Curing AIDS: A Terrible Idea

from Tyler Martin

Dec. 31, 2012, 3:29 p.m.

So, this is a change of pace for this website. I enjoy writing my opinions on issues and thought it'd be nice to share some with y'all. I figured this particular one would make a splash of some sorts.

I sometimes take "hour-power-showers" where I think about issues that bother me. Sometimes they are personal ones that affect my life, and sometimes they are ones on a much larger scale. This one is the latter.

AIDS. If that acronym doesn't make you clench your butthole, then you probably live in an area not affected all that much. Despite this, people around the globe are all set on finding the cure. It truly is scary. A non-curable virus that lies dormant for a while before totally annihilating your body. It can be caught doing activities some people consider fun such as, sexy time, the use of drugs, and the use of public toilets. It really does make sense that people want the cure so desperately, but is that what we should really be focusing on?

Let's start off with some pertinent information. First off, AIDS is most prevalent in non-developed countries, and affects the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa the most. It also is found in areas where heavy intravenous drug use is common. The mortality rate in these affected regions ranges from anywhere between .2%-1.2% of the entire population. Those numbers are astronomically high. Now let's look at the birth rates of these countries. Almost every single county in Sub-Saharan Africa is in the top 50 for highest birth rates in the world.

This brings me to my point. AIDS caps off these booming populations. AIDS keeps these countries from falling in a state of chaos that would inevitably become a burden to the world. You see, in nature, populations are kept in control by factors such as natural disasters, environmental pressures, and predators. Humans generally don't have to worry about those decimating our populations because, I mean come on, we've mastered the environment (praying not to get struck by lightning for saying that). I'll take a minute to draw a comparison. Imagine people in these countries as deer. Deer eat a bunch of stuff and breed a lot and do general deer stuff. Now, left on their own, these deer would breed out of control and eat freaking everything. This would destabilize the environment and they would migrate to somewhere else, essentially as locusts would. Stupid deer. Thankfully, there are wolves in the world. Wolves eat deer. Deer don't destroy ecosystem. World saved. What happens when you get rid of the wolves? Deer do their deer thing and it isn't good.

Now that the metaphor is out of the way, let me say it plainly. AIDS is wolves. We already have to deal with two-countries with populations above the 1 billion mark (my anger towards these places may be detailed at a later time). Could we handle those popping up all over Africa? No. We couldn't. Want to go ahead and argue against that? No you don't. I'm right. You agree. AIDS is keeping the population of these parts down to something the world still cannot manage. These countries cannot even feed their own people as it is. How could they when those numbers explode exponentially? They couldn't. So we cure AIDS and populations skyrocket. These countries can't feed their people, so they ask for international assistance. What happens next? The good ol' USA comes in to save the day. Why? Because 'Merica. It isn't enought though. Instead of the red wristbands for finding the AIDS cure, they turn to green ones that support famine relief in Africa. Farmers are given even heavier burdens. They are feeding several countries for the price of one. Maybe the US does support the farmers financially, but who finances that? Not the affected countries. The American taxpayers do. Taxes soar and anger builds in the population. The thing is, even with the support of the US, it isn't enough. Countries destabilize. Citizens revolt. Governments fall across the continent and soon, absolute chaos. Chaos that hasn't been seen on a scale like this before. Peacekeeping troops from the UN and NATO would undoubtedly be deployed, leading to countless unnecessary deaths in the face of a futile mission. Piracy becomes rampant, disrupting shipping routes in the Gulf of Aidan. The chaos doesn't stop in those countries though. It spreads. It spreads to Egypt. Goodbye gas under $10/gal. It keeps going into the Middle East, igniting that powder keg. Alliances are tested. The world falls into war. That is where I stop. I'm not one to speculate on what occurs in World War III.

Okay, so this is how it plays out. As refugees flee the African continent, they pour into countries that cannot handle them. Social tensions are immediately amplified by the tidal wave of immigrants. Riots occur. It's the Arab Spring 2.0. Unfortunately, radicals take control of some countries that have been developing nuclear sciences that totally aren't for nuclear weapons or anything. These radicals automatically hate Israel. Tensions build even more until either a) Israel launches several pre-emptive strikes into enemy territory, successfully disarming the nuclear weapons, or b) the weapons are launched at Israel. Let's analyze situation 'b'. Israel is hurt badly by nuclear explosions in largely civilian areas, but their military is largely unharmed. Countries that haven't destabilized but have a beef with Israel start sending troops that way. The United States reaffirms its alliance with Israel by sending troops all across the war-torn Middle East. Countries with anti-US sentiments hop on the bandwagon. China and North Korea form the People's Alliance. The PA launch attacks on the already thin-spread Allies comprised of America, Israel, Britain, Canada, and... wait for it... Russia. The war is long and bloody. The plot of 'Red Dawn' plays out. Nuclear weapons are used. Casualties number in the tens if not hundreds of millions. Eventually the Allies win the war, but the geo-political landscape of the world has been forever altered. Refugees are now the largest group of people in the world. The next 50+ years are nightmarish outside of certain well-developed countries. Humanity as a whole suffers. We survive, but just barely. Or maybe we don't. Maybe there is a nuclear armageddon (the type that Bruce Willis wouldn't be able to stop). The point being, that life would be extremely different, if it survived at all.

All of this for what? Cuing AIDS. You probably only support it so you could feel better about yourself. You thought, "I'm such a good person! I'm saving lives!" You weren't. You contributed directly to WWIII and the end of the world. Congratulations you self-righteous idiot.

Instead, we should just focus on developing Africa and controlling the birth-rate before we attack AIDS. The US should set up several puppet governments in Africa to suit our needs and theirs. Then after several years, the puppet governments will allocate resources to the US as the US sends in much needed supplies to make these African countries develop. Its a win-win situations. Then with our rejuvenated world superpower status we force China and North Korea into submission, and Chris Hemsworth is saved (spoiler).

So, cure AIDS and cause WWIII or leave AIDS and make America the best place to live in the world (more so than now)? The choice is yours.


comments powered by Disqus


1228 words

4 minutes