Are Cures The Cause?

[BPHgravity]

It seems to me that when a virus or illness is eradicated from Earth, another much worse one follows. For example, measels, plague, polio, small pox; all these horrible diseases have been removed by large from human civilization, yet cancer, HIV, and others have followed.

 

My question is; is it possible that nature and evolution has automatic population control? Meaning, AIDS has a purpose. It is meant to limit the over-population of the Earth. With the finding of a cure, what will nature retaliate with? This also extends to the possible origins of homosexuality. Is it possible that nature and evolution is forcing population control by changing our sexual tendencies and thus reducing births?

 

Mathematically speaking, the larger the homosexual population, the lower the birth rate. Makes sense to me. Has nature and evolution figured out that if viruses and disease doesn't slow our growth, changing human sexuality will?

[Sayonara]

Cancer hasn't suddenly "popped up". There is a greater chance of it occurring in an individual now due to longer lifespans and the increased range of carcinogenic factors, but it has always been with us.

 

There's not actually any 100% compelling evidence that AIDS is new either. It was recognised as being caused by a virus in the 1980s but could have been active long before then, with victims' deaths being notched up to their "non-responsiveness" to the treatment of whatever opportunistic disease killed them.

 

The other diseases you mention have not appeared and disappeared in series. The reason many of them "peaked" at different times historically is because their optimum habitats are different. Conditions that favour a massive outbreak of small pox, for instance, might not be favourable for cholera. Microbes that cause extreme damage to us are usually well-adapted to a specific habitat, and can be expected to be competitor-intolerant within that habitat.

[YT2095]

excesive hygeine and the over use of antibiotics have contributed towards new "Super Bugs" and some alergies though, I don`t know if those count?

[Sayonara]

That's just selection at work.

 

I think BPH is implying some kind of 'situation control', whereby nature throws a new disease at us when we conquer the last one, in order to knock us back a bit.

[YT2095]

like MRSA? that`s particularly nasty

[Glider]

MRSA is not really any more virulent or nasty than normal staph. aurius (SA), which is a natural part of our bodily flora and fauna (swab under your watch, or your wedding ring, you'll find it there).

 

During infection control checks in hospitals, nose and throat swabs are taken from people working on the wards. Sometimes they'll come up positive for MRSA, but the person won't even have known it (they're just required to stay away from patients until they're clear).

 

SA is only a problem if a) it gets into a wound, and b) your immune competence is compromised (e.g. you're very old, very, very young, or very ill), and the only reason MRSA is a problem, is that it's resistant (to methycillin in particular) and thus very hard to treat and so is becoming more prevalent.

 

MRSA is actually a very good argument for open plan hospitals. It's a weak bug that cannot survive for long away from its preferred environment. It also blows off clothes in the wind. If you have an open plan hospital, like some of the older more rural hospitals where staff have to walk outside to get from ward to ward, they're pretty much clear of MRSA by the time they arrive. As long as they wash their hands and kit too, transference is reduced to a minimum.

 

One of the problems is that large 'super hospitals' concentrate people all in the same enclosed space, so if you get MRSA on one ward, the fact that it's an enclosed space means the airborne concentration of MRSA is higher, and the sheer number of people wandering around means the probability of transference to other wards is extremely high.

[Radical Edward]

It seems to me that when a virus or illness is eradicated from Earth' date=' another much worse one follows. For example, measels, plague, polio, small pox; all these horrible diseases have been removed by large from human civilization, yet cancer, HIV, and others have followed.

[/quote']

as has been pointed out, cancer has been around for a long time. diseases like HIV have done well largely because of international travel allowing humans to spread them. It is difficult to say that a "much worse one follows" particularly given the black death, which killed something like 1/3 of Europe. what is worse than that?

My question is; is it possible that nature and evolution has automatic population control? Meaning, AIDS has a purpose. It is meant to limit the over-population of the Earth. With the finding of a cure, what will nature retaliate with? This also extends to the possible origins of homosexuality. Is it possible that nature and evolution is forcing population control by changing our sexual tendencies and thus reducing births?

not really. There are issues with "monoculture" in that if there is a high population density of some species with some weakness that can be exploited, as soon as something evolves to exploit that resource, then it is a field day for that organism. AIDS does not have a purpose, it has merely found a niche in which it can replicate the best.

Mathematically speaking, the larger the homosexual population, the lower the birth rate. Makes sense to me. Has nature and evolution figured out that if viruses and disease doesn't slow our growth, changing human sexuality will?

be careful not to apply forethought to evolution, since evolution does not have forethought. If a mutation in an organism means that it can exploit something, it will exploit it, and that is basically all.

[admiral_ju00]

as has been pointed out' date=' cancer has been around for a long time. diseases like HIV have done well largely because of international travel allowing humans to spread them. It is difficult to say that a "much worse one follows" particularly given the black death, which killed something like 1/3 of Europe. what is worse than that?

.[/quote']

 

uhm, the bubonic plague is not dead. while it is no longer a major killer, it is still out there

[atinymonkey]

uhm, the bubonic plague is not dead. while it is no longer a major killer, it is still out there

 

That's not the point.

 

For example, measels, plague, polio, small pox; all these horrible diseases have been removed by large from human civilization, yet cancer, HIV, and others have followed.

 

The discusion is about the replacement of one threat with another.

[admiral_ju00]

i know. i also think it should be made clear that some things are a bit hard to simply be 'eradicated' ,forgotten and moved on.

 

stop jumping to conclusions and looking for very meager points to rub in

[atinymonkey]

i know. i also think it should be made clear that some things are a bit hard to simply be 'eradicated' ,forgotten and moved on.

 

Well say that then, don't be obtuse. It looks like spam.

 

 

stop jumping to conclusions and looking for very meager points to rub in

 

Stop making meager posts for people to point out

[YT2095]

oh well, I just figured MRSA was a good example of cures being the cause of a bigger prob and why they call it a "Super bug". My goof

[Glider]

As far as that goes, you're absolutely right. MRSA is a perfect example of a major problem caused by (abuse of) a cure.