Negroes dying out from AIDS: Natural Selection?
- yes
- no
0
voters
i used to think that back in the day. any thoughts?
are abortions also a part of natural selection?
both function as anti natural selectors.
Aids is a seemingly unnatural disease which affects the ability of people to reproduce, which is one of the essential parts of natural selection. Abortion does the same thing.
From a global perspective both abortions and aids can be seen as natural selectors in the sense that it is currently necessary for many people to die to bring the population of earth to a manageable degree.
natural selection works best in a fair environment.
ironically, the fairness of natural selection is largely achieved through randomness, but lately the random nature of things has taken a low extreme.
there is no more natural selection. health care has begun a process of devolution.
Being a functionalist i see aids as hindering natural selection, but it can also be seen as a part of natural selection.
but then again, natural selection is also be being crushed by a grand piano.
I think the trick here is not to see natural selection as some entity with goals and desires.
we only call it natural selection after the fact, it’s sort of like a lining up of the planets 
how is being crushed by a grand piano natural selection?
and also i wanted to delve more into the HIV conspiracy theory,(where the caucasians deliberately spread it to the third world)
Aids isn’t a black thing. It’s not even an African thing. It’s a virus that spreads most often sexually. Because Africans don’t have access to condoms or a good education, it’s obvious why it’s spreading so fast there, compared to wealthier continents and nations.
So no, it’s not natural selection. It isn’t a genetic mutation only among blacks.
There is nothing “natural” about ignorance and extreme poverty.
Most of Africa has no access to aids drugs. Poverty.
Aids can be cured by having sex with a virgin. Ignorance. (girls as young as six years old are raped to insure that they are virgin)
A catholic bishop in Africa recently suggested that Europeans were deliberately tainting condoms with the aids virus to “kill” Africans. The church failed to “correct” his statements.
What sort of “natural” is any of this?
It’s not any sort of natural, and those reactions are outrageous. I do not understand the motives behind the Catholic church sometimes. Couldn’t the Church better utilize its considerable assets and influence to alleviate some of that suffering instead of compounding it? Talk about your skewed values. I guess that’s why I’m no longer a practicing Catholic.
if a piano falls on a person then that person is too careless. It’s a good thing that he will lose the ability to reproduce in death.
i know its very dry but was comparing the piano to aids.
Anita,
I don’t mean to pick on Catholics exclusively. That was just a particularly extreme example. The Catholic Church isn’t the only institution against birth control, just the most visible. But as population pressures continue to grow, Any organization opposing birth control, up to and including some of the extreme measures, will be swept away in complete lack of credibility. We’re a few decades out, but the time is coming. You know what? The church will never change because it can’t. The dogma is too entrenched. There will always be some form of Catholicism, but it won’t be directed from Rome, and it will be barely recognizable as its former self.
Depends on what you mean by “Natural Selection”. AIDS is certainly proving to be a major factor in terms of selection in certain areas of the world. So it follows that in certain areas of sub-Saharan Africa and SE Asia resistance to HIV will be selected for. Interestingly, 1 in 10 people of Western European extraction have incredibly high resistance to HIV because one of the causative agents of the Black Death (Y. pestis) used the same receptor. Neat stuff, evolution in action.
In terms of “Natural Selection” how you seemed to mean it in the OP, no, not really. After all, the areas being hit hardest by AIDS have been areas rife in disease for a long time anyway. Chancroid, for example, helps HIV spread. So this can’t be considered a new trend, just a particularly nasty iteration of what has been going on for a long time.
I’ve actually read it was found heavily in people with european ancestory, specifically higher concentrations in northern europeans. You mention western, i’m probably remembering incorrectly or read incorrectly originally and I read it was a virus of sorts not the black death i’d appreciate any linking on this issue, and I largely agree, its beyond super interesting. So if i’m just inaccurate here, linking me to accurate info would be appreciated.
As long as some people are having more offspring than others natural selection is at play. Natural selection is at play in populations with absolutely no huge selection factors or diseases or plauges. As to whether natural selection is working there, yes it is, just like all those other diseases you mentioned would be as well, which is why we are seeing african populations with more and more resistances to certain strains of HIV.
It can be seen as a new trend, *if it increases the death rate, or well, I should say lowers or hightens any part of the populations birth rate.
Well, nevermind my last post saying you were wrong about natural selection and HIV. You said “how you seemedd to mean it in the OP” I didn’t really read the OP close enough to get an idea of what he meant.
In the scientific sense; ‘natural selection’ as its meant by most people, is at work in aids populations. The very fact that some people are dying of aids/HIV and some people aren’t, is enough alone. let alone the huge diverse range of survival rates among people with HIV.
black people dying isn’t natural selection attempting to curb a population because its “unfit” by any human standard. Like black people dying in africa isn’t making the human race stronger or some shit.
It isn’t natural selection killing off the weakest humans. Its just natural selection, and those humans happen to be in a very bad place. (I guess by definition environment would include ‘fitness of organism’ but i’m talking about human standards now, not natural selection/biology.
If white people went in hoards to africa and died horrible deaths, it’d be natural selection, but it wouldn’t be the type of natural selection that white supremists talk about.
Seems like thats pretty natural.
Very, looking across all human societies, bullshit seems pretty high.
Catholic church isn’t in the business of alleviating suffering their in the business of putting forward catholic doctrine, which are radically different concepts.
You are right that the CCR5 mutation is more prevalent in the north as opposed to the south of Europe. This article seems to agree with your assertion that it wasn’t Y. pestis as well, so it looks like I may have been operating under old knowledge when I said that. Thanks for catching me on that one. Interestingly this article suggests that whatever the selective pressure was, it was present as early as the bronze age! Crazy stuff.
Thanks for that article, I wasn’t quite sure myself(whether I was mistaken or not), as I was only working off vauge memory of an article I barely read quite awhile back. I find it hugely interesting, not just this, but humanity’s historical fight with disease in general.
like certain blood-types making your immunities to certain diseases higher, while increasing your susceptibility to others and so forth. Researchers have called the genome a scarred and absessed husk of humanities prior fights with disease, (they were probably talking about a lot of ‘junk dna’ and not in the way that i’m talking about here) but it seems like theres more than a grain of truth to the assessertion, both ways.
Aids in america was considered a gay mans disease… If that hasn’t already been mentioned.