Poll: AIDS, it could be eradicated but human rights would need to be sacrificed.

[captainordo]

AIDS is one of the worst diseases to affect humans and currently incurable. What if we did not need to cure it, but simply let it go away on its own? The only way to contract HIV which leads to aids is contact with people who do have it. A simple answer could be, let the people who have HIV/AIDS die.

I am speaking about a mass campaign of testing, quarantine and letting the people who have it finish off their lives without spreading the disease to the uninfected. This could potentially rid human beings of the virus. But, it obviously would involve a lapse in human rights to solve our problems. This idea is pretty unlikely because it involves co-operation of any nation that has anyone with HIV/AIDs living within it. We would obviously have to choose a neutral place for all these people to live and eventually die. I am pretty sure the current number is about 38 million people infected.

This could be the answer to the problem, however unlikely it may be. What do you think about sacrificing some human lives for the sake of the whole? Some human rights violations that would occur are; lack of privacy with all citizens having to be tested for the Virus, Moving the infected from their chosen countries, homes, and families, disallowing breeding within the people and eventually letting them all die. I think I may write a story using this idea sometime in the future. I would like to know how you feel about this,

Note: I am not suggesting this is what should happen.

So what your suggesting is genocide. for some reason I don't feel that will go over to well with the international community
Wouldn't a better idea to be i don't know find a cure. Im also sure that would be easer.

 

[johnman]

When it comes to deporting War criminals, Hate preachers and Terrorists, I am more than happy to remove human rights. But the idea your proposing is far too big for it too work. There will undoubtedly be a few infect who do as much as they can to spread the disease when they hear of it, in fact its already been done.

 

[captainordo]

The end NEVER justifies the means

Here here

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yes if you want to live in a world of complete totalitarianism were the individual can disappear at any time, seriously humans don't stop until they hit obscure and inane levels of reason. If you round up all the AIDS victims then move on to genetic orders, cancer victims,ect are not to far off they place a strain on the system so wouldn't it be better to just euthanize them all once they are found...it will never end....better to have societies based more on the individual than the whole becuse humanity can do much much worse...
=======================

No... just no.

And the end never justifies the means.

But sometimes it does. E.G-The use of nuclear weapons on japan in ww2

This seems to me to be the standard utilitarian argument. The good of the many vs the good of the few. Would the suffering of these people with aids and the breaches of privacy and civil liberties create more happiness at removing aids than pain from what people had suffered. Probably not. It is almost impossible to predict the outcome, especially on something as large scale as this.

I personally think people who have aids have a moral resonsibility not to spread it. If you don't know you have it then it can't be helped, but if you do know and you continue to have unprotected sex then you could well be considered to be murdering the other person.

Maybe because the toll of a full land war would have been 3 or 5 times worse??

The end's do justify the means when it comes to nuking japan, it was either a few planes with the a couple super bombs or thousands of them and thousands more on the ground doing a house to house urban war in which the public was ready to go red neck on invaders to defend their divine emperor, the blood shed would have been much much much worse for them and the allied forces.

Now for AIDS its basically a real life allegory to cancer, if AIDS is so evil then anything that can cause cancer is as evil and people will be shot for eating cancerous food or making cancer cuaseing items, humanity is incapable of remaining on a slippery slope....they want to ride down the hill that badly.........

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

When it comes to deporting War criminals, Hate preachers and Terrorists, I am more than happy to remove human rights. But the idea your proposing is far too big for it too work. There will undoubtedly be a few infect who do as much as they can to spread the disease when they hear of it, in fact its already been done.

What defines terrorists? treason? doing harm to the public? then kick out of of the US government.....

War criminals is a bit easier to do but Hate preachers are merely enacting their right to free speech, if hate speech(non specific violent type) is made illicit then any other kind of speech can be because government and the public have neither the heart nor the will to put up with it.

 

[Cuniculus]

You can't take rights to make the world a better place. That's just not how it works. Sure, the would could be a utopia if everyone was just forced to sit in their house, and have their food brought to them. No talking with the neighbors, reproduction through labs instead of two people. No war, no famine, no nothing because no one is actually living.

 

[sallene]

better to have societies based more on the individual than the whole becuse humanity can do much much worse...

that very ideal is what is slowly crippling the US. Too many people only concerned with themselves and no longer really can be bothered to care for the welfare of their neighbors or fellow countrymen. If it doesnt affect them, why should they bother to help?


The basis of societies on the individiual is just as doomed to fail than the basis of a society on totalitarianism.

there has to be a commone ground where one accepts certain responsiblities that come with living in a society without becoming too self centered of having to give too much of oneself away to the state.

I do not think humanity is capable of this however, which is why such extremes like the OP put forth do not bother me all that much. Humanity in the grand scheme of the universe is neither special or that spectacular.

 

[Valiance]

Yeah, that's the idea, test everyone, put everyone who has aids on an island with other people that have aids, and they can't have kids.

Not exactly the nicest thing to do, but if we're supposed to get rid of it, that's one easyish way how.

 

[timmytom1]

The solution is neigh-on impossible ,but perhaps,a sterilization campeign for those who turn out HIV positive could seriously reduece the problem ,but there are a number of problems that we could solve (or seriously improve on)with a reduction in human rights,but the question is ,would it actually be worth it?

 

[Ignignoct]

The solution is neigh-on impossible ,but perhaps,a sterilization campeign for those who turn out HIV positive could seriously rediece the problem ,but there are a number of problems that we could solve (or seriously improve on)with a reduction in human rights,but the question is ,would it actually be worth it?

Sterilization won't work alone. Blood.

We shouldn't separate the HIV positive, because that would look mean.

We'll just stick our heads in the sand and pretend that they won't continue to propagate the virus for generations upon generations upon generations upon generations [sub]upon generations... *trails off*[/sub]

It'll be fun to see how many decades it takes to make AIDS/HIV drugs cheap enough to make a difference in Africa.

 

[0thello]

I wonder if they had this same discussion when pondering whether slavery and colonialism was a viable option.

I imagine it was something really, really similar.

 

[Yegargeburble]

You know, I really don't care about other people, so I couldn't care less if a quarantine-type thing was put in place for HIV.

I will say that it will not work, though. Viruses have a way of getting past quarantines...

 

[Art Axiv]

Didn't go through the full thread, but i just want to vent this here.

Why are people pro "population control"? What if those people would be the first to kill off if they are so cool with it? How would they react?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

AIDs is a big problem, but not the biggest problem. 48000 ppl/day die from bad water/lack of water.

And considering that malaria, which is pretty simple to cure, but those poor counties just don't have the money. Maybe the west should help with those before starting locking people up.

But I understand what you are saying, I just don't have the cultural reference. AIDs is a really tiny problem where I live...

And what goes for Africa I really hope we find I cure soon. And as I said, the west is willing to offer this cure so people can afford it.

Fatal Flaw: Malaria and badwater/food is not a problem for western countries.

If we cure AIDS, we'll just discover a new disease that will kill everyone instead. If you're not going to die of AIDS then nature has to find something else to kill you with.

Fear the drug-resistant bubonic plague.

 

[xxnightlawxx]

What sbout the areas where the people with AID's/HIv have been touced.

 

[Booze Zombie]

My theory for stopping aids: Everyone with aids and everyone without aids has sex until the resulting children are immune to aids.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

better to have societies based more on the individual than the whole becuse humanity can do much much worse...

that very ideal is what is slowly crippling the US. Too many people only concerned with themselves and no longer really can be bothered to care for the welfare of their neighbors or fellow countrymen. If it doesnt affect them, why should they bother to help?


The basis of societies on the individiual is just as doomed to fail than the basis of a society on totalitarianism.

there has to be a commone ground where one accepts certain responsiblities that come with living in a society without becoming too self centered of having to give too much of oneself away to the state.

I do not think humanity is capable of this however, which is why such extremes like the OP put forth do not bother me all that much. Humanity in the grand scheme of the universe is neither special or that spectacular.

Yes and no, Yes that it can be a bad thing no as in humans are slow to learn it took 5000 or so years once we got the whole civilization thing rolling for us to realize the right of the individual matters IE women rights,children rights rights of minorities, its probably going to take as long for us to develop a governmental and social system that balances the need of the individual with that of society in general, would be nice to see lobbing=bribes=treason=execution or public officials acting and living as low middle class workers not rich aristocracy lording over society...

So its not something that we current humans could do without fcking it up on a grand scale.