/42 "2001-06-05T04:02:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Don’t be so sure about the total number of humans declining in the near future. The United Nations predicts that the population will keep increasing for at least the next 50 years. But it notes that the _rate_ of increase is already slowing and that, barring some great demographic shift, the population _will_ begin to decline without catastrophe within 100 - 200 years. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/43 "2001-06-10T02:13:52Z")
Indian truck drivers are also believed to have been a very significant vector of infection throughout India. No cite but it was brought up in Son of the Circus by John Irving. ---
**Author:** ![They\_Call\_Me\_Sneeze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@They\_Call\_Me\_Sneeze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/They_Call_Me_Sneeze)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2001, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/44 "2001-06-11T05:36:00Z")
The Gaia Hypothesis is the idea that life manipulates the environment for the maintenance of life. Life on earth has evolved so that Earth will continue to be able to support life. Life, since it began on Earth (little bacteria that produced oxygen, for one) have greatly changed the atmosphere and general conditions of Earth, and they have altered those conditions in a way that has allowed life to persist, through a system of positive and negative feedbacks. NOT to say that the earth has CONSCIOUSLY altered life to promote life, but more that it works as a system of checks and balances. So, AIDS could be a part of that - nature has produced something that will alter life (human life, which is somewhat harmful to the environment), so that life (in general) will be able to continue existence. I agree with Monster104, though, that Ebola makes more sense in this line of thought. I was just pointing out that the idea of nature altering life for the benefit of the planet is a recognized one. As to population growth: tomndebb said: > [@](#): > > But it notes that the rate of increase is already slowing and that, barring some great > demographic shift, the population will begin to decline without catastrophe within 100 - 200 > years. tomndebb, you seem to know what you are talking about and so I am afraid to say this for fear of being shot down, but: They _think_ that it will. Back in the 1930s they predicted that the population of the US would peak at 200 million. They (the population charting professional “they”), but they can make mistakes. The way they reach the 50-200 year idea is by assuming that the population is just now reaching the inflection point. But who is to say that the inflection point itself isn’t 200 years down the road, or that technology may push it ahead. And even once the growth rates reache the inflection point, it takes years for the population to stabilize. Just to throw in some numbers: the current rate of population growth is 1.4% per year. At this rate, the population of Earth will double in 50 years. So even if population does stop growing in 50 years, it will be declining from a point of 12 billion (atleast) people. And I wont even get into carrying capacity. Just thought I would be the voice of doom in that regard. Sorry for talking about population so much. To reiterate the part of this rambling that is related to the topic at hand: Gaia. ---
**Author:** ![kirtibetai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/db5fbb/32.png) [@kirtibetai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirtibetai)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2002, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/45 "2002-07-10T23:57:15Z")
AIDS means exteremly weak immune system leading to weak defense mechanism of the body. It can happen thru the known transmission means or even otherwise when due to ageing, infection, injury, etc the immune system becomes so weak as to render the person vulnerable and defense less to further infections. Once a person has developed this condition called AIDS his body fluids can affect others. So ths is man’s own careless / thoughtless un-natural life style during the past 100 years which has weakened the immune systems. It’s easy to blame someone for our pain and when it’s not conveniently possible to blame a person or group one can always blame it on nature. It’s true that nature has its own strange but effective ways for maintaining balance / harmony in the universe but humans also have a responsibility to see that they don’t cause the imbalance to heighten his own pain. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2002, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/46 "2002-07-11T23:11:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elfkin477 \* > \*\*I’ve been mulling this over since my wildlife management class in college (hey, it was interesting science gen-ed) and I wonder what other people think about the possibility that AIDS resulted from the rapid population growth the world has experienced in the last 100 years. > > \*\* It seems farfetched to imagine that nature is an entity that produces a virus that results, after a long incubation time, in a specific syndrome like AIDS. Isn’t outrunning the food supply a more common method of natural population control than developing a particular disease? Lack of food results in malnutrition which results in low resistance to disease, the inability to hunt successfully, etc., etc. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2002, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/47 "2002-07-12T01:26:41Z")
Reading a thread like this just makes me sag with despair at the degree of ignorance that’s still rampant after, what, 20+ years of the AIDS epidemics. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2002, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/48 "2002-07-12T02:14:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Holly \* > **We tend to view “Nature” (with a capital N) as sentient, because we are sentient.** **Holly** , I think you’re right but you make the wrong conclusion. It is true that Nature is not in itself is not sentient, or at the very least we cannot assume that it is. However, response doesn’t necessarily require sentience. A plant will grow in the direction of light, though it is not sentient. If you take a chemical system at equilibrium and pour in some of the reactant, it will respond by producing more of the produce. Natural systems can make “decisions” without making actual decisions. Nobody has to actually want better organisms for natural selection to occur. If circumstantial conditions change, nature will respond by making life adapt to those circumstances, despite the lack of an informed choice. ---
**Author:** ![kingpengvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9dc877/32.png) [@kingpengvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingpengvin)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2002, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/49 "2002-07-12T16:57:40Z")
Ok so how does Nature deal with over population? It doesn’t, It hires Starvation and Disease to do it for her. That whacky couple have been doing it for years. ---
**Author:** ![Fang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/96bed5/32.png) [@Fang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fang)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/50 "2002-07-12T17:22:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fang \* > \*\* > If you take a chemical system at equilibrium and pour in some of the reactant, it will respond by producing more of the produce. \*\* “Produce”, of course, should be “product”. Vegetables do not come from chemical reactions. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2002, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/51 "2002-07-12T17:34:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kirtibetai \* > So ths is man’s own careless / thoughtless un-natural life style during the past 100 years which has weakened the immune systems. Um… 😕 ---
**Author:** ![KismetRose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@KismetRose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KismetRose)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/52 "2002-07-19T23:02:00Z")
There was a person here who said that India and China were unaffected by the AIDS virus, or largely unaffected. That is not correct. India has the second highest number of AIDS cases in the world and has been up there for some time. [2001 UN/WHO Report shows cases increasing](http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aids1.html) India and Southeast Asia are quite affected. China is not as affected because of their outrageous population - if one million out of a billion have it, does it really impact them? What strikes me sometimes is how it is utterly rampant in counties with widespread poverty and hunger. It has been said that a good deal of African children will be orphaned in the next 20 years because of the disease (if they don’t catch it and die themselves beforehand). The same people you see starving on Thanksgiving television shows are the ones AIDS has claimed. And somehow, terribly, I can’t believe that’s an accident. If the report estimates that in that article are true, there are around 45 million people in the world infected with HIV right now. 45 million out of 6 billion. That’s not a bad dent, if nature is trying to avenge itself. Oh, and the disease attacks reproduction. It leads to infection from mother to child. It cuts down the life span of those it infects. It might just reduce world population some. I’m not trying to make light of it. I had a friend who died of AIDS complications. But I’ve always wondered why the rates are the way they are, as they’ve been fairly consistent for the last few years. ---
**Author:** ![KismetRose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@KismetRose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KismetRose)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/53 "2002-07-19T23:10:19Z")
There was a person here who said that India and China were unaffected by the AIDS virus, or largely unaffected. That is not correct. India has the second highest number of AIDS cases in the world and has been up there for some time. [2001 UN/WHO Report shows cases increasing](http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aids1.html) India and Southeast Asia are quite affected. China is not as affected because of their outrageous population - if one million out of a billion have it, does it really impact them? What strikes me sometimes is how it is utterly rampant in counties with widespread poverty and hunger. It has been said that a good deal of African children will be orphaned in the next 20 years because of the disease (if they don’t catch it and die themselves beforehand). The same people you see starving on Thanksgiving television shows are the ones AIDS has claimed. And somehow, terribly, I can’t believe that’s an accident. If the report estimates that in that article are true, there are around 45 million people in the world infected with HIV right now. 45 million out of 6 billion. That’s not a bad dent, if nature is trying to avenge itself. Oh, and the disease attacks reproduction. It leads to infection from mother to child. It cuts down the life span of those it infects. It might just reduce world population some. I’m not trying to make light of it. I had a friend who died of AIDS complications. But I’ve always wondered why the rates are the way they are, as they’ve been fairly consistent for the last few years. ---
**Author:** ![KismetRose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@KismetRose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KismetRose)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/54 "2002-07-19T23:21:24Z")
There was a person here who said that India and China were unaffected by the AIDS virus, or largely unaffected. That is not correct. India has the second highest number of AIDS cases in the world and has been up there for some time. [2001 UN/WHO Report shows cases increasing](http://www.infoplease.com/spot/aids1.html) India and Southeast Asia are quite affected. China is not as affected because of their outrageous population - if one million out of a billion have it, does it really impact them? What strikes me sometimes is how it is utterly rampant in counties with widespread poverty and hunger. It has been said that a good deal of African children will be orphaned in the next 20 years because of the disease (if they don’t catch it and die themselves beforehand). The same people you see starving on Thanksgiving television shows are the ones AIDS has claimed. And somehow, terribly, I can’t believe that’s an accident. If the report estimates that in that article are true, there are around 45 million people in the world infected with HIV right now. 45 million out of 6 billion. That’s not a bad dent, if nature is trying to avenge itself. Oh, and the disease attacks reproduction. It leads to infection from mother to child. It cuts down the life span of those it infects. It might just reduce world population some. I’m not trying to make light of it. I had a friend who died of AIDS complications. But I’ve always wondered why the rates are the way they are, as they’ve been fairly consistent for the last few years. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/55 "2002-07-19T23:45:28Z")
> [@](#): > > AIDS means exteremly weak immune system leading to weak defense mechanism of the body. > > It can happen thru the known transmission means or even otherwise when due to ageing, infection, injury, etc the immune system becomes so weak as to render the person vulnerable and defense less to further infections. > > Once a person has developed this condition called AIDS his body fluids can affect others. AIDS refers to a very specific acquired immune deficiency syndrome and while there are others (such as those which develop in people who’ve had come cancer treatments and people on post-transplant immunosuppressive drugs), those particular immunodeficiencies are not referred to as AIDS. Ditto for immunodeficiencies related to aging, illness, injury etc. All the evidence we have to date suggests that HIV can be transmitted from soon after initial infection. There is no evidence to suggest that a person’s bodily fluids are non-infective between the time they contract HIV and the time they develop AIDS - quite the reverse in fact. There is also no evidence to suggest that immune deficiency syndromes unrelated to HIV (such as those referred to above) are ever transmissible. Sorry **kirtibetai** , but some of the statements in your post were so inaccurate they couldn’t be left unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2002, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/56 "2002-07-19T23:51:30Z")
> [@](#): > > AIDS means exteremly weak immune system leading to weak defense mechanism of the body. > > It can happen thru the known transmission means or even otherwise when due to ageing, infection, injury, etc the immune system becomes so weak as to render the person vulnerable and defense less to further infections. > > Once a person has developed this condition called AIDS his body fluids can affect others. AIDS refers to a very specific acquired immune deficiency syndrome and while there are others (such as those which develop in people who’ve had come cancer treatments and people on post-transplant immunosuppressive drugs), those particular immunodeficiencies are not referred to as AIDS. Ditto for immunodeficiencies related to aging, illness, injury etc. All the evidence we have to date suggests that HIV can be transmitted from soon after initial infection. There is no evidence to suggest that a person’s bodily fluids are non-infective between the time they contract HIV and the time they develop AIDS - quite the reverse in fact. There is also no evidence to suggest that immune deficiency syndromes unrelated to HIV (such as those referred to above) are ever transmissible. Sorry **kirtibetai** , but some of the statements in your post were so inaccurate they couldn’t be left unchallenged. ---
**Author:** ![Halo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Halo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Halo13)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2002, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/57 "2002-07-21T15:50:36Z")
Perhaps ‘atheletes foot’ is natures responce to the increasing trend of running shoes. Thus, those populations that use running shoes in excess have brought this terrible condition upon themselves! But can these people be blamed for the state of their feet?! Sedimentary Lifestyles push people into routine exercise, since running in an apartment is hard, running shoes are required to protect feet. This leaves them at great risk of atheletes foot, only proper education will lead to clean, safe running and prevent the contraction of this terrible condition affecting millions. PS~ Don’t blame overpopulation in Africa for AIDS, poverty in Africa and other countries (made bitches by the IMF, WEF, WTO etc.) is directly related to the wealth of countries that can afford to educate and treat for AIDs and HIV. Destroy the myth of the ‘developing nation’, rather promote the use of the more accurate term, ‘inhibited country’. Inhibited largely by our countries and global capitalism. ---
**Author:** ![Halo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Halo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Halo13)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2002, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721/58 "2002-07-21T15:56:12Z")
Destroy the myth of the ‘developing nation’, rather promote the use of the more accurate term, ‘inhibited nation’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-aids-natures-response-to-over-population/66721.md?page=2)