As I understand it, there is little “natural” about AIDS anyway. In “The River” by Hooper (who spent 7 years of his life doing nothing but researching the origin of AIDS) the most favoured hypothesis seems to be that AIDS is a byproduct of the research for a polio vaccine in the 1950s.
pan
Nature is not a consciousness that actively decides who lives and who dies. Things just happen. But in a sense, disease (any disease) is a natural means of population control. As a population grows and interacts more, there is more chance for catching & transmitting new diseases. If humans still lived in isolated tribes, then pathogens such as HIV would not be able to spread as it has now. Of course, an isolated tribe is more susceptible to being wiped out completely from a disease, but the species as a whole would persist.
What a coincidence. The skeptic’s mailing list I subscribe to recently had a discussion about this very book, and I just happened to have saved most of it. Here’s an excerpt from the post that started it off:
Not surprising because Syphilis came from dogs. There is no doubt something else just as nasty as AIDS lurking out there, but South America, with an impoverished base population, is doing little to stop the rape of the Rainforest. People need to eat and without adequate jobs, adequate food nor adequate farming equipment, they will slash and burn to grow crops.
Don’t forget the demand for hardwoods either and so long as a soggy, 50 year old hardwood log, dredged up from the bottom of an American old logging lake can sell here for over $1000, businesses will shred the Rainforest to get the wood. (A guy diving in an old logging lake found the bottom littered with hundreds of old, soggy logs. He salvaged a few, discovered how much timber companies would pay for them and started a business. He hauls logs out of the lake, cuts them up in a mill and is making a fortune off of old Hickory, Maple, White and Dark Oak, Pecan, and other types of once plentiful wood. Now he cuts something like a Burl Maple into venire strips and gets around $2000 to $3000 for a single 50 foot tree!!
You see, the lumber companies have to replant lands they strip, but being cheap, they use mainly fast growing pine, rarely replanting Oak, Maple or other hardwood groves that take years to grow to harvesting size. So, our supply of hardwood is almost gone.)
So, as the Rainforest is gutted, things living in that undisturbed loam that has been rotting there for millions of years are bound to pop up as they scrape roads in, haul trees out and water blast river banks for gold.
You stir up a swamp and you aren’t going to like what you find in the muck.
Is HIV itself the result of overpopulation? Certainly not. The prevailing theory of the moment is still that HIV came from the transmission of S(simian)IV into the human population. That event required only the blood to blood contact of one infected simian and one human. That could have happened at any time in human history, although certainly human migration and population factors could influence the chances of that contact occurring. (I read today that, although it is believed by some that the initial crossover between monkey/ape and human was in the 1920s, some place the date back as far as the 1600s.)
I think the real issues aren’t raw population, but technology and culture, both of which were changing at the same time as the population was growing. None of these factors created the virus, but both of which contributed to its devastating spread. Aviation helped the disease move all over the globe, even if you don’t believe in Randy Shilts’ “Patient Zero.” (Shilts also suggested that the convergence of randy gay sailors from all over the globe in the US during OP Sail in 1976 may have been a factor. I’m not sure I buy that one, but if it were a significant “well” of infection, it, too, was made possible by human technology.) Long haul truckers patronizing prostitutes helped the spread of infection across Europe and Africa – and trucks are technology, too, as are the paved roads which facilitate their passage. IV needles and blood transplants sped the process in a number of countries, and ill-considered blood donation practices were responsible for numerous community-wide outbreaks in rural China, which has a huge population but was relatively unscathed until fairly recently. (Donors’ blood was pooled, the desired factors were removed for transfusion, and the pooled plasma was returned to the donors, who were able to recover and sell blood again all the more quickly for having been transfused.) And let’s not forget birth control pills and IUD’s, which made heterosexual contact without condoms deceptively “safe” for millions of women late in the century.
Cultural factors? How about the prevalence of male heterosexual promiscuity in Africa, and the low status of women? How about African cultural practices which encourage the transmission of HIV by making women attempt to keep their genitals non-lubricated during intercourse, thus making them more prone to injury and infection? How about countries like Somalia, where women’s genitals are frequently mutilated, sometimes being sewn almost completely shut and cut open again to permit intercourse? How about the increasing acceptance of gay men in the 70s in the US? How about the “sexual revolution”? How about child prostitution in Thailand and Vietnam? How about the fall of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent spread of women from the former Soviet republics seeking money through prostitution?
These were among the many technological, cultural, and even political developments which combined to make AIDS the pandemic that it is. Population is an issue only to the extent that a larger population encourages globalization.
I didn’t say that. I said that since Nature produced a sentient being that I would not be so quick to dimiss Nature as an non-sentient being.
Where the **** do you get ALL?
As Manhatten says, read twice, hit reply once.
“What a co-inkidence!”
Just as twisted tracks exist independently of a derailed train.
The Black Plague existed independently of humanity.
It was just co-inkidence that rats found food in cities.
That fact that more humans then lived in cities is entirely beside the point.
SPOOFE, I bow to you.
You are better than FIDO’s Local Chatter’s Gary Weaver who said that the King James’ version of The Bible was God’s Word in English.
I will not change a single letter of my reponse in deference to your ablity.
YOU ARE THE MASTER TROLL!
Oooooohhhhhhmmmmmm!
Interesting Gr8Kat - I thank you.
It’s still worth reading Hooper’s book though I think. He goes into every theory of AIDS that there is and considers each on its merits. It’s a fascinating read.
pan
Tenar, I do not agree with several of the factors you mention (truckers?) and I don’t see much cause-effect correlation happening either.
I am far from an expert on HIV and I may be way off track, but I have a problem with some of your observations. It is ultimately human movement that spreads any kind of disease, rather than technology. The example of polluted blood you gave in regards to China, a story which is making the rounds at the moment, is true. However China has had an HIV problem for years now, it was simply kept under wraps and exacerbated by incompetence. Technology does not explicitly spread disease in the ways you mentioned, but it does explicitly help to prevent or cure it.
As regards your cultural observations:
Do you have any evidence for what you are saying, or is this a “the black man is a sexual demon who perverts the white woman with marijuana” type of statement? 
Africa is a mighty big place packed with many different cultures. Sounds like you are generalizing.
“African cultural practices” is a meaningless term, and I doubt you will find a single practice particular to Africa that is applicable to the whole continent. As for the non-lubrication issue, I have never heard of it but would definitely like to learn more about this custom. Could you point me the right way? Are you sure it is not a myth? It sounds very unpleasant for all parties involved.
Female circumcision does still happen in a few African countries, but I don’t see how that would contribute to the spread of HIV. Sawing female genitals shut and cutting them open sounds rather extreme. I don’t doubt that it has happened, but is it any sort of standard? Besides, it would make more sense to sew the labia shut with string and then cut the string when you want intercourse. Would Somalian men really enjoy slashing a vagina open every time they want to have sex? Would they enjoy intercourse with a wound???
Uh-oh, you might get blasted for this one! I don’t see a mechanism that would allow HIV to spread simply because gay men are accepted by the normal population. It’s not the normal population who ends up in gay men’s beds after all, but other gay men. Homosexuality has been with humankind since the beginning, particularly in times or cultures when/where women were not easily accessible.
Certainly, those who engage in indiscriminate copulation are more likely to be infected than those who do not.
Sadly enough, this is a problem. Everywhere. It may be particularly bad in Bangkok, where you can get absolutely anything you want (oh man what a crazy city), but how does sex with a child, as sickening as the concept is, put anyone at greater risk of HIV infection than intercourse with other prostitutes?
The famous Russian hookers. There’s always been a brisk sex trade in the USSR. And Eastern Europe. And, heck, Western Europe. Asia too. Not to mention the whole world, actually. They don’t call it the world’s oldest profession for nothing! – or is that lawyers? From my point of view, things look a bit different. For example, I think you should look at groups who refuse to wear condoms when having sex with a prostitute (it’s a problem identified in the areas of and around Hong Kong, where married men who refuse to have anything to do with condoms go to frolic with hookers and mistresses). I do not deny that Russian hookers are plentiful (and in high demand) but is there any evidence that they are spreading the disease any more than other prostitutes?
I found an interesting report from the International Labour Office in Geneva, with data up to and including 1999. In it there is a chart that tracks the main modes of HIV transmission by country (the chart is on page 10). See it at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/trav/aids/pdf/aidse.pdf
You have to employ caution when determining the cause of an effect, becuase it is seldom as straightforward as it looks. The report cited above also says that over half of the people who become infected with HIV do so at or before the age of 25. Based on that information, we could conclude that modern dance music puts people at a high risk of HIV infection. But we would be wrong–or at least partially wrong.
Abe, while I generally recognize and agree with your points in the last post, I am curious why you included the “(truckers?)” aside? The last time I looked over the literature, it was still saying (as it has maintained for several years), that the primary vector for the spread of AIDS through Africa has been truckers carrying it up and down several main highways, from country to country, infecting the prostitutes.
This is not a claim of “oversexed” African men or any such silliness. Issues such as a greater reluctance (based either on culture or ignorance) to practice what is called “safe sex” and the possibility that the virus was already endemic to one region through which the main North-South highway passes, along with a few other details, have all been brought into consideration. However, unless there has been new information brought out in the last 12-15 months, I believe that the “truckers/prostitutes” connection is still considered the single most significant contributor to the spread of AIDS in Africa.
actually, yes the non-lubrication thing IS a “cultural practice” common in much of southern and eastern africa.
that’s why you get a lot of women in clinics suffering heamoragghing and bruising. trust me. i’m a med student.
AIDS is a syndrome caused by a virus HIV.
it happens to be sexually transmitted and fatal. big whoop.
so are the virus causing cervical cancer, syphilis and various other nasties if left untreated.
difference is AIDS ain’t that easy to treat…yet.
it’s sexually transmitted because it’s in body fluids…god help us if it mutates to droplet infection, which, being a virus it might. ebola did.
What’s really happening is there are millions of virus’s in the world and they are all very prosperous. HIV is simply one that happened to have a few traits that made it so prosperous. HIV wasn’t the response of nature to overpopulation, it just happened to work in the human body. However, HIV was assisted by, among other things, overpopulation. This happens with every animal or plant. The deadly virus sits practically dormant for years, killing few. When the population goes up the virus is able to spread because of the population and proximity of the victims.
AIDS is not a response. It might be a consequence. Nature does not respond. Nature simply is. God might respond. But that means you and I don’t get to respond, so we can ignore that for the moment.
The etiology of epidemic diseases with multispecies vectors varies greatly in large populations with differences in density, mobility, interactivity, and general health level from other causes. These are consequences of population variables, not responses by nature. When a single individual experiences a zoonotic infection in an isolated area with sparse population it is not likely that they will pass the disease on to many other people. Once everyone in the village has either died, survived, or proven immune, if there has been no other contact outside the village, the epidemic is over.
That state of affairs has been a constant situation over much of the world for fifteen thousand years. A few areas of dense population with set communication routes to provide vectors, and distances sufficient to incubate any acute infection during transit. That is a level of risk that produces a flat rate (over long times) of epidemic disease. If you increase the population, decrease the time between dense sites, increase the traffic among such sites, or add new sources of zoonosis, the numbers go up.
So, if you bring roads, trucks, planes, zoos, safaris, armies, emigration, invasion, and civil war to a continent, you will experience an increase in epidemic disease. It is not a response. It is a consequence.
“You know something is happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?” Bob Dylan
woolly wrote:
And don’t forget Antarctica. The population density in Antarctica is, what, 0.0 per square kilometer?
Tomndebb I had actually discounted truckers as a significant infected group, but I see now that I may have blundered in my ignorance. I must admit I was confused by Tenar’s statement that long haul truckers helped spread the infection across Europe and Africa. Certainly they did, but I had not realized they were such a significant group. After all, mobility is not restricted to truckers, and neither is the patronage of prostitutes. I wouldn’t have placed them any higher than e.g. military men and mercenaries, who are frequently posted away from their native area or sent to other countries for service (particularly in the case of mercenaries, who are apt to wander around following business).
Is this trucker theory applicable to the spread of AIDS in Europe as well?
Nope. Pretty much an African phenomenon. I am not about to speculate on the "why"s since the people doing the research have not established causes for this. I only note that it has been considered one of the strong vectors for the disease on that continent. (I have heard no similar stories from Europe.) As you note, the military also plays a role. One key difference, I would think, is that the military does not tend to cross lots of borders on a routine basis. The truckers are moving up and down the whole length of the continent on a regular basis.
From a few sites:
AIDS in Africa - from the Boston Globe
DEATH WATCH: The Global Response to AIDS in Africa. Washington Post
In his book The Hot Zone, Richard Preston theorizes in the last few pages that AIDS and many other viruses and illnesses could be the Earth’s “immune system” defending itself against 6 billion humans.
Just a comment.
Well…I’ve kind of been drinking all night, but I think I have a few fresh ideas when it comes to viruses. I think that mother nature is neither cruel or kind.She just is. I get a kick out of the fact that our culture seems to want to fight her with pesticides, antibiotics, and especially genetic engineering. When are people going to realize that quality of life is much more important than quantity?In the movie “The Matrix” one of the cyber F.B.I. guys describes the human race as a virus, saying that we expand and consume natural resources until they are depleted.Realistically, is there a better description of our legacy on this planet? I’m not quite sure where I’m going with this other than to say that we probably deserve it.
Yup. 'Specially since the Agent was wrong. (Note that the rate of human population growth has been declining… and the total number is expected to be going down in the not-so-distant future.)
Right. Lots of species spread & consume resources. It just so happens that we humans are particularly good at it. In fact, I’ll stick my neck out and say that most species would be like this if they could. But most are limited by their habitat requirements. Humans can live in a broader range of areas and can transport materials in from other areas.
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. (See page 6 of the link)
Exactly. Humans are at the top of the food chain. Sentience has (apparently) given us a huge advantage over other animals. It only follows to reason that our maximum habitat extent would be much larger than other animals.
Ah. I had taken my information from sources mentioned in the old “6 Billion?” thread. Thank you for the updated info. In any case, it still supports the notion that the human population WON’T continue increasing indefinitely.