Jump to content

AIDS for everyone!!


Scootie
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is an idea some friends and I have kicked around a bit. I realalize this is not rational, but I'm wondering if there could be any validity to it.

 

We say: If you could give every one on the planet AIDS (or any disease for that matter) and we continued to reproduce, passing on the disease. Wouldent we as a spices develope some kind of an immunity to it?

 

^---- the result of college students

 

what do you guys think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept is valid to mostiquoes, bugs, and such. As those farmers put all those different chemicals on the field to remove the bugs from eating their crops, and those flies can become immunity to the chemicals. Thus, forcing the farmers to make a new different chemicals. Know why the flies became immunity? Because they reproduce at an incredible rate. They born babies everyday, and a small percent of those babies would surivive and continue the cycle.

 

The problem with humans: We don't reproduce that fast enough. It'll get a millions of years to became immunity to AIDS. It's unlikely it will even happen.

 

That's my answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already people who have developed immunity to HIV (via the same delta-9 mutation that gave immunity to the black death), and there are allready strains of HIV that have developed a way to get around the delta-9 mutation (ie, people who are immune to most HIV can still catch certain strains of HIV).

 

hmm... maybe we'd endosymbiosicate HIV? i.e., we'd both evolve so that HIV actually became a beneficial part of humans, maybe swapping immune-genes between people whenever they have sex (like bacterial plasmids).

 

probably not tho... but tbh, in a race HIV would 'out-evolve' us easily, so i dont think that developing a resistance will ever rid humans of HIV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they reproduce at an incredible rate. They born babies everyday, and a small percent of those babies would surivive and continue the cycle.

 

I hadn't thaught of that ... is that the same reason we have to keep updating out antibiotics? to keep up with the bacterias' immunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if we tried this, wouldn't the vast majority die before developing immunities? Some may have very rare mutations which allow them to survive or develope them quickly but most would be wiped out. It would be counterproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember: HIV is not really such a 'deadly' virus. Sure, people succumb in the long term, but there is a long latency period. So you can easily reproduce in between the time when you're infected and the time you die. Moreover, it's not that easily transmissable - only sexual and placental contact (in the normal state of affairs) spread it. So it would take a very long time for humans and HIV to coevolve to a less aggressive relationship.

 

If you want an example of a virus that has coevolved with people, smallpox would be it. Smallpox had a very high mortality rate when it first made its appearance about a millennium ago. But people and the virus coevolved such that it was really not much more than a nuisance (in the evolutionary scheme of things) by the time we eradicated it.

 

The modern position of humanity is unique, however. It's not the lifespan of a human that is going to make it difficult for humans to evolve immunity to viruses; it's the constant contact of a worldwide population. Essentially, we are all one isolated population now. Any especially virulent disease will spread very quickly throughout the whole of the human population. Not everybody will die, but it will wreak havoc on what we consider to be our civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it could work a lot like antibacterial soap - only those who are resistant enough to survive reproduce, and thus the whole population becomes resistant. If there is a genetic immunity to HIV, then if you gave everyone in the world the virus, then within 2 generations the entire human race would be immune. Of course, there is the minor drawback of having to kill 99.99% of the world's population...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how long has man been suceptible to the Common cold? and yet we Still can`t shake it off, Nor has it become of any benefit, sybiotic or otherwise.

it has the hallmarks of a Very bad idea so far :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

in answer to the original question, since most people with HIV/Aids are gay men (in this country) then this group will have had more time to develop immunity to HIV. So they'll be the survivors. But as they are gay they won't be willing to reproduce. So the species will die off anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can give yourself ais if you really want to but i'd rather not be a part of it. i like my immune system right where it is, in existence. i don't think people would willingly infect themselves with anything. and if it was forced, people would resist. bad bad bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The immunity to AIDS is called education. It is fairly clear how its spreads and how to avoid it. The alternative to giving everyone AIDS to develop real immunity is to quarantene those who have AIDS. In other words, if there was an outbreak of out of space flu, the govenment would isolate those infected to prevent the spread, while working around the clock for an antedote. It would be an easier way to collect data and attack the problem since the entire effort would work side-by-side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artifical selection. I suppose a few humans would live after that type of scenario; however, the population of humans immune may become so distant in the planet that reproducing would become difficult.

 

The rest of the human race would die off while those immune remain; Darwinism would be playing a large hand.

 

Some women prostitutes in Africa already hold immunity; Africa's population is whole different story of its own. I really don't like the eugenics done in Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is more reasonable to assume that there was no new development of the described immunities, but that they already existed (e.g. due to mutations) and only now they are selected for.

It is likely that the given immunity trait was already in the gene pool but only in presence of the disease do we see a phenotype. In other words, introducing a disease will not lead to a new development of resistance, but will only select agaisnt those, who did not already have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.