Cure for viruses claimed

[applejuice]

Interesting, very interesting. If successful, then HIV, avian flu and others may have their hours counted (and the clock is ticking). However, as pointed, virus will do what they do best: adapt. This cure is, at least, 10 years from us. But still, very promising. Imagine a world where disease is no longer a subject of worry. The part I most like is that, as mentioned in the article, the capability of targeting certain cells makes it ideal for cancer treatments.

[X.,.Pandora.,.X]

hey, time to start thinking about your zombie plans

[auroraglacialis]

As I understand it, the "cure" would basically be to kill all cells that are infected in a body. So it would not eradicate viruses, it would basically exactly be like penecillin for bacteria. A cure that is given to someone who is infected. So I guess potentially this would lead to resistant viruses with time, yes.

Re death and birth rate. I dont think that viruses or sickness are needed to keep human population in check - Humans are very capable of controlling their population - well women are - if they are free to do so. I dont know if the reasons women do not have kinds in the industrialized countries are so great - they deal a lot with being afraid of financial and economic issues, people cannot afford to have children, they are unsure about childrens futures and some may just ant to have their own carreer and wealth and not share it or diminish it by having kids - not the best reasons really. some of the reasons for people in "developing countries" are, that work for them has become a commodity - they do not possess anything anymore once colonization took place - no land, no fish in the oceans and rivers, no forest to live from - the thing that ramains for them to sell is workforce and under these circumstances more children are good because that means more workforce to be sold (which in the end is what gives people in the industrialized nations cheap shoes and T-Shirts). No social systems that step in for the lost communities of these people also contribute to the problem. In addition to that, male domination and religion play a role - The Catholic church banned contraception for a long time, Islam has some parts in their holy book that specifically fosters people to want many kids and Both religions are not exactly promoting womens self-determination.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Humans are very capable of controlling their population - well women are - if they are free to do so.

Men are also capable of controlling their own fertility, thanks to condoms, and there is a lot of research into a hormone-based contraception as well, some of which looks very promising.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

not the best reasons really.

They sound like perfectly reasonable reasons to me. Also, some women don't want to have children because they don't like kids, or don't feel like they have enough/any maternal instincts, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Pa'li Makto]

Originally Posted by Advent

And with talk of all these 'superbugs' going around, I don't think we'll kill them off anytime soon.

Not with all of these 99.9% soaps and cleaning products around. They're practically inviting superbugs/mutations to develop.

[Tsyal Makto]

True. One of the best ways to develop resistance to disease is to be exposed to it at a young age, so white blood cells and the immune system can pick up on them. One of the easiest ways is to simply let kids be kids! Let them roll in the dirt, play with bugs, and all the other things kids USED to do, but now, "diaper sniffing" parents (in the words of George Carlin) cringe at. Living this sanitized life isn't helping anyone except the Big Pharma Corps that profit off all this hand sanitizer and similar products.

[Pa'li Makto]

Exactly. Some parent's nowadays won't let their children climb trees and they get given antibiotics for the common cold. O.o
Their immunity system wouldn't be able to cope with any bug...

[iron_jones]

Damn people be swifferin and sanitizing. Whe I was a kid I ate DIRT

[Tsyal Makto]

And now you're actually better off because of that.

[Human No More]

It's perfectly possible to use to treat specific infections, likely ones that have no actual cure. Overuse will certainly cause immunity though, even if it wasn't a bad idea population-wise and evolutionarily.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Ashen Key

Men are also capable of controlling their own fertility

Ok, that was besides the point as I was not really thinking about physical ability to do so, but on a social level. It has become widely accepted that in societies where men dominate over women socially, birthrates are higher no matter if contraceptions are available or not, as they are not applied. Whereas in societies with empowered and self-determined women who have the social ability to use means of avoiding having too many children, the birthrates are lowered. Presumably this is because women KNOW that there is such a thing as overshoot, overpopulation and also because for many women it also is a burden to have too many kids, so it is more desired to have only a few. Also there is the risk involved (even in our society) of complications. This is by the way true for all kinds of possible means - from "the pill" to more invasive methods, to condoms, to abstinence and even to medical plants and infanticide practices. The key usually is to empower women and give them the permission and ability to control their own birth rate themselves and not let men decide upon that. This is one of the main reasons why Africa is still quite high in birthrates - a lot of these countries are partriachical and fundamentalist christian (catholic).

Anyways, I hope if they really have such a penecillin for viruses, they use it more wisely than the actual penecillin...

[Aquaplant]

auroraglacialis

Still remember when I said that nature is cold, practical and cruel from human perspective? The conversation between Raiden and Ashen Key is what I was talking about, reality vs. empathy. Even though that example is a bit crude, it's about the same thing how there are too many of us, living too long and consuming too many resources as we do.

For efficiency's sake, human lifespan should not be over 40 by any means. Reproductive prime is somewhere around 20, plus the time it takes to raise few mature offspring, should be all that is required for the existence of a single organism.

Not how we would want it to be for sure, but then again we are guilty of thinking that we are somehow important.

[Moco Loco]

I'm always playing the same fiddle here, but if only there were less people in the world, all these risks would be way less. If a crazy virus wipes loads of us out, well actually, great. And if it doesn't, we have some new cures. I say go for it, and I can only hope these companies developing this will be as responsible as they can be.

[Ashen Key]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Ok, that was besides the point as I was not really thinking about physical ability to do so, but on a social level. It has become widely accepted that in societies where men dominate over women socially, birthrates are higher no matter if contraceptions are available or not, as they are not applied. Whereas in societies with empowered and self-determined women who have the social ability to use means of avoiding having too many children, the birthrates are lowered. Presumably this is because women KNOW that there is such a thing as overshoot, overpopulation and also because for many women it also is a burden to have too many kids, so it is more desired to have only a few. Also there is the risk involved (even in our society) of complications. This is by the way true for all kinds of possible means - from "the pill" to more invasive methods, to condoms, to abstinence and even to medical plants and infanticide practices. The key usually is to empower women and give them the permission and ability to control their own birth rate themselves and not let men decide upon that. This is one of the main reasons why Africa is still quite high in birthrates - a lot of these countries are partriachical and fundamentalist christian (catholic).

Anyways, I hope if they really have such a penecillin for viruses, they use it more wisely than the actual penecillin...

Funnily enough, I'm well aware on women's perspective on this issue. I meant more pointing out that men also have a responsiblity, as from your post I got the impression that you were soley placing responsibility on women. Which is problematic, on a number of levels.

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

For efficiency's sake, human lifespan should not be over 40 by any means. Reproductive prime is somewhere around 20, plus the time it takes to raise few mature offspring, should be all that is required for the existence of a single organism.

It takes roughly fifteen years to raise a mature human, hence the long period of menopause that women have so that (should they survive that long) they would have enough time to mostly raise the last children before dying and/or helping to look after their daughter's children and/or passing down knowledge gained. So, between forty and fifty years.

Which is all well and good, but the trouble with humans is we have this itty tiny thing called 'morals', and most of us aren't about to go and kill everyone over the age of forty.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Raiden

Bwahahaha. How adorably naive.

Virii are the most mutable pathogens on the planet. A cure for all of them will only make them stronger.

Also, despite death being sad, it's an important part of balance in any ecosystem. Viruses are one of the last potent controls on the human population, and eradicating them would actually cause more problems than leaving them be.

You're the one being naive here. Did you read the article? This is an entirely new approach. Modern virus control is through immunization, or infecting us with mild forms of the virus to teach our bodies to manufacture cells capable of hunting bacteria. Virus' can then mutate, rendering the immunization useless.

This however, is a scorched earth counter pathogen, if it detects any cells deviating from the norm, it kills them, ignoring the virus itself. Unable to reproduce, the virus dies.

There is no way for it to mutate its way out of this, because its not being attacked, its host cells are. Brilliant.