I’m not exactly sure where this topic should go so I decided to put it here, as it seems appropriate as a GQ.
What kind of impact would occur on humanity, society, and life in general, if all sexually transmitted diseases were completely eradicted, forever?
(note: The term “all” is used here to describe all known std’s, and assumes that no new std’s would be formed in the future, indefinitely)
I’d hazard a guess that more pregnancies would occur.
I don’t think so. The threat of AIDS doesn’t seem to have slowed the birthrate anywhere in the world. Africa seems a good example.
Precautions? I know one blonde who insists she is safe as long as they have sex in her boyfriend’s condominium.
I don’t want to try and explore the implications on humanity, society and life in general. Magical, why limit the original post to all ‘known’ stds? You are defeating your own question by limiting it like that.
Yeah, TC, I see what you mean. I think I got a bit carried away on emphasis and specifics. I meant it as: No std’s, ‘period.’
Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but shouldn’t this thread be in Great Debates?
A new one would come along shortly. The effect would be brief.
Of course you are aware that a pregnancy does not necessarily lead to a birth?
Off to Great Debates.
Yes. But I am also aware that a birth is unlikely unless there is some unprotected sex involved. I will rephrase my statement. “The threat of AIDS doesn’t seem to have slowed the incidence of unprotected sex in the world.” I can only imagine the number of goat-felching incidents that have led to tragedy.
Some people would live longer lives, but beyond that, I don’t think it would make much difference.
If the question implies that the existence of STDs is the only thing that keeps humans in check from humping anything with a ready aperture, I doubt it. Generally, an STD is something that happens to “somebody else”.
It would, however, completely stupify the religious right who could only thump their bibles and exclaim that hangnails are God’s punishment for getting more than they do.
There is an interesting article on Congress’ rejection of a Centers for Disease Control budget proposal to eliminate syphilis in the US by 2005. New Yorker mag 10 July in “The Talk of the Town”. Reason for rejecting the initiative is Congress’ difficulty in pronouncing sex, race and poverty in the same breathe.
The disease is at a low point nationally; only 25 counties report 50% of the cases - many in Southern states. Epidemiologically speaking, now is the time to spend funds on free diagnosis, treatment and education. Reasons for eliminating are:
It seems kinda silly not to take advantage of lower case rates of syphilis when the quality of life can be improved.
The article in New Yorker quotes a Dr Stokes who said:
“It is a reasonable quesion, whether by eliminating disease, without commensurate attention to the development of human idealism, self-control and responsiblity in the sexual life, we are not bringing mankind to its fall instead of fullfillment.”
In other words, backass thinking has it that you eliminate a particular STD and you bring on wonton sexual behavior… the more pregnancy theory.
Let’s remember that CDC conducted the infamous Tuskeegee Syphilis study with Congressional funding. Now is the time to grab opportunity to reverse that repugnant study.
Another impact on eliminating STDs would be to reduce infertility caused by it. Theoretically, the direct and indirect health costs of infertility would be reduced as well.
MagicalSilverKey wrote:
We would be living in the 1970s again. Complete with disco mirror balls and bell-bottom pants.
(Okay, admittedly, gonnorhea and syphillis were known to exist in the 1970s, but they’re both curable with simple antibiotics.)