The other day, a coworker and I were engaging in a deep conversation about life. One of the topics we arrived at was the question "is it right for mankind to exterminate disease (and if so, is it our obligation)". We were unable to finish this conversation, but a topic in the reading stimulated more thought on this matter. In the reading, an excerpt from the WHO details that HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death in women of reproductive age. In my evolution class, we talked about HIV/AIDS to great length, and it makes an interesting case for the aforementioned question about exterminating disease.
HIV is unique among viruses and bacteria in that its rate of mutation (and therefore evolution) is exceptionally high. Unbeknownst to this fact, scientists were stumped by HIV's aptitude in thwarting medication over time by becoming immune. These days, people with HIV undergo treatment via multiple medications that decrease the host's viral load to manageable levels, and the lifespan of the afflicted is similar to that of the average human. At this moment we are managing the disease, but should we stop there?
Humans have been able to extend their lifespan by mitigating natural threats that would otherwise lay us low far earlier. To contend with the elements, we erected homes and shelter. To contend with hunger we have developed complex agricultural/production techniques to provide. We manage these threats, but we can not eliminate them. Disease provides us with a unique situation where it is within our power now (i.e. the elimination of polio, and CRISPR editing granting HIV immunity) to potentially completely remove these threats for human betterment. My coworker posed an argument that just because some animal (let's say a lion) is a potential threat to human life, doesn't give us the right to exterminate them completely. I agree and disagree to a point. Animals are a biological life form that very directly influence human survival. We have mitigated the risk of animal related death to very low levels, so there is no need for such drastic, self-detrimental action. Also, HIV is not technically alive. Viruses cannot replicate without a host, etc, etc.
I'm curious as to what others think of the questions at the center of my ramble. Should we make strides to eradicate disease? Is it an obligation? Should we stop at managing disease, and leave the risk of the disease evolving beyond our control?
In the point of view that our goal as a race is survival, it is an obligation on us to eliminate disease as it threatens our very existence and unlike biological life forms, they are not alive, for the reasons you mentioned, and so as a race, we should stride to eradicate the disease.
ReplyDeleteHowever, another way to view this is based on equilibrium of life forms on Earth. Disease is one of the many natural ways of preventing overpopulation on this planet, and yes, one day we may move on to other planets, but as of right now, we cannot. Looking at it this way, we should not try to eradicate diseases since they are essential to maintaining a balance.
ReplyDeleteThat's an easier position to defend until it's your disease or mine, in which case - especially the latter! - we sure as hell better be trying to eradicate it! "Balance" is an abstraction no living lover of life can indulge.
DeleteI completely agree with you. That is why I personally agree with the first opinion i proposed and that life should be preserved no matter what. I simply wanted to point out an opinion others would argue for.
DeletePreventing suffering is the goal of medical professionals. Diseases hinder this, particularly virulent species are difficult to get rid of without hurting the patient or creating resistant strains. HIV is a tricky situation as it is spread by sexual contact and blood transfer. Large biases around the communities that were infected in the 90's live on today, meaning patients are nervous about admitting infection or submitting for testing. This potentially increases the likelihood of spreading. Unfortunately, viruses are notorious for being difficult to remove.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to ecological ideas, there are potentially ways to limit diseases that only cause harm, proportionally high among children. Several entomologists have told me that there is no purpose of mosquitos other than to spread diseases. Not all of them are able to do this but by limiting these species, we can limit needless pain and suffering.
I think that our "obligation" as a human race to eradicate diseases is an interesting topic. On one hand, you could boil it down to simply a matter of natural selection. The principle of "survival of the fittest" definitely takes precedence here, as we are technically fighting a war against invisible bacterium with whom we, outside of disease, have no quarrel with. Medicine has simply become our weapon against their survival. On the other hand, a conservationist might presume that these bacterium are necessary to our planet's ecosystem, and possibly its ultimate survival as a whole. Through their preservation, however, diseases may be allowed to spread rampant, and will forever plague our species until the end of our time, whether that be the eradication of our species, or a mass extinction of our planet as a whole. That being said, I do believe that it is our duty as humans to mitigate, and eliminate if necessary, all looming threats to our species, if we are to advance as a whole. Time and time again, we as a singular humanity have survived catastrophes, adapted to our metamorphic surroundings, and advanced as a global community.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your point of us always being able to "manage" our threats (animals, more specifically) as opposed to killing them, in the whole massive timescale of humanity, I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, archaic human beings hunted mastodons to extinction based on a matter of survival. Pitting a village of people against a single creature is a chilling position to place yourself in, but the matter of life and death makes the situation even more dire. I do believe that this extinction was not the best option, but with our primitive sciences and education, is there any way we knew better? Furthermore, if we knew of such extinction in the current time, would our primitive species have felt guilt for forever making their mark on the ecosystem? Or is our "guilt" a byproduct of our advancement and access to our global informations systems? I believe that our feeling of responsibility for the planet has come with the growth of both land and power of our species on our planet over time, and that it goes against our primal instincts that come from the fact that we are too, still, just animals trying to survive on our big blue rock. Maybe in 10,000 years, if we are still around, we will have the same questions about the extinction of disease.
On another hand, one could argue that bacterial diseases and viruses are a natural way of keeping our global population in check. However, this falls under the ever present umbrella of economics, as more prosperous peoples have access to better healthcare, and thus our survival is once again biased in our modern age. In addition, I don't think HIV is the best example of disease elimination, due to the fact that, with a bit of awareness and/or preparation, it can be avoided as a whole. STDs are definitely a prominent component of medicine, but they are far less pressing as opposed to diseases which may be genetic, or those that infect populations rapidly through possible airborne or waterborne processes. Due to its relevance with recent emerging CRISPR technology, I certainly see the argument, but I think once it is implemented further to more contagious, inevitable, or lethal diseases, the benefits of genetic editing will be undeniable. But this could bring about the issue of rampant overpopulation, which would potentially (and grows ever more probable by the day) wipe out our species, and possibly life on our planet.
DeleteUltimately, I think we must eradicate disease in order to promote our survival. If a global epidemic all of a sudden comes about in, say, 2020, I wouldn't expect doctors across the world to call out of work, cross their fingers with the rest of the population and just hope for the best; they would work sun up and sun down to putting an end to the global plague, to make sure that there are still humans on Earth living and breathing, whether or not it ends up being themselves. And I firmly believe that is the right decision.
(Sorry I had to split it up, the whole post was apparently too long)
I vote for this long term species goal: eradicate disease, manage population, spread out...
ReplyDelete