Sensitive Question

[Liesje]

also, woudn't AIDS then be afflicting those who consume the most resources (if it were smart, that is)?

oooo, yeah, that one's money!

 

[maycocksean]

also, woudn't AIDS then be afflicting those who consume the most resources (if it were smart, that is)? instead, it remains a disease of poverty and ignorance and afflicts the most vulnerable members of the population.

I would think it would affect those that are the "weakest." That's how it works in nature right? The strong ones in the herd probably consume more resources just by virtue of being bigger and strong. The more vulnerable would always be the ones that get weeded out.

 

[starsgoblue]

But there is also the whole issue of accessability to the resources that are used to fight AIDS. Some countries have 'em. Some don't. And that seems to be largely due to our control.

 

[Butterscotch]

In addition to being poor, most of the infected in subsaharan Africa also had the disadvantage of not having the massive education campaign and media blast on AIDS that we got in the west. This allowed it to spread unchecked for so long that it got out of hand before anyone even realized it. And because of their culture (many are Muslim) it's taboo to discuss sex with kids (I saw Bono complaining about this on one of his visits to Africa) so you can't even explain it. In addition to that, you have the issue of women being subservant to men, which means they cannot say no, or suffer for it. So again, the culture of the region was another big reason it spread. It's an unmeasurable tragedy.