AIDS: Epidemic for Evolution?

[Duddits]

This is a little essay I wrote a few years ago, and was wondering what you guys think. Try not to scalp me on grammar; it's not my strong suit.

AIDS: Epidemic for Evolution?

I recently have being doing some thinking about the HIV virus and AIDS. I got to wonder a few things. My mind wondered from asking 'How', 'What', 'When', and 'Where'. That was answered by doing simple reasearch. I was satisfied for the moment. But then I asked myself "Why would the HIV virus mutate in the first place and become a worldwide killer?". This is my theory.

In each species worldwide in the natural habitats exist a number of poulational checks and balances. There are predators for every prey. Diseases and famine control overgrown populations. Even natural biological checks keep a spieces from reproducing to rapidly. This controled everything pretty well. But then a new species threw a wrench in the system.

A new species emerged from an ancestry linked with apes. From the primate group, the species was second to none. This speices had need limitless abilities to adapt and manipulate the enviroment around them, reaching the bottoms of the oceans and above even the sky. To top this, the species has found ways to work around those critical checks and balances. Producing synthetic crops and developing advanced medicines. Yes, they are us. They are the human.

We are multipling with what seems like no bounds. With every disease, we find, or are trying, a cure. We gentically engeneer crops to produces their maximum yeilds. All the while we are whittling away at this big piece of rocks' resources. Accourding to the world reknown scientist Stephen Hawkings, if we keep reproducing at this rate, in 1,000 years, every human being will have only one square foot of land to live one, including if the oceans were emptied. He also said that by that time Earth would be a burning rock with all resources depleted. I think nature has other plans for us.

To my orininal question, why did the HIV virus mutate? I think that it is the perfect disease from killing off large number of people. Lets think about the HIV virus for a moment.

Once a person is infected, there is no cure for them (currently). The virus will slowly kill the immune system over a period of several years, leaving your body vulnrable to attack. During this time, you are still infected and can spread the virus to other people.

How is it spread though? One way is by a blood transaction between an infected and one not. This isn't the only way, nor is it the most popular way for spreading. It is also spread by certain types of intercourse.

The latter reason for spreading combined with the time it takes to kill you off makes this one of the deadliest diseases ever-- an ingernous method for speices control. Nautre has created something able to kill us by manipulating one of our most primal instincs. The need to reproduce.

Say one person is infected with HIV. Now every person he or she has intercourse with will be infected. Every person after will have HIV

[ScottieIWU]

I'm not gonna lie, I didn't read all of it. But there are a few reasons:

1) You say a lot of "I think." Well, I understand this is your opinion but in a way, I don't want to be told what you think in your post and/or essay because generally I can assume safely that you believe in what you're writing

2) On that note, since it seems like a deeper issue that you could find scholarly advice about, I'd kind of like to see evidentiary support

3) As far as I know, nobody has ever really gotten HIV and fought it off and not died as a result. If I'm wrong, sorry. If I'm right, can you really call that evolution.

[Duddits]

3) As far as I know, nobody has ever really gotten HIV and fought it off and not died as a result. If I'm wrong, sorry. If I'm right, can you really call that evolution.

The whole evoultion part of it was about how our planet is overpopulating and how AIDSis killing in order to save it.

And I won't lie to you either and pretend I'm the best writer, because I'm not.

[Kingscrab]

The whole evoultion part of it was about how our planet is overpopulating and how AIDSis killing in order to save it. There are plenty of other diseases that have killed off WAY more people than AIDS. Is it the "perfect disease from killing off large number of people."? Debatable. Sure, it is a long term lingering disease, but it is treatable to a certain degree... Thus we could live with it. Personally, I'm more worried about diseases whose spread is harder to control, and can strike at any time regardless of how much you protect against them. Airborne diseases are far more likely to get ya then something like AIDS i reckon.

[Duddits]

There are plenty of other diseases that have killed off WAY more people than AIDS. Is it the "perfect disease from killing off large number of people."? Debatable. Sure, it is a long term lingering disease, but it is treatable to a certain degree... Thus we could live with it. Personally, I'm more worried about diseases whose spread is harder to control, and can strike at any time regardless of how much you protect against them. Airborne diseases are far more likely to get ya then something like AIDS i reckon.

You're missing the point. The point of AIDS is not to kill off the human species, but to control our spread. There are diseases that can kill far quicker and spread far faster, sure, but that's just what they are.

and can strike at any time regardless of how much you protect against them.

CAN strike, not has. AIDS HAS struck, is striking. More than that, AIDS is a creation from nature, not man, and has already became a pandemic.

[Kingscrab]

You're missing the point. The point of AIDS is not to kill off the human species, but to control our spread. There are diseases that can kill far quicker and spread far faster, sure, but that's just what they are. CAN strike, not has. AIDS HAS struck, is striking. More than that, AIDS is a creation from nature, not man, and has already became a pandemic. No disease will control our spread. Sure, it will kill lots of people and then we will find a way to deal with it. We already are... slowly but surely. Cancer is a slow lingering deadly disease (condition?) and it hasn't controlled our spread. I'm no expert but I imagine it has been around for much longer than AIDS. How many people has THAT killed and is still killing? *shrugs*

[GenocideAlive]

OK, let's keep this short and sweet:

1. AIDS isn't a very effective disease.
2. AIDS isn't killing humans at any appreciable rate.
3. Nothing about AIDS either relates it to evolution nor makes it particularly evolved.
4. Mutation of disease isn't uncommon or a remarkable trait of AIDS.

Your essay explores a very cliched point and relies on a lot of very broad generalizations, which tend to make it very ineffective, and somewhat trite.

Good luck with your next endeavor.

[Duddits]

OK, let's keep this short and sweet:

1. AIDS isn't a very effective disease.
2. AIDS isn't killing humans at any appreciable rate.
3. Nothing about AIDS either relates it to evolution nor makes it particularly evolved.
4. Mutation of disease isn't uncommon or a remarkable trait of AIDS.

Your essay explores a very cliched point and relies on a lot of very broad generalizations, which tend to make it very ineffective, and somewhat trite.

Good luck with your next endeavor.

1. AIDS isn't a very effective disease.

How so? I'd consider any disease that, up to now, kills you with an absolute certainty to be effective.

2. AIDS isn't killing humans at any appreciable rate.

"Worldwide, 5 people currently die of AIDS every minute of every day. In 2002, there were 5 million new HIV infections, raising the number of people living with HIV/AIDS to 42 million. Around the world, 3.1 million AIDS deaths occurred in 2002. In the US, over 800,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS, and in 2002 there were 42,136 new cases of AIDS. Over 450,000 Americans have died of the disease. "

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsworldwide/aidsworldwide.html (http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/aidsworldwide/aidsworldwide.html)


3. Nothing about AIDS either relates it to evolution nor makes it particularly evolved.

I argue survival of the fittest. We adapt or we die. AIDS is spread by sex, blood and birth. Take sex and birth and you have the disease being spread by our method of progeneration. To survive, we will have to asapt to the disease and control our breeding habits.

4. Mutation of disease isn't uncommon or a remarkable trait of AIDS.

I'm not arguing it isn't.

[Kingscrab]

"Worldwide, 5 people currently die of AIDS every minute of every day. I argue survival of the fittest. We adapt or we die. AIDS is spread by sex, blood and birth. Take sex and birth and you have the disease being spread by our method of progeneration. To survive, we will have to adapt to the disease and control our breeding habits. Survival of the fittest? Okay. We can argue that for ANY disease. Why does AIDS stand out? In case you hadn't noticed, you can get AIDS without it having anything at all to do with your "breeding habits".

"Malaria kills an African child every 30 seconds, and remains one of the most important threats to the health of pregnant women and their newborns,”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr33/en/

I don't think evolution has much to do with it. It boils down to survival of the luckiest. If you're lucky enough not to live in an impoverished third world nation, then most nasty diseases are only a statistic on a web page to you.

[Duddits]

Survival of the fittest? Okay. We can argue that for ANY disease. Why does AIDS stand out? In case you hadn't noticed, you can get AIDS without it having anything at all to do with your "breeding habits".

"Malaria kills an African child every 30 seconds, and remains one of the most important threats to the health of pregnant women and their newborns,”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr33/en/

I don't think evolution has much to do with it. It boils down to survival of the luckiest. If you're lucky enough not to live in an impoverished third world nation, then most nasty diseases are only a statistic on a web page to you.

Survival of the fittest? Okay. We can argue that for ANY disease. Why does AIDS stand out? In case you hadn't noticed, you can get AIDS without it having anything at all to do with your "breeding habits".

AIDS stands out because A: there is no cure. While there are also other fatal disease's without any treatment, B: AIDS is, by far, the most widespread. 42 million in 2002, (4 years ago... just a BTW)

"Malaria kills an African child every 30 seconds, and remains one of the most important threats to the health of pregnant women and their newborns,”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr33/en/

Malaria is treatable, and, if you want to nit pick, AIDS kills 1 person every 12 seconds.

I don't think evolution has much to do with it. It boils down to survival of the luckiest. If you're lucky enough not to live in an impoverished third world nation, then most nasty diseases are only a statistic on a web page to you.

950,000 in the USA were infected at the end of 2003 (just so you note the difference from my previous statistic) http://www.avert.org/aids-usa.htm
2 million in Europe at the end of 2004 http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm
840,000 in China (and then take into regard that all 1.3 billion of China's population wasn't handed an AIDS packet and tested for it) http://www.avert.org/aidschina.htm

You're right. Lucky us not living in these third world countries. AIDS, of course, is just a statistic on a webpage for me.

[Tissue]

To be honest duddits I don't think you have grasped what evolution actually means.

AIDS has nothing to do with evolution.

Resistance to diseases and viruses do, but still your original post doesn't really link with evolution at all.

You seem to have mixed up evolution with population control factors (limited resources, diseases).

I see in no way what so ever does AIDS has to do as regards to prevention of human evolution.

Lack of resources is by far more likely to curb human population at the moment than any disease no matter how quickly it is spreading. Diseases have a tendency to either wipe out a population or find out that its host has become resistant to it.

[Kingscrab]

AIDS stands out because A: there is no cure. While there are also other fatal disease's without any treatment....

Malaria is treatable, and, if you want to nit pick, AIDS kills 1 person every 12 seconds.
Most diseases are treatable or at least containable if you have access to the treatment. AIDS included. I just want to point out that the statistic i quoted was for Africa alone and not a global stat.

I still don't see what AIDS has to do with evolution.

Lack of resources is by far more likely to curb human population at the moment than any disease no matter how quickly it is spreading. I agree. Humanity is usually its own worst enemy when it comes to culling the herd.

[Duddits]

I see in no way what so ever does AIDS has to do as regards to prevention of human evolution.

My view was not that AIDS prevents evolution, but that AIDS is furthering it by forcing the human race to control our methods of procreation.

Most diseases are treatable or at least containable if you have access to the treatment. AIDS included.

This does not change the fact that AIDS is fatal. The fact that treatment for an AIDS victem will prolong their life only increases the potency that the AIDS virus can have in terms that it will be more resistant to drug and than the host of the virus could infect more people.

I just want to point out that the statistic i quoted was for Africa alone and not a global stat.

You're right. 1 African dies of AIDS every 15 seconds (4 every minute, 6000 every hour)
http://www.yatesweb.com/Africa/Africa.htm

I still don't see what AIDS has to do with evolution.



"Factors Limiting the Rate of Spread of HIV/AIDS
What limits the rate at which HIV spreads through a population? Although at least 50 million persons are infected with HIV, the human population (more than 6 billion persons) consists almost entirely of susceptible persons, and the global rate of increase in new HIV infections does not appear to have abated. However, unlike the case with influenza and measles, considerable geographic and cultural variation exists in the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. In effect, the HIV pandemic has been largely restricted to subpopulations—risk groups within which the likelihood of infection is substantially greater than that in the population at large, e.g., gay men, injection drug users, and sex workers, their patrons, and their spouses (or other sex partners). "

"Host Evolution
As long as an infectious disease causes some persons to die before or during reproductive years or to otherwise reduce the number of children they produce, natural selection will favor persons who are less susceptible to the infection and its deleterious effects. In the case of HIV, some evidence exists for inherited variation in the likelihood of HIV infection and in the rate of progression to AIDS among HIV-infected persons (8,9 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levin.htm#1)). On the other hand, even under optimal conditions for rapid evolution—disease resistance is complete and determined by the genotype at a single locus—if the resistance gene is initially rare, it will take millennia before a substantial fraction of the population is of the resistant genotype. "
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levin.htm

What do these tell you? They tell you that human will not evolve to become resistant to the disease in our life time, or the lifetime of a progeny for the next thousand years.

So what does AIDS have to do with evolution? Evolution not so much genetically as evolution of our culture. With infection at the greatest in developed countries in "gay men, injection drug users, and sex workers, their patrons, and their spouses (or other sex partners).", it will force us to change the habit of how we live. In the survival of the fittest, the fittest are the smartest about their lifestyle. This is not saying AIDS is limited to gays, druggies and sluts, as we all know that is not true, but their risky behaivor is considered by myself a plague on human culture. They evolve or AIDS will kill them.

[Kingscrab]

My view was not that AIDS prevents evolution, but that AIDS is furthering it by forcing the human race to control our methods of procreation. There are many diseases that change the way we live. Aren't we forced to control our living habitat, eating habits, etc. with other diseases also? I just don't see why AIDS is such a special case.


So what does AIDS have to do with evolution? Evolution not so much genetically as evolution of our culture. With infection at the greatest in developed countries in "gay men, injection drug users, and sex workers, their patrons, and their spouses (or other sex partners).", it will force us to change the habit of how we live. In the survival of the fittest, the fittest are the smartest about their lifestyle. This is not saying AIDS is limited to gays, druggies and sluts, as we all know that is not true, but their risky behaivor is considered by myself a plague on human culture. They evolve or AIDS will kill them. I find bigotry to be a plague on human culture in it's own right. Bigotry and racism has probably killed more people than AIDS. (i'm suprised to see you didn't follow up your post with some sort of fire and brimstone biblical quote)

[Duddits]

There are many diseases that change the way we live. Aren't we forced to control our living habitat, eating habits, etc. with other diseases also? I just don't see why AIDS is such a special case.[/font][/color]

AIDS is more like THE special case. It is the Bubonic plague of the 21st century. What makes AIDS special is that it is 100% fatality rate and that it has spread to an enormous portion of our population and is only increasing.

[quote]I find bigotry to be a plague on human culture in it's own right. Bigotry and racism has probably killed more people than AIDS. (i'm suprised to see you didn't follow up your post with some sort of fire and brimstone biblical quote)

To clarify this, I find nothing wrong with gays in the slightest. That came out very wrong and not how I intended it to sound. It is only the lifestyle (not limited to gays) of changing sex partners like trading cards which I find horrific.

[Kingscrab]

AIDS is more like THE special case. It is the Bubonic plague of the 21st century. If that's the case, isn't it treatable? The plague was bad but not the worst we've seen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague) To clarify this, I find nothing wrong with gays in the slightest. That came out very wrong and not how I intended it to sound. It is only the lifestyle (not limited to gays) of changing sex partners like trading cards which I find horrific. Of course you don't. That must have just been your subconscious talkin'... ;)

[Duddits]

If that's the case, isn't it treatable? The plague was bad but not the worst we've seen. http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Bubonic_plague

You took that out of context, whether on purpose or not, I don't know. AIDS is not the Bubonic plague. AIDS can not be cured. I referred to it because no other modern day disease (and if I'm wrong about that, no mordern day untreatable) has killed as many people in as short of time as AIDS has.

[hammocksleeper]

The most interesting point raised by Duddits is that because it is spread by reproductive intercourse, procreative efforts to counter the population reduction caused by deaths due to AIDS are thwarted a certain amount by more deaths caused by the spread of HIV in the process.

It's important to note though that it is very possible to have unprotected sex with an HIV-infected partner and not contract the virus.

[Kingscrab]

The most interesting point raised by Duddits is that because it is spread by reproductive intercourse, procreative efforts to counter the population reduction caused by deaths due to AIDS are thwarted a certain amount by more deaths caused by the spread of HIV in the process. Interesting? Meh. Not really. If anything, that point would only illustrate that as a disease, it would in fact be less effective, if you can only pass it on via sexual contact. Sure, AIDS lingers on, but at least it can be treated to a certain degree. Again, i'd consider an airborne disease to be far deadlier as anyone could get much easier. Good morals won't save you if an infected person happens to be breathing in your general direction.

It's important to note though that it is very possible to have unprotected sex with an HIV-infected partner and not contract the virus. I don't think this supports the case that AIDS has the potential to be "deadlier" if you can engage in high risk activity and still not contract it.

[hammocksleeper]

I'm not talking about how deadly it is compared to other diseases or how effective it is. Who the hell cares? Anyone can imagine a virus that is incurable, is contagious by air, land, sea, touch, thought, whatever, and that kills you within ten minutes. HIV is unique in that it is transmitted via sexual intercourse. What I think is cool is the irony found in that the solution to lots of people dying is to make more people. But in this case, making more people is the primary method of spreading the virus, which in turn causes more people to die.

To tie it into Duddit's argument, in this way, AIDS is a constraining factor in the rate of growth of the human population, any way you look at it.

[Kingscrab]

I'm not talking about how deadly it is compared to other diseases or how effective it is. Who the hell cares? He was arguing that it was like the common version of the "black plague" so i'd argue that it's effectiveness in killing people seems quite relevant.
HIV is unique in that it is transmitted via sexual intercourse. Again, not really. There's a huge list of sexually transmitted diseases so i just don't see how it's more unique in that regard. What I think is cool is the irony found in that the solution to lots of people dying is to make more people. But in this case, making more people is the primary method of spreading the virus, which in turn causes more people to die. I understand the irony of a lethal STD, but personally, i just don't find that angle to be very tasteful. It leads to moral judgement of the victim. To tie it into Duddit's argument, in this way, AIDS is a constraining factor in the rate of growth of the human population, any way you look at it. Of course it is. If it kills people it's a factor. That is simply stating the obvious. That wouldn't make for much of a debate if that was his point however, so I'm not sure that was his original argument...

[GenocideAlive]

Honestly, Kingscrab apparently doesn't need any help. He's handling the hell out of you guys. This essay is unoriginal and unpointed. Most of the "observations" contained herein are glaringingly obvious.

[IrishDutchman]

You are wondering why suddenly HIV mutated into a mass killer?
Well, if you ask me I don't think there was anyone up there thinking: 'Hmm...these pesky humans are getting out of hand, time to get an epidemic started."
HIV isn't some weapon of Mother Earth, it's just a disease like all others, malaria etc.
You can question why malaria is a mass killing disease, you can question every single sickness what it's motives are, but it all boils down to survival of the fittest Every single living thing wants to come out on top, and so does an HIV virus.

[GenocideAlive]

You took that out of context, whether on purpose or not, I don't know. AIDS is not the Bubonic plague. AIDS can not be cured. I referred to it because no other modern day disease (and if I'm wrong about that, no mordern day untreatable) has killed as many people in as short of time as AIDS has.
Just to weigh in, here, the Bubonic Plague nearly wiped out life as we know it. It slaughtered roughly 66% of the European population that fleshed out civilization today.

Comparing the Bubonic Plague (Yersinia pestis) to HIV (the name of the virus) is pretty much comparing knives to the a-bomb. The a-bomb has seen some activity spikes that are significant, but in terms of life as we know it, knives have claimed quadrillions more lives. The same could be said for smallpox (Variola major), which has devestated millions upon millions throughout history.

AIDS is a significant disease, but it's more hype than content.

[Giantfish]

Um, the human race has already begun evolving to cope with HIV. It's very rare, but there are some people that have an immunity to HIV.