Forgive me if I offend anyone, or may be using this form in the wrong context, but using simple logic and mathmatics skill can one infer one of the following: Either we will all die from AIDS, or AIDS will be erradicated.

As we can see in many situations, two opposing forces cannot exist in the same space or time, and eventually one force will overtake the other. The battle, however, may last a long time like in a 52 card game of battle (war) or a game of risk. It may take a VERY long time, but as things begin to brake down more and more, one force will overtake the other. Someone will have to be erradicated.

Often, two "opposing forces", as you call them, will reach an equilibrium. As such, they co-exist, neither one eliminating the other.

From another angle, even if all people with AIDS were to die, the virus that causes AIDS would still be lurking out there, as it was in the beginning, waiting, vying to sustain the cycle of infection and death.

Well, we're not powerless. AIDS doesn't "attack" us; we have to instigate something. Of course it's not very contageous, unless you know you're gonna be sharing blood or other bodily fluids. :)

And even after (I'm pretty optimistic on this; ya just gotta be ;)) we stomp out AIDS, most likely there will be another disease reeking just as much havok. But I'd say it's gonna be a pretty sunny day when we have AIDS, cancer, and diabetes taken care of. :)

I dunno..mabe species that have a balance can co-exist..but often this is not the case in many scenarios...interesting idea though it is very possible.

Just look at the simple model of hunter and prey.

If there is too much prey, then there is abundant food for the hunters, and the population of hunters expands.

But if there are too many hunters, then there is not enough prey to feed them all and many hunters will starve.

Eventually they reach a balance, with just the right amount of hunters and prey, so that both can co-exist.

I see it as two clashing opposite beings...who can NOT coexist in the same environment..and cannot reach a balace..sort of like a game of battle in cards...or chess...or risk.

The difference is that the AIDS virus is not attempting to destroy Humanity. It is inherantly neutral. It's lethality to our immune systems is merely a by-product of its nature, not its intent. Further, from an evolutionary standpoint, it is not advantageous for the AIDS virus to kill off all Humans, for then it could coneivably kill off itself as well. The best strategy for both to survive is for both to co-exist, which is the natural tendency of things.

Organisms are not typically of the matter/anti-matter relationship that you are describing, where they simply can not co-exist. They can and normally do co-exist, and when they don't, the survivor tends to be worse off because of it.

Not always, but typically.

There is always the ever increasing risk of superbugs, that are resistant to medication. Apart from war, that is what we need to be careful of.

wardz

A..now I see what you are saying..thank you for the clarification...You are absolutely right about the evolutionary factor. We, or the virus, would eventually change to fit our surroundings and survive if it came down to is.

On a different note...isn't there a MAJOR AIDS epidemic (spelling) going on in africa now?

You are right, wardz, we do need to be careful about such things.

all the regular promiscuous people in the world are gonna hate us virgins cause we have found a to keep the virus at bay (though it may not be by our choice)?!


just a little deadly virus humor here folks...

How is that? By not having a blood transfusion with AIDS-infected blood? Or by not accidently having an AIDS-infected person bleed on you? Or maybe you've found out a way to not be born to an AIDS-infected mother.

;)

I think some people in here are regarding the AIDS virus as a sentient being.

Strategy...AIDS wouldn't consider what would be beneficial to it's survival before infecting. It's not the instinctive "do whatever it takes to survive" approach. It's the "do what your genetic code tells you to do" approach.

As for a cure, I believe after billions in research, they came to the conclusion that there is no cure for AIDs. We're gonna have to wait for nature to fulfill its role, or nanobots, and Ithink nanobots are comming first.

Perhaps a better debate would be: Is the AIDS virus a living organism?

I say no.

To get rid of it, we'd need more of a... oh... abrasive chemical to disinigrate it somehow because it doesn't have a lifespan. Of course, it really hard to find something that doesn't hurt humans as well. :)

If I've given anyone the impression that AIDS is a sentient being, then I've been misinterpreted. As I described in my hunter/prey example, if one side becomes dominant, the pendulum tends to swing the other way until equilibrium is reached - not by any conscious effort, but merely because balance tends to be the most successful strategy for survival.

The cause of AIDS is a virus, which scientists regard as either an extremely simple microorganism or as an extremely complex molecule. In either case, it can be surmised that it does not have consciousness, hence can not make decisions regarding what is in its best interest. However, its inate behaviors and attributes, whether by coincidence or natural selection, has programmed it with a successful strategy for survival, otherwise either:

1. It would have died out.

2. It would have killed off Humanity or some other host species, hence likely killing off itself in the process.

This is drifting a bit, but do you know crocodiles are almost immune to any viral attack? They have a special protein in their blood which kills everything. They developed it over time because, crocs bite each others limbs off quite regularly and they swim in heavily infected water.

However, try it with humans and you will suffer liver failure!

This is quite an intersting topic, GM advances may help with all sorts of illnesses...

wardz

Organism implys a multicellular organism. However, it has far too many components to be considered a molecule. If memory serves, there are 5 kingdoms of living creatures, and "virus" is not one of them. It was up for the 6th kingdom, however.

It is thought by some that viruses evolved by accident. During the reproduction of a cell, the process was somehow halted, resulting in fragment DNA. Normally, what would one strand of broken DNA do? Nothing, but what if that fragment was the code for reproduction. The code would randomly enter a cell, and the cell would do its bidding.

Therefore, I personally don't consider any virus to be a living thing, merely a byproduct of one.

For those unsure of what he's talking about, the Five Kingdoms:

Animalia (examples: mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, arthropods, etc)

Plantae (examples: moss, ferns, trees, grass, etc)

Monera (examples: bacteria, blue-green "algae," spirochetes)

Protista (protozoans, algae)

Fungi (examples: fungus, mold, mushrooms, yeast, mildew, smut)

Oh, and though Vagabond was making a rhetorical response, the simple idea expressed above was that by not having multiple sexual partners (or better yet, avoiding sexual activity altogether) is a good way to reduce your chances of infection for HIV. Of course I would add to that that avoiding IV drug use would also be a good way to help avoid infections, statistically speaking.

Obviously one could still "accidentally" be infected, or deliberately infected (ie: raped by an infected person, etc), but taking certain precautions and avoiding certain high-risk behaviors could increase your chances of not becoming infected with HIV.

Just as, for example, never driving a car, and staying in your house all the time would greatly reduce your chances of dying in a car accident (true, a car could still smash through your house and kill you, but the chances are very slim compared to having a crash while driving to work, or being hit by a car as you cross the street).

Kurgan

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

Just for clarification, according to Webster, with irrelevant definitions excluded:


Main Entry: vi·rus
Pronunciation: 'vI-r&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, venom, poisonous emanation; akin to Greek ios poison, Sanskrit visa; in senses 2 & 4, from New Latin, from Latin
Date: 1599

2 a : the causative agent of an infectious disease b : any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also : FILTERABLE VIRUS c : a disease caused by a virus

I heard of a "would be" cure that lures the AIDS virus or HIV away from the immune system using a decoy immune cell thingy.

Very well. I concede to the microorganism stance. I still don't consider viruses to be alive.

webster definition of life(//indicates comment):
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism,//no metabolism// growth//no growth// reaction to stimuli and reproduction
//2 out of 4 criterea matched//
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences //viruses have no mental being//that make up the existence of an individual b : one or more aspects of the process of living <sex life of the frog>

There is no way that the HIV virus is programed by nature so as to survive by balancing the possibility of either the virus extinction or our own.
If someone would share blood or bodily fluids with someone else that has AIDS the outcome will always be the same. In Africa there is a major epidemic like Mafia_Jabba said. If something won't be done about it, people will just die and keep on dying. Nature won't find a way for the virus and the people of Africa or other 3d world countries to coexist. If that was the case I'm sure that there wouldn't be endangered species in the world. (how about a dinosor for a pet ;) ).
I think that the outcome of this battle will be determined by us humans. It is all based on how informed an average person is about the danger of being infected and the research done in finding a cure.

Btw, in an earlier post I said it was proven that AIDS is absolutely incurable. I should also mention that they said they would be turning towards vaccines.

nothing is incurable..mabe with today's technology, but eventually...

I also said in an earlier post...nanobots. They are actually quite real(the concept currently), and nanotechnology is advancing. They've made wineglasses, guitars, and much more. I dream of a day when a nanobot, self-replicating, that heals all diseases and rids of us the effects of aging are mass produced and sold to us by none other than Bill Gates. As much as I hate it, Gates is likely to own most of the world in 20 years. It is a dark, dark future. The end is near...

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: matt-windu ]

Well, we could always try for an assassination attempt. ;)

I would agree, but then we could be arrested for conspiracy against the Emperor. Everyone already knows he controls the country, and most of the rest of the world.

Yeah, why don't we call the Illuminati to see if... oh, now I realize... the Illuminati is BEHIND Microsoft! It's a conspiracy to take over the world!! We're doomed!

:)

Um... aren't viruses by their very nature incurable? Like the common cold - you can take medication to alleviate the symptoms but it doesn't actually cure it in the strictest sense.

You'll all probably kill me for my stand point, I wish to voice it none-the-less, I figure being in Australia will increase my life span only marginally! ;)

Anyway, my point: In effect, a virus such as AIDS is assisting us. "How the hell?" I hear you all scream at your computers. Simple, preventing over-crowding. Our population is ever increasing, simly because we can adapt to all sorts of environments. So diseases such as AIDS and Cancer are preventing us from completely drowning the world in humans. Also, all the research put into cures, whilst unsuccessful in it's ultimate goal, has discovered many other things on the way. Like matt said, research into things like nanotechnology leads to other areas also.
War was also mentioned. Like diseases it has many helpful points :rolleyes: . For starters, how many millions died during just WWII? How many children would they have had by today? How much larger would the worlds population be, and how much more strained would our resources be?
Not to mention Nazi medical research. Whilst highly illeagal, it discovered so much about the human body that we didn't previously know, or only theorised about.
Like the balance that Vagabond spoke of, it happens on a world wide scale, probably even universal. But because of out adaptiveness we can avoid it, but even that, in it's own way, is leading to an ultimate balance, even if it means the destruction of earth. Possibly the Earth is a point of inbalance, so in order to re-balance the universe, the Earth must be destroyed. I'm not a pesimist, don't get me wrong, just exploring a theory.
So, possibly we'll not find a cure for AIDS untill such time as it's viable for the balance, or once again we may cheat the systems, and bring ourselves closer to seemingly inevitable doom?

I'll guess we'll wait and see... ;)

LOL, I knew an edit in a post this long was inevitable. But it was only one mistake!
:mad:

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Letalis ]

Well it's a toss-up, either you help people (and eat up scarce resources, etc), or you let them suffer and die and do nothing.

It's kind of a gray issue, but I think I fall on the "help people" side of the argument.

Some people say that stuff like war, disease, etc are inevitable. I feel that there may be just enough of that stuff that happens "naturally" that we don't need to encourage it any, if you get my drift.

And whilst we talk about population control, I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of MIS-management and MIS-allocation of resources in the world that would solve a lot of our problems if we could get past them (for example people starving in my own country, supposedly the richest nation on earth).

Kurgan

[ July 01, 2001: Message edited by: Kurgan ]

Letalis does have a point. But the problem is the Asia continent where unfortnately they would rather not take precautions and subsequently they are having children at a very fast rate. MUCH higher than the number dying.

Europe has a decreasing population and Africa has an epidemic with aids.

wardz

Sorry Krugan, I didn't mean to sound as if I was encouraging those things, I'm really not. My point was, like you said, they're inevitable, but are keeping the population down. But slowly we're managing to avoid or shorten them, which is causing imbalance, know what i mean?

But the problem is not so big in the US or China and other countries with enormous population. In Africa though it is more like a plague. People there are dying by great numbers. AIDS is a problem that cannot be seen as a solution by any way you decide to look at it.

The UN estimates that the AIDS/HIV positive rate in Botswana is currently about 39%. If unchecked, this could literally mean the extinction of that country in only a few decades. Mafia_Jabba's assessment about either kill AIDS or be killed by it may be true for that country.

I just hope that this thing doesn't mutate (which it can do) and become air born. We would all be wiped out.

wardz

Anyone have any info on why some people of a certain race are practially immune? (This is true, right?)

I hope you were joking bsb.

No... I hope you're joking Torment. Ever watch one news program in your life or read one magazine? Something about this has been said. Certain people in Africa are somewhat immune, and as of now I'm too lazy to look it up. Be prepared for some truth. :)

Originally posted by Aragorn:
<STRONG>AIDS is a problem that cannot be seen as a solution by any way you decide to look at it.</STRONG>

Cannot be seen as a solution, that's true, but it's more of an unwanted solution. The fact is it's happening, many people are dying and it's causing great pain and anguish. :(

But in a twisted way it's doing us a favour. It's doing what we're incapable of, and that is looking after us on a grand scale, looking far into the future. We're incapable of comprehending that. As far as we're concerned, the world no longer matters when we're dead. So we're not afraid to abuse rescources, or to over-populate. AIDS is temporarily preventing us from destroying ourselves.

believing everying you read is a bad idea. If you get AIDS you will die from it, simple as that.

So are we all going to immigrate to Botswana when it's avaliable?

Originally posted by -WD- ToRMeNt:
<STRONG>believing everying you read is a bad idea. If you get AIDS you will die from it, simple as that.</STRONG>

Both of your statements are suprisingly true.

But, I'm gonna be more trusting to big news corps then you. I'll probably look it up later tonight.

Yes, if you do get AIDS, you will die from it. However, if you're immune the virus never gets the chance to cause full-blown AIDS.

Making an AIDS vacine is exceding difficult do to the many variations of the virus. A vacine which gives one high resistance (I hate to say immunity) to the more common strains has been in devolopment for some time. Im not sure on where this project stands, but Id guess it's still a ways off.

I also recall hearing something regarding new and more deadly strains being found in Africa.

It's possible that someday AIDS can be classified as a chronic rather than fatal disease, but only (expensive) drugs.

It's true that in certain areas of the world, the entire human population is in danger of being wiped out by he virus within this century.

Even worse, it could well mutate (or more strains could be be discovered). AIDS (or some form of it) will be with us for some time to come.

on that positive note, im going to bed

wardz

Goddamnit, you people are such pesimists!

Whilst yes, there is a chance large portions of the population may be wiped out, there's also a chance that there'll be a major break through in cure research and within the century, most of the world's population is cured. :D
Either is a possibility!

Well this will just have to work for now: :) http://www.google.com/search?q=AIDS+immunity)

And lots of diseases can mutate.

Those are some ugly prostetutes lol. No wonder why they don't have AIDS LMAO. Hehe j/k. On the serious side now...

Sounds interesting, though im still a bit skeptical. Whether this is true or now, science is still years away from being able to use genetics to treat illness, especialy on such a large scale.

Haha yeah... I'm not sure the monkeys would even resort to them!

Doesn't that just sound like a pervert's dream though? Think about it "Prostitutes that are immune to AIDS!" (ie: now you can go visit the whorehouse since you'll be safe! 'course they could still be carriers).

Anyway, that's a sad and sordid subject...

; p

Kurgan