First off, I'm not suggesting that this would be a good policy to implement; I'm merely posing a hypothetical.
At what point would it be better to fight the growing HIV/AIDS epidemic by immediately killing all infected individuals rather than by merely preaching prevention and researching a cure?
The UN says that 38 million people around the world are currently infected; it would be impossible to quarantine them or otherwise separate them from the uninfected population, but it wouldn't be nearly as hard to require testing and then kill everyone who failed. We wouldn't get everyone, but we could get 90%, say, and drive the rest into seclusion and self-exile/quarantine.
Obviously this is a horrible thing to contemplate, and I want to repeat again that I'm not suggesting that we're nearing the point where such a policy is necessary. I'm asking, how bad does AIDS have to get before we do reach that point?
Maybe the answer is "never". I don't know enough about the disease and its spread to say whether or not it is self-limiting. I know that I'm not at risk, but I think that the vast majority of people in the world have sex with multiple partners and are in some danger of infection. As infection rates rise, others may adopt my behavioral traits and abstain from sex outside of marriage, thereby creating an asymptotic ceiling for the disease -- but where is that ceiling? Will the disease max out at 20% of the population? 50%? 90%? We can only guess. Once the infection rate gets too high, it will become more and more difficult to kill those who are infected, simply due to their increased numbers and their likely resistance.
Assuming there is a maximum infection rate that is somehow self-limiting, is it also self-sustaining? Once the maximum rate is attained, will it be maintained across generations? It seems likely that AIDS greatly reduces reproductive opportunities, so the behavior/psychological traits that lead to AIDS may be selected against (nurture/nature) quite strongly. Again, one can only speculate.
There isn't much thought about this type of solution because not only is it awful to contemplate, it's also probably thought to be unnecessary. After all, we may have a cure soon. But what if we don't? What if the infection rate keeps rising and there's still no cure in sight? At what point do we "pull the trigger" (literally) for the sake of the species? Or do we ever?
Some may say no: individuals shouldn't be sacrificed for "the species". On the other hand, killing 38 million infected people now could save unknown millions of lives later, and those lives aren't just "the species", they're real individuals as well. Do we have a responsibility towards them?
If so, part of that responsibility surely rests with those who are infected. They have a responsibility to prevent themselves from infecting others. But what if they refuse to? What if it's impossible to educate them and prevent them from spreading the disease? Should passing the disease be a capital offense? Should such a law actually be enforced with vigor? Is it possible to enforce such a law in the mostly-lawless third-world countries where AIDS is most prevalent?
When it comes to quick-killing diseases like Ebola -- or movie scenarios like in Outbreak -- we see nothing monstrous about isolating the doomed and allowing them to die. It's tragic, but there's often no other option; if the disease can't be treated, the infected cannot be allowed to roam freely and infect others. Why is there a different standard when it comes to AIDS? Because those who are infected can easily avoid infecting others? That may be true in America, where most people have an understanding of the disease, but the same thing cannot be said for other countries, and education efforts often fail for cultural reasons.
Update:
Via Instapundit comes the sad news that the search for an HIV/AIDS vaccine isn't going so well.
Just thinking about the many different ways this discussion could go makes my head want to explode.
Michael, you asked "Why is there a different standard when it comes to AIDS?"
I think it's because when AIDS first made it's appearance, it seemed only to effect what has politically become a "disadvantaged/oppressed" group -- the homosexual community. The disease seemed directly related to activities that were identified with this group.
In the view of the PC crowd, now even "Mother Nature" seemed to be oppressing the Gay community. In addition, there were some religious groups who had no problem with declaring that this was God's vengence on the Gay community, directly tied to their perversions.
Later, we found out that it wasn't limited to Gays. However, AIDS still remains a highly politicized disease. I often wondered why AIDS got so much attention when it certainly was not the #1 killer disease in America...not by a long shot. I believe Heart Disease was number one and may still be. It's possible the extra attention that AIDS gets is due to the fact that a good portion of the population lacked sympathy/compassion for the infected Gays. So those who did have sympathy yelled and cried out all the louder at the injustice of it all.
I think there will be a ceiling to the AIDS numbers because of our knowledge about how it is transmitted. I think truly radical solutions (like killing all the infected population or exiling them) are reserved for pandemic, highly infectious diseases that we don't know how to get a handle on before we're all dead.
Rj: "... before we're all dead." All who? All all, or all most, or what? That's what I'm asking.
Assuming that those infected with AIDS will never actually stop spreading it (as appears to be the case), by not eradicating them we're choosing to doom some untold number of future AIDS victims who would otherwise not be infected. Remember, we're not just talking about Americans here. Sub-saharan Africa has HIV infection rates of over 30%.
In what sense would that not be murder? In what way could the killing be squared with "thou shalt not kill (murder)?" Killing AIDS victims would simply make abortion look all the more routine.
Are babies sinners at birth, or at conception, by Christian standards? The point being, if AIDS victims can be killed because 1) they are sinful and 2) dangerous to society, then it could be argued that each abortion saves the world from another sinner entering it.
What would killing all those people do to the souls and psyches of those who carried out the killing? Or those on whose behalf the killings were done?
And once a society became used to killing AIDS victims, then why not other "undesirables"? In what way would humans be different than cattle slaughtered to prevent mad-cow disease?
Maybe I can clarify my last paragraph a little...
But first, allow me to apologise for the fact that the rest of my post had little to do with what you were actually asking.
Anyway, I mean that since we know how HIV is transmitted, it's not likely that (at least in America) we would see a large percentage of infected people. Those who don't have it and understand how it is transmitted, can actively reduce their chances for exposure. I admit that in other cultures, the lack of education/understanding about how the disease is transmitted may yield very large percentages of infected peoples.
I think the radical solutions become more attractive when we don't know how to curtail the transmission at all and larger and larger numbers of people are becoming infected. I overspoke when I said "all dead". I should have said "the majority of people become irreversibly infected".
I would expect that putting infected peoples into AIDS colonies and mandatory testing would be more attractive than simply killing anyone who is infected. However, if mandatory testing and exile didn't curtail the infection rate, I could see some alarmists in legislatures proposing a death penalty for those who refuse to be tested or those who are infected who refuse exile (or escape and return from exile to infect others).
Now that I think about it, we already have some measures in place (not necessarily governmental) to combat the spread of HIV in the donated blood supply. Just try to donate blood if you've been to Africa recently or if you engage in risky behaviors.
Knowing that FEMA has the power to suspend the constitution of the United States in the event of a major emergency does make me wonder how bad the infection rate would have to be before we saw these types of radical measures proposed and implemented.
(As a side note...how many deaths from heart disease will it take before the Government decides to regulate fast food, etc.?)
MW:" After all, we may have a cure soon. But what if we don't? What if the infection rate keeps rising and there's still no cure in sight? At what point do we "pull the trigger" (literally) for the sake of the species? Or do we ever"
well.. AIDS isnt contagius enough to seriusly endanger the entire earths population. Besides,
it takes years, even decades before you die ( black death killed in a matter of days as comparison) so the answer is ... no. never.
on the other hand, imagine a disease 10 times worse then ebola and the answer beomes a little more wavering,, if the situation got out of hand
and infra structures began to crumble around the world then quick desisions and " cutting a few corners" would be neccesary .
Ps. i apologize for my bad english and spelling but i am swedish after all =(
Oh, to put things in perspective i would like to add that 1/3 thats ONE THIRD of Europes
entire Population died of the Black plauge in the 14th century,, and that in only under a decade. Imagine some 96 milion people died in USA in a matter of 7 years.
=O !!
What I can't understand is why we can't treat AIDS like we treated tuberculosis, with forcible quarantine and hospitalization? People were considered to be threats to society.
TB can be communicated by air, which makes it way more dangerous, but like AIDS you can't always see who are the carriers and they can spread the disease without the innocent victim knowing.
If you could take them out of the population until they were cured (and we need to pray more devoutly for a cure) than far fewer infections, right?
Now you can't even find out if someone is HIV-positive.
And, Joel, who said: "What would killing all those people do to the souls and psyches of those who carried out the killing?"
Rather than worry about that hypothetical, how about we worry about abortionists and their staffs?
JT: Yeah, but you think the death penalty is murder, so it's hard to take your concerns here seriously.
Rj: I think your impression of FEMA is mistaken. Further, fast food hurts only its consumer, you can't inadvertantly spread heart disease to others. And people in Africa have problems with not enough food, not too much food.
GLA: No matter how slow AIDS works, it still kills you. I don't see why it matters how long it takes. (And your English doesn't bother me at all, it's much better than my Swedish!)
Michael,
If I could determine what value you place on human life, then I could take your views on this matter seriously. Your post seems coldly clinical and detached.
JT: Studies show that most people value their own lives at around $200,000.
Africans could be persuaded to accept some kind of life imprisonment in exchange for a few thousand dollars going to their families.
Governments make decisions that kill people every day, so it is wrong to claim that it is "never" permissible to kill someone to save others.
If we imposed contact tracing in this country we could stop the epidemic here. It won't happen because of gay fanatics.
MW:So are you saying FEMA doesn't really have those powers? I guess now that I think about it, I heard that from a less than credible source. I just threw the fast food thing in because it's been in the news in the last year.
Rj: Well, no. At least insofar as it's a moot point. If FEMA somehow survives whatever disaster wipes out the rest of the government, they may do their best to pick up the pieces, but that's an apocalyptic scenario. If such a thing happens, we'll have bigger problems than worrying about our civil rights.
Tell me -- how did Jesus treat the lepers?
Given that, how would Jesus feel about this idea of yours? "Let's kill people because they caught a disease through no fault of their own." Is that what Xian compassion is?
C: The "WWJD?" argument is kind of silly, considering that I don't have Jesus' miraculous power. If, however, people infected with AIDS were cured I would have no objection to them mingling with the general population.
Further, the "no fault of their own" claim is highly dubious, considering that AIDS is rather difficult to spread without partaking in a fwe high-risk behaviors.
"high risk behaviors"
sure -- like being born. Like sleeping with your husband.
I'm not sure you've fully recognized the fact that in the rest of the world AIDS is a *hetero*sexual disease. Many, many people who are infected do not have the educational background we take for granted here [wrt germs and hygene] and rely on "resources" like the Catholic church who tell them that condoms spread the disease instead of reducing the odds of its spreading.
I guess I was mistaken when I thought that Jesus' example was what Christians were to attempt to follow, even though imperfectly... my bad.
Claire: Don't be ridiculous. Even in the third world the vast majority of AIDS infections from from "high risk behaviors" like sleeping with multiple partners (of either sex) and using IV drugs. Who said anything about homosexuality? You did, not me.
Knowing about germs and hygene won't stop the spread of AIDS. There are really only two things you need to do: stop sharing needles and stop having sex outside of marriage.
Quit being so sarcastic and condescending; it's offensive, especially when coupled with your ignorance and strawman arguments.
Michael,
Michael said: "There are really only two things you need to do: stop sharing needles and stop having sex outside of marriage."
Your thought processes aren't very precise or fully formed, and your thesis seems only to serve the process of reifying your own emotional belief system....(I suspect you have not fully stated your full belief system here).
Please note:
1. AIDS is sometimes transmitted through blood transfusions in poor countries.
2. It is transmitted through the reuse of needles by health care workers because the village is too poor to buy needles.
3. It is is transmitted by deceitful and lying "monogamous" sex partners within marriage.
4. Many people who are at risk for hiv infection are not allowed to marry.
5. AIDS is transmitted in poor countries where there are no hiv tests available
Would you have all these people killed as well?
Have you thought about how an unprecedented and absolute global police state would be necessary to accomplish the goal of testing every human on the planet and killing every person diagnosed with /HIVAIDS? Just to be clear: That would be approximately 80 million people (42 million have been diagnosed...another estimated 40 million carriers have not been tested) that you would want killed right off the top, with approximately another 5 million new infections a year until you manage to get rid of that 80 million. Can you begin to imagine the cost of such a "solution"? Do you imagine that people with AIDS would not fight back ? Your "solution" sounds more like global chaos, global bankruptcy, liberty replaced by global tyranny, and frankly, the end of civilization. You are advocating a return to savagery.
Oh...and now that we know that so many of the "ordinary" killer diseases that afflict humankind are genetically passed on to innocent children, I guess you would advocate testing/killing for them as well? Test all adults for killer diabetes so that that gene doesn't get passed on to innocent children? There are thousands of genetically passed diseases that account for millions of deaths...why not kill the people who are passing these diseases on to their children?
You are being irresponsible to promote this immoral idea that somehow killing people with AIDS can be politically, morally or religously justified. You would like to punish the victim (has it occured to you that there may be a victimizer in the AIDS situation?) I believe you are just trying to justify your own desire to commit mass murder.
Far more interesting is where did AIDS came from. And whether it was strategically placed for geopolitial gain. There is more skepticism than certainty at this point among medical researchers about the prevailing "theory" regarding the origin and spread of AIDS.
A far better solution is to stop the people who would use all people and resources for profit and political gain...no matter what the human expense. And people like you who would tidy up after them by killing their victims. Perhaps poor people are next on your list? Or maybe old people?
You are such a product of post-modernism...and I bet you think that you are an original thinker.
Heil Michael!!
Thomas: Your arguments are all straw men. Yes, HIV is sometimes transmitted by blood transfusions, birth, and so forth, but without IV drug use and extramarital sex as vectors it wouldn't be an epidemic.
And yes, I'm totally trying to justify my desire to commit mass murder, as you say. That completely makes sense. Your conspiracy theory about the origin of HIV is utterly insane, and if you actually give and credence to such a view then it calls into question your rationality on the whole topic.
You wrote: "A far better solution is to stop the people who would use all people and resources for profit and political gain...no matter what the human expense."
That doesn't even mean anything, but it reveals your nutso political alignment.
Why would poor people be next on my list, or old people? I don't think age is a contagious disease, nor is poverty (although it does "spread" in various forms, it can't be eliminated due to simple economics).
"You are such a product of post-modernism...and I bet you think that you are an original thinker."
Nothing of what I wrote has anything to do with post-modernism, and I don't think you have any idea what the term even means. You're just spouting nonsense. I hope you didn't spend a lot of time writing your comment, because it was completely vacuous. You may as well just mash your fingers on the keyboard like a monkey, it would've made as much sense.
Heil me!
wow. that would never work. world rebellion
i don't really give aids much thought. i worry more about west nile virus. i have no control over getting west nile. i can be minding my own business in my yard and BAM, a bug bites me and i'm sick. but aids, there is no way i will get it just standing in my yard. now if i share a needle or start having sex with multiple partners then i start running a risk of aids. but i don't do these things so the chances of my coming down with aids is so remote that it is not deserving of my worry. i might be at more risk from falling space junk. the cure for aids is education which should make this the easiest illness to eradicate. but people are stuborn and will not change their behavior but instead want a pill to just make aids go away. the way this virus operates i don't think a cure will be found. like the flu it is continualy changing. there is no cure for the common cold or the flu and a cure for aids may be just as elusive.
Leave you're religous and ethical morals out of this. They're meaningless in this sort of argument.
The most effective way it seems, would be a mandatory completely indiscriminate government issued assisted suicide for the infected. That way, theres no way to complain. Straight, gay, young, old, kill them all and the problem will no longer exsist. Are you really going to let moral deliemas get more people killed? Do people really want to live out the rest of their lives infected? I honestly wouldn't know, but I can guarntee you, the second I discover I'm infected, If I get infected, theres going to be a bullet through my brain.
i'm just not going to say anything because i completely agree with you.
my only thought is about AIDS colonies.
i do think if we rearranged a lot of the land in say, africa (because most of the people with AIDS live there) there would be enough room for an AIDS colony.
i think they should all be "fixed" and sent supplies and meds every now and then so they can live out their lives until the end peacefully.
while it would take longer, i think it would be more acceptable to the people involved, and eventually the disease would be wiped out entirely.