PDA

View Full Version : HIV Research Spending Vs. Military Spending



Pages : [1] 2 3

Sun Wukong
12/18/2004 4:14am,
Any body know what we are spending on HIV research as opposed to funding military projects and weapons research?

Aids has killed more americans than any terrorist or war or police action in the US alone? How much is the governement spending on it?

A cure would be the greatest contribution that the US has ever made to the world. If we could find it, if we could help find it wouldn't that justify any expence?

How can we let the pentagon run rampant with researching new weapons and bombs when the entire world is in the grips of a plague threatening to kill indescriminately our children, families, neighbors, friends our entire fucking PROGENY!

EVERYONE is a potential victim! where the **** are our priorities? Where the **** is our mind? Does anyone still fucking care in washington?

If the whole population of Iraq dropped dead instantly it still wouldn't equate to what we stand to lose from this god damned plague.

feedback
12/18/2004 4:24am,
But, but, only gay people get AIDS. And if that's not true, may god somehow strike straight people down.

Stick
12/18/2004 4:32am,
Time for me to sound really cold hearted.


the entire world is in the grips of a plague threatening to kill indescriminately our children, families, neighbors, friends our entire fucking PROGENY!

Yes it's bad, but don't get carried away, AIDs is by no means going to destroy the human race, unless it mutates and survives outside the blood, becomes airborne or contact transmitted. As it stands, it is very very easy to not get AIDs because AIDs does discriminate between those who are careful and those who are not. Granted a lot of kids get brought into it and that's truly unfortunate.

A cure will be great, but prevention is amazingly simple and straightforward.

But yes, we should divert a few billion from military spending to AIDs and cancer research..... as well as stem cells, lots and lots of stem cells!

Oh and space exploration, need a few billion for that.

Alright, I'm with ya, let's get some R&D money out of defense and into some of the other anemically funded fields.

nasty_totoro
12/18/2004 5:01am,
its all a matter of frogs ...

hayrake7
12/18/2004 6:28am,
A cure is not really necessary to ending the plague; thorough education would be enough to eradicate the epidemic on its own. A lot of the problems come from people simply not knowing what it is, how its spread, and so on.

There was a rising plague epidemic in the late 19th century in the West Coast (USA). But that outbreak was halted by educating people on how to kill the vector, rat fleas.

Frankly, I think a lot of the problems are perpetuated by religious conservatives pushing abstinence only programs instead of comprehensive sex education in public schools. If we would separate church and state once and for all it would go a long way in helping.

ewdfs
12/18/2004 7:24am,
It is not just the HIV thing, too much money is spent on the military, I mean, while people starve to death some billions are spent to build bombs, that is stupid.

punchingdummy
12/18/2004 8:15am,
It is not just the HIV thing, too much money is spent on the military, I mean, while people starve to death some billions are spent to build bombs, that is stupid.

It's not stupid if you understand human nature. We could have a disease-free society and all die the next day.



What matters is balance.

El Tejon
12/18/2004 9:40am,
Why all the attention on HIV/AIDS? Many other diseases kill many times more people than HIV/AIDS.

Curing AIDS would mostly certainly help those afflicted with the disease, but curing other diseases would give much more benefit to the world.

AIDS is such a political disease. :sex:

Phrost
12/18/2004 9:41am,
This is going to sound even more cold hearted than Dai-Tenshi, so be warned.

Pretty soon we're going to have to wake up to the fact that we're breeding ourselves out of space on this planet. And who's doing the most indiscriminate breeding? The poorest countries, typically with the least resources.

If we fed everyone on the planet, INSTEAD of fighting and killing each other off in wars, we'd be so overpopulated within a few hundred years that we'd have warfare and death on a scale that's never been seen and would make the Holocaust look like a minor traffic accident.

Starvation, death, and disease are all Nature's way of keeping populations under control, by killing off the weaker, less apt members of a species. It might not sound fair to you, but it is absolutely necessary in order to ensure the survival of the Human race.

Such an argument is extremely short-sighted, and not to offend, but somewhat juvenille. It's only one step removed from "Why do we have to die?"

You want to solve the world's problems? Spend money on education. The more educated a society's population is, the less likely they are to have 10 kids out of a twisted sense of duty to religion or culture. They'll be able to understand better how the world works, and why it's suicidal to breed uncontrollably.

ewdfs
12/18/2004 10:02am,
I agree with you in the education thing, but I donīt think it is ok to starvation used as a mean to solve overpopulation, no offense but IMO rich people say things like that so they can feel ok during thanksgiving

wakinonioi
12/18/2004 11:08am,
Is this the 'Irrational Lefist Blather' thread?

willy
12/18/2004 11:29am,
I agree with you in the education thing, but I donīt think it is ok to starvation used as a mean to solve overpopulation, no offense but IMO rich people say things like that so they can feel ok during thanksgiving


war has been the most popular population control device in history, would you rather we use that?

ewdfs
12/18/2004 11:41am,
No like Jack Frost said, the best thing would be to spend money on education, preventing overpopulation.

Phrost
12/18/2004 11:57am,
The problem is, leftists think they're somehow above Nature. Starvation, and preditation are how Nature takes care of overpopulation so it doesn't destroy an ecosystem. Humanity's only superiority in Nature is his ability to reason.

Turning the planet into a welfare state in which everyone is taken care of regardless of whether or not they provide society any benefit is never an answer. All it causes is mediocrity through a lack of competition for resources. The reason you are sitting here reading this today is because the Internet was developed originally by the US Army to facilitate communications in the quest for military superiority. Very little has been accomplished in the name of "good will" alone; every human innovation has been the result of competition.

Which is a direct reflection of the competitive system that governs Nature. Eat or be eaten.

Phrost
12/18/2004 12:22pm,
For reference:


http://www.prb.org/images/e-01(world_pop_growth).gif


Anthropologists believe the human species dates back at least 3 million years. For most of our history, these distant ancestors lived a precarious existence as hunters and gatherers. This way of life kept their total numbers small, probably less than 10 million. However, as agriculture was introduced, communities evolved that could support more people.

World population expanded to about 300 million by A.D. 1 and continued to grow at a moderate rate. But after the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, living standards rose and widespread famines and epidemics diminished in some regions. Population growth accelerated. The population climbed to about 760 million in 1750 and reached 1 billion around 1800 (see chart, "World population growth, 1750–2150,").

If you cure all diseases and stop starvation... you'll effectively remove the only thing (besides war and murder) that is keeping the population from growing FASTER. As things stand, we cannot sustain the growth we're already seeing without disasterous consequences.

patfromlogan
12/18/2004 12:40pm,
. And who's doing the most indiscriminate breeding? The poorest countries, typically with the least resources.

If we fed everyone on the planet, INSTEAD of fighting and killing each other off in wars, we'd be so overpopulated within a few hundred years that we'd have warfare and death on a scale that's never been seen and would make the Holocaust look like a minor traffic accident..

As a Malthusian I agree about some of this. A often used example is the North Rim of Grand Canyon. A hundred years ago they decided to kill the bad animals (preditors) and let the nice deer live. The nice deer ate everything is site (the damage is still obvious) then had massive die offs.

However the one thing that seems to limit population is the amount of food actually available. Well fed countries seem to lower their birht rates in a generation or two. Poor countries, hungry countries, are the ones with the high birth rates. So perhaps feeding and sharing resources would lead to population control.