A Curse in Disguise?
While this is a potentially amazing breakthrough for medicine etc. the other knock on effects could be potentially problematic. For example if the drug works with no side effects, doesn't create super viruses and is made available to the masses at a reasonable price this means everyone with access to it will live considerably longer lives. Can society and the planet cope with this massive increase in population?
How many people die from viruses, a lot of times they either stay with you and make you miserable but dont kill you (aids, cold, stds), or kill you very quickly and burn out (ebola). I honestly can't think of anything that has a high death rate but doesnt burn itself out before it can spread to a large amount of people, other than the flu viruses. And even then the flu is usually only fatal to the old, young, or already weak. A large portion of people die from just failings of the body, heart disease, brain diseases, cancer, things like that, that are not directly caused by viruses. So all in all this is a godsend.
To expand on that, a virus is actually considered unsuccessful if it kills you. While a bacterium will feed on living or dead material without really caring what harm it does, a virus needs living tissue in order to reproduce, so they usually do whatever they can to avoid killing the animals (including humans) that they infect. The flu manages to spread itself very effectively in sneezes and things, but a normal healthy adult human won't die from it - they will be miserable for a while, spread the virus to the people around them, and then recover when their body manages to kill the virus.
So this isn't so much a life-saving drug as a drug that will make people happier.
The one exception I can think of would be HIV, which does kill people if it turns into AIDS. As a whole, that is actually a very unsuccessful virus. It is spread by sexual contact, which means that most people will only pass it on to one or two other people (unless someone like Sarkozy gets it), and it can often kill the people it infects. But that is, as I said, an exception.
I'd say HIV is very successful. The virus's selfish interest lies in keeping the host alive long enough to spread the virus to others. It does that, and even better, the host may remain unaware of the virus for some time while spreading it; that stealth is important because once the host becomes aware of hosting the virus, the host may behave in ways that don't spread the virus as much. When the host's behavior changes so, it makes that host less valuable to the virus — so it then doesn't matter so much (to the virus) whether the host dies.
Yes, but it can only be spread to one or two other people, and very slowly. If someone were born with HIV, it won't be passed on to anybody else for at least 16 years (assuming they do it all legally), and perhaps a lot more. Once the host does start having unprotected sex, it is likely that they will be in a long-term committed relationship (and trying for a baby), so the only person they can pass it on to would be their partner, and they hopefully aren't sleeping around. In a person's lifetime, they probably won't spread it to more than ten people, even assuming they were born with it. Add to that the chance that the host could quite easily find out about it from a doctor or die from it, and the virus doesn't really stand very good odds.
Re: Cancer: is cancer not a virus? it can be killed by heat, but if there is a way to tell the body to kill it then it would seem a good way to kill cancer.
I very seriously ask all those who oppose technical and medical progress on the base that there would be, in their opinion, "too much people" living in this world, please make a list of those people you would like not to be allowed to stay alive "too long" or that should be prohibited to have offspring of their own, and publish it.
I guess I won't guess wrong that I would be on top of your list? 95.112.232.28 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I flippantly reply: All occupants of both houses of parliament in the UK, plus Boris the Mayor.
I flippantly reply: Any plans yet? And probably on those who elected them, too? Burning a few homes randomly like what people of your likeness have already done won't make any differences, on a global scale. Be honest, once in your live, post it here. 95.112.232.28 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Grow some, Muppet. I post with my real name. And, wishes don't make plans Mr Anonymous Coward.
it is an interesting idea however i fear the destruction of the immune system if we have a super virus killer how would we defend ourselves
Only if we do the right things with the resources we can muster.
Less than 10% of the planet is "built-up". Currently in America, we have a poor habit of building suburbs on top of the most fertile land, just because it's also the most comfortable in terms of humidity and temperature.
Energy will not be a problem.
[You're sitting on a crusty ball of Yellow to white hot lava, right? ]