# Modern plagues



## Princess Ivy (Aug 14, 2006)

there is no doubt that our modern world has some deadly deseases, aids, cancer, ebola etc..., they are deadly and very scary, especially, to my mind the aids plague as its effect is so insidious. My question is where have they come from? were some created by man? is it our own fault because we've disturbed places that were better left alone? or is it simply nature's way of population control? or is it a combination of the first two, simply because of the third? or is there another reason? is it possibly that they were always there but not identified?


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 14, 2006)

Most, at least, have been with us all along; though, like any living thing, they've tended to evolve over time. I recall, many years ago, coming across an article indicating that a form of the AIDS virus had entered the European population several centuries back, but had been much less virulent... I don't know if further research refuted that claim, but I found the article quite interesting... No, I think it most likely that, if we had anything to do with these things, it's more along the nature of breeding a heartier variety rather than actually engineering something entirely new. And even this (despite my earlier suspicions that such might be the case) seems less and less tenable as the evidence mounts. It's very much like the newer strains of influenza, or hepatitis, or cholera... each strain becomes heartier and more difficult to eliminate ... this is how all living species survive, ultimately, viruses and bacteria included.


----------



## chrispenycate (Aug 14, 2006)

If you are an evolutionist, then adaptation by mutation is inevitable, to be expected. If a lysencoist (hm, is that a reasonable noun) then the existance of a huge number of human bodies is an irresistable environment, If your a creationalist, your deity has decided it's time to cull the species (though a determined creationalist would insist that God ceased creating species after mankind, and that diseases are caused by devils, not micro-organisms or viruses at all.
Still, almost all of them would agree that we've not got _real_ plagues now, not like beubonic, which killed off half the population of Europe, or the various nasties introduced to the low immunity north american population by the Europeans, who'd been breeding up _their_ immunities over the millenia.
Certainly, some industrial processes might increase the mutation rates of species. and some medical habits increase their resistance . But the fight of weapon against armour, poison against antidote, pest against pesticide and, of course, immunity against immunity to immunity is as old as life itself; there's evidence that some of the structures of our very cells are the result of "cease fire" treaties between pre cellular - just a minute, it's not an "organism" if it predates cells. Life forms. 
Just because nineteenth century medecine convinced the population that the war was won, only mopping up exercises remain, doesn't make it true (only one of the half-truths and outright falsehoods fobbed off on the population over the millenia, and they did have some evidence, and doubtless believed it themselves.
And there is still a perfectly adequate stock of known, established diseases for which the cure is known, which continue to kill in quantity due to the lack of the political or financial will to prevent them.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Aug 14, 2006)

you've lost me mate. no modern plagues? (not talking about cynicism, stupidity etc) I was talking about diseases which kill people in their tens of thousands, how can those not be called plagues?
and yes, i agree, there is no reason for someone to contract or spread or die from diseases like tb and smallpox, when modern medcine can treat/vacinate/cure that sort of illness, but those are not the illnesses that i was referring to. Those can be reduced with eduction and decent health services which are not relient on profit driven drugs companies.
But although it can be treated, AIDS cannot be cured, cancer can be driven into remision or removed, I understand that there are different viewpoints from a sociological viewpoint, and even a, ahem, hard sciences point of view, i'm asking which, if any you subscribe to.



edit note: i just read that back and i think my spelling is getting worse


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 14, 2006)

I think the problem here is in definition of terms. Historically speaking, "plagues" wiped out either entire populations, or (as Chris pointed out) half or better of the existing population... nothing we have now even slightly compares with that. We have epidemics, but we don't even have pandemics these days. Considering the global population has long since topped 6,000,000,000 even a few hundred thousand don't make much of a dent in that sort of number... Even all the various diseases we have put together would be unlikely to compare quantitatively with the historical plagues in either virulence or impact on society. Does this lessen the tragedy of them? By no means. Nor should it mean that we put less effort into combating them... but the term "plague" simply doesn't apply, both because of the discrepancy in numbers, and because a true plague is something which is so highly infectious that the majority of the population simply has no immunity to it, and none of the diseases you are discussing here fit that description, either. There was a reason why entire towns and cities were quarantined when a plague began to appear ... anyone coming into contact with an infected person was quite likely to succumb, unlike today's situation, where, barring genuine exposure to certain conditions (bodily fluids and the like), infection is much, much less likely.


----------



## Princess Ivy (Aug 14, 2006)

and yet, large portions of the african continent are infected. yes, people are more spread out now and populations bigger, but these diseases are still wiping out tens of thousands, probably bigger numerical amounts, if not population percentages.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 14, 2006)

Yes, the individual numbers are probably higher for the moment... but the historical plagues also tended to be periodic, with recurrences over and over for centuries, if not millennia. Plus, unlike HIV, as said, they were spread by even minimal contact, whereas most of the modern epidemics are brought on either by sexual contact (or use of infected needles, etc.), or by ingestion of infected food or water supplies. This is a vastly different thing, and much easier to avoid than simply coming into contact with someone and finding that an entire town is now infected because one person came into minimal contact with one person from an already infested area. So, no, these cannot be considered plagues, as such.


----------



## mosaix (Aug 14, 2006)

Princess Ivy said:
			
		

> My question is where have they come from?



It's just nature saying, "Sit back and watch - here's how evolution works...."


----------

