• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Was Africa saved by AIDS?

I agree with Luciana that the OP's reasoning is too simplistic but I don't see why morality should be involved here. As rational people we should be able to seperate the discussion of what is and what should be.

I could be misinterperting something here, though.
 
Luciana Nery said:
I agree, you should never have started this topic, as its premise is worthy of Iamme. And that's not a compliment.
Click to expand...

Hey, so the poster had a bad argument. Some folks decided to address it, some decided to immediately attack.

What's up with that? Seems to me that if someone joins the forums and starts a dicussion with a bad premise, that is an opportunity for education; Too often around here, people immediately go on the attack... I know this is the internet and we're all safely anonymous, but is some civility too much to ask? Or patience? Or tolerance?
 
El_Spectre said:
Hey, so the poster had a bad argument. Some folks decided to address it, some decided to immediately attack.

What's up with that? Seems to me that if someone joins the forums and starts a dicussion with a bad premise, that is an opportunity for education; Too often around here, people immediately go on the attack... I know this is the internet and we're all safely anonymous, but is some civility too much to ask? Or patience? Or tolerance?
Click to expand...

Are you directing this question at me, or is it a more general argument?

Because I do not think I was in attack mode, uncivil, impatient and intolerant. He acknowledged he started a bad thread and I agreed with that. Then I went on to explain my point of view, something I would not have done if I found there was no merit at all to the question. Others did the same, that is, answered accordingly.

The guy was asking for opinions and we gave it. Simple.
 
"In what way do you think history would be different, If Abraham Lincoln, instead of a beard, had octopus tentacles"? Norm, on "Cheers"
 
SteveGrenard said:
My answer would be, if anything, is that AIDS has saved Africa and Africans so they don't die of other diseases, starvation not being one of them although the point about famine due to an exploding population is difficult to assess since other diseases may move in to do this. By the same token if people in the developed world don't die of heart and CV disease, even at a later age, and people live much longer, who's to say their continued existence wouldn't precipitate a famine crisis as well?
Click to expand...
You're neglecting to consider the economic impact of a disease which kills you very slowly. In addition to the deaths, AIDS has a profound effect on the families of those people who are not yet dead.
 
Is there evidence that the AIDS epidemic has acted as a significant depressor on the overall rate of population increase?
 
I second Darat's question. It more or less goes in line with what I was wondering; what makes you think the lower standards of living in Africa (including famine) are due to large populations? Politics play the large role in food distribution and aid relief, which is not exactly largely dependent on population sizes. I venture that regardless of how big the population is, the issues Africa faces would not be any different in magnitude.

Athon
 
It's also quite feasible that large parts of Africa could become (more than) self-sufficient in terms of food. Zimbabwe, for example, used to be an exporter of grain; it's only political mismanagement on a stunning scale that means it now suffers grain shortages and depends on imports. If anything, the fact that AIDS is (slowly) killing lots of young people could make it harder to increase food production - makes it harder to find a workforce to grow the food and therefore makes self-sufficiency harder to achieve.

I don't think you can entirely separate what is and what should be here. For example, many people on the continent are poor/affected by food shortages in part because of issues of resource distribution and entitlement. This already brings in normative issues - starvation is not caused by absolute shortage, but by ethical and political decisions. A real blessing would be if better decisions could be (or have been) made.

Edited for grammar
 
Last edited:
My logic is completely flawed, I now realize.

Any chance this thread can be locked? I've shoved my leg down my throat far enough for my first day here, now.
 
Darat said:
Is there evidence that the AIDS epidemic has acted as a significant depressor on the overall rate of population increase?
Click to expand...
I just finished reading AIDS in the Twenty-First Century and it noted that population growth in Botswana and South Africa is expected to be -0.3% and -0.1%, although I've read WHO reports that expect Botswana's population to decrease by about 2% next year (or was that in 2005, I can't recall).

The book highlighted that HIV/AIDS has a profound socioeconomic impact on countries with high prevalence rates. The disease is primarily killing people in their prime and the book looked at how it affects the extended family, communities and the countries as a whole in terms of earnings and quality of life.

People interested in the topic should read that book. It provides compelling evidence that AIDS is making things far worse in Africa than it would have been had AIDS not been around.
 
Di Malebranche said:
My logic is completely flawed, I now realize.

Any chance this thread can be locked? I've shoved my leg down my throat far enough for my first day here, now.
Click to expand...
Di, I don't think you should feel so bad. Objectively, the question wasn't wholly unreasonable. After all, we're used to blaming a lot of problems on overpopulation, so could something that gets rid of a sizeable chunk of the population actually be beneficial in the long term?

It's only by thinking about it that one realises this is a fallacious argument. First, Africa is at the present moment quite demonstrably not "saved", so the basic premise is wrong right from the start, by virtue if its tense if nothing else. But even if we change the postulate to suggest that with hindsight, might it become clear that the AIDS-induced reduction in population was in fact a good thing for Africa, then again we can see that there are a lot of problems with this.
  • Africa's problems are not basically the result of overpopulation, but of political conflicts and corruption
  • AIDS tends to kill the productive members of society, leaving children and the elderly to look out for each other and do the work. Hardly a recipe for economic prosperity
  • AIDS kills slowly, and care for the victims is expensive in both money and manpower resources
And I'm sure there are others. Nevertheless, this is the way to counter the suggestion, not attacking the poster for making the suggestion.

I don't think it's right to turn on Di for an apparently "immoral" opening premise, and castigate her from that standpoint. Certainly not in this forum. She has shown that she's perfectly open to argument and reason and the presentation of an alternative point of view. Exactly the sort of poster I would hope would be welcome on this forum.

I don't see any reason to lock the thread, because I don't see anything shameful in it. Di posted a rather naive and poorly thought-through suggestion, and promptly realised it was naive and poorly thought-through as soon as this was pointed out to her. Kudos. The thread might well serve a useful purpose in airing the issue for those who might also have taken the simplistic "population reduction is good" attitude, but were wary of broaching the subject.

The only thing I find objectionable about the thread is the personal attacks on a new poster just because she dared to "think the unthinkable". Come on, guys, we're better than that.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
This is directed at no one in particular.

I have no problem with the OP, in that I think it was an honest question. What concerns me is the the idea that we shouldn't ask some questions. I'd like to encourage more questions, rather than fewer.
 
Erm.. "He."

Y chromosome present and accounted for.

Thank you very much for your words, though.
 
No problem, I can understand that.

In this context "di" is in the italian for "of", or "of the Malebranche". They were the demons of Dante's Inferno who punished the politically corrupt and defrauders.
 
Ah, I see. (Maybe lose the upper-case "D"? For those of us who are not so well-read....)

Rolfe.
 
Luciana Nery said:
Are you directing this question at me, or is it a more general argument?
Click to expand...

At the forum in general... I just responded to you because you actually told someone they should not have spoken. Look at the outcome: some of us have learned a thing or two, the original poster included. This is a good thing.

Hey, I have to make my monthly "can't we all get along" post somewhere...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom