[OriginalChris]

Talking about black people, Africa, and things of that nature: Can anyone please explain a REALISTIC reason for the AIDS virus? How was it created? Where did it originate? I highly doubt someone had sex with a monkey, then had gay sex with their partner, that partner had more gay sex, and then the gay male community then spread it to females. I also highly doubt that someone CAN actually have sex with a diseased monkey in the first place, but even if that was possible, I don't think people really can have monkey sex and then human sex. You kind of draw the line, as (I believe) Dave Chappelle so eloquently put it.

Anyway, this is a serious question. Where did the AIDS virus come from? Was it a human invention? Perhaps it was created by society's "elite" to kill off those horrible black Africans? Perhaps it was God's vengeance upon the gay community? Perhaps E.T. phoned home, and that was the day Africa stood still? I'm under the impression there was never a legitimate reason discovered yet, but I could be wrong here.

[lolthevoidlol]

As for the differentiation between the sexes, it is really just nature.

The primary social value of women is in giving birth to perpetuate the species. This is inherent an extremely valuable service. However it comes at a cost, from carrying the child to term, to the wear of childbirth, to the inherent dangers of childbirth prior to antibiotics and pain killers, to the time and energy required for caring for the child the first six months to a year. This negative effect is far more than any one individual can account for. In spite of the single mother feminista movement in our spoiled life of modern convenience, even a hundred years ago it was virtually impossible for a woman to take care of herself and a child, most especially during the first six months to a year of the child's life.

This leads to a serious demand whereby the woman needs someone to provide for them for at least six months, if not up to a year and a half. While the service of providing a child may be worth a man entering into a contracted position of taking care of the woman during this time period, it is still a major drain upon his resources. It works out better that during this time the woman handle those duties which do not require excessive labor, IE handling all the affairs which take place within the home, while the man handles the actual provision and anything which takes place outside the home, where the drain upon the woman during this time would be too great.

Again it is simpler to maintain this contract at all times, rather than change the nature during childbirth and after.

Ultimately this is an equal partnership with mutual gain. Feminists tend to view any difference as a failure of equality. There is no reason for men and women to be treated EXACTLY the same. Think of children and house chores, it is terribly inefficient to have them both do exactly the same work, instead you divide the chores equally among them. This is the nature of the marriage contract, an equal division of the labors necessary for provision and child rearing which is designed to automatically accommodate for the weakened position of a child-rearing woman. The only reason that men do not traditionally stay home and care for the children while the women work is really because it is inefficient with the childbirth period in the woman's life. A single margin of inefficacy, even only a couple of weeks, is enough to lead to starvation of the entire family unit. The man, however, maintains his provisional capacity throughout the childbirth period, making the man a far better candidate for the provisional role.

100 years ago one half of the population worked (I am sure there are inconsistencies, but lets just say half). Now with the feminism movement at least half the women in the western world have joined the work force (At least forty percent of women actually believe in the stay at home mom, though it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so). So now approximately three quarters of the western population are working. That means that the number of workers in the current economic structure has increased by %50, which also means the value of the individual worker has decreased by the same margin, which is why in most instances it takes both members of a relationship working full time to support themselves. This is not progression, it is a regression of the basic economic structure of the family unit.

Modernization has removed %80 of the work necessary to keep a home running now, leading to a complete lack of understanding of just how much work women used to put into their half of the deal.

But it's okay if we all have to work twice as hard, at least women are better than men now... Wait, what???

This seems to be based on the idea of the nuclear family as the basic unit for child care, which is not and has not been the case for a large portion of humanity and their history. Also:

[Monkey Fritz]

This seems to be based on the idea of the nuclear family as the basic unit for child care, which is not and has not been the case for a large portion of humanity and their history. Also:

Exceptions do not invalidate the rule where the rule existed in well over %90 of the populace of the planet. Otherwise it would have been a 50/50 split whether a civilization was patriarchal or matriarchal. Even of the matriarchal societies, many of them maintained men as the labor force, only with women in charge.

I was actually referring to victorian and the family structure of the mid centuries. The history of the family unit is a bit more complicated than Wikipedia's separation of "Hunter Gatherer" and "Nuclear Families."

The structure of most "Modern" societies, IE Roman, Egyptian, Assyrian, was not that different than our own. Life on the streets of Carthage in the thirteenth century differed most notably by lack of cellphones and food additives. Women even held prominent roles in those societies, but life being harsher and more difficult to survive than in the days of welfare, insurance, public schooling and unemployment, men remained the primary labor force.
Where we have modern conveniences, they had endentured servitude. Even our laws and civil rights are based on that of the Roman empire. Even the slaves were, on average, treated little worse than employees of current times. Being servants no different than hired servents of today, and often even paid. Their owners even being held responsilble for their well being more than current employers are of their employees. Even Romans selling themselves into servitude being little different than a modern labor contract.

Also the "Hunter Gatherer" family units are based on the small village dynamic, not the town or city dynamic (which are both several thousand years old). As well as the "Nuclear Family" being based on the middle class dynamic, and primarily referring to the closed mother, father, children group, as opposed to the extended family remaining together in most previous societies.

Even though prior to the nuclear family the extended family was one singular unit, there were still sub units consisting of each marriage pair, which were much the same as the nuclear family. The difference being that the entire family acted as a supporting village, because of increased productivity. Much the same as a modern Hispanic-American family unit (as the whole of the nuclear family idea is predominantly White-American).
The nuclear family was a departure from the extended family unit, because with modern convenience it was suddenly possible for the individual units to survive on their own. A further devolution of the family is the result of further realization that no family unit is required for survival. This is a serious departure from both history and evolution. But even more so from the realities of e world, because even the "modern family" is such a small part of the actual world population. In reality, on a global scale, the family structure of the last centuries hasn't changed at all. Only in first world countries, as families are no longer neccisary components of survival, has such change been seen.

[RRRoooaaaRRR]

Anyway, this is a serious question. Where did the AIDS virus come from? Was it a human invention? Perhaps it was created by society's "elite" to kill off those horrible black Africans? Perhaps it was God's vengeance upon the gay community? Perhaps E.T. phoned home, and that was the day Africa stood still? I'm under the impression there was never a legitimate reason discovered yet, but I could be wrong here.

How could HIV have crossed species?

It has been known for a long time that certain viruses can pass between species. Indeed, the very fact that chimpanzees obtained SIV from two other species of primate shows just how easily this crossover can occur. As animals ourselves, we are just as susceptible. When a viral transfer between animals and humans takes place, it is known as zoonosis.

Below are some of the most common theories about how this 'zoonosis' took place, and how SIV became HIV in humans:

The Origin of AIDS and HIV and the First Cases of AIDS

[Hermes]

Was it a human invention? Perhaps it was created by society's "elite" to kill off those horrible black Africans? Perhaps it was God's vengeance upon the gay community? Perhaps E.T. phoned home, and that was the day Africa stood still? I'm under the impression there was never a legitimate reason discovered yet, but I could be wrong here.

No it was not a human invention. My understanding is that as a virus that lives in blood (and other fluids) it can be passed through blood. The first case of AIDS in humans was probably due to a monkey scratching a human and it then being transferred through the open wound or it would have been transferred when a monkey was eaten as in many African tribes, monkeys are commonly hunted as a food source.

[Falan]

Talking about black people, Africa, and things of that nature: Can anyone please explain a REALISTIC reason for the AIDS virus? How was it created? Where did it originate?

I don't know much about the AIDS virus other than what they teach in school and that a cure exists. By cure I mean treatment. By treatment I mean a gene therapy (which presumably never made it past testing) I found in a twenty year old book about genetic engineering and microbiology which I found in a college library once. I'll post the book title if I remember it.

However, I do know more than I reasonably should about the Ebola virus. Specifically, because it's part of the back-story for my protagonists in a book I'm writing and I wanted to get dates and places correct. A virus that does pass the species barrier, though it's not an STD.

So first, I'll point out that in order for AIDS to pass to humans, intercourse with an infected animal is not required.. Though the AIDS virus dies within minutes when outside the body, it could still be contracted by eating or simply skinning a freshly killed (uncooked) animal within which the virus is still active. Like any STD, the virus can be transmitted through blood. One of the reasons that medical professionals are concerned about reusing dirty needles, as a great many diseases can use it as a carrier.

Secondly, though it's been popular opinion that the disease is primarily found within the homosexual population; it's actually fairly evenly distributed worldwide. The countries which have the highest new infections and populations of HIV infected individuals actually have a higher transmission vector in hetero sex, as the above link shows. Though here in America this fact is generally overlooked, as the primary transmission is reported as homosexual.

I also highly doubt that someone CAN actually have sex with a diseased monkey in the first place, but even if that was possible, I don't think people really can have monkey sex and then human sex. You kind of draw the line, as (I believe) Dave Chappelle so eloquently put it.

I don't know, there are some real perverts out there. As an unrealistic and semi-logical example of a sick individual: Anthropologists have been known to live in remote regions following social groups of primates for years at a time. Sometimes completely eschewing human contact as they continue to observe. Suppose one such individual was not content to merely observe but attempted to become part of the social group, even to the point where they were to take a monkey mate. Then when his research is complete with a tear filled farewell, that individual might return to the populated world either to his wife, or perhaps marry at a later date unaware he/she has become a carrier for a new disease with a long incubation period.

Where did the AIDS virus come from?

Viruses evolve and mutate alongside the rest of the world. It's one of the reasons that the common cold remains uncured, as it changes so quickly that it becomes immune to any treatment, almost as quickly as it's developed. In the case of newly discovered viruses the first human contact tends to be fatal. In an extreme example is the Ebola virus, which can kill it's host in anywhere from 2 to 21 days.

However, from an evolutionary perspective this quick kill rate is a poor strategy. As it can destroy all available host organisms before transmitting to more, hence 'burning itself out'. Subsequent outbreaks of such a virus tend to result in higher and longer survival rates of the infected. As the less deadly strains result in longer proliferation and thus become the evolutionary path of the disease.

Compare this to HIV, though it was first described in medical research in 1981 (and found in preserved tissue samples from 1959-1960) it has an incubation period of up to 10 years before an individual might be diagnosed as having AIDS. Research into the viruses origins suggest that it likely developed anywhere from 1884 to 1924 (above link) in Africa (The country within which the virus is most prevalent and also where Ebola was discovered).

Was it a human invention? Perhaps it was created by society's "elite" to kill off those horrible black Africans?

If the above dates are correct, this would suggest against the possibility of human invention. The first virus separated into respective protein and RNA was the tobacco mosaic virus in 1939. Unless you consider the idea of some extremely technologically advanced secret society. Should such a group exist and have some racial hatred against Africans, then the dates might suggest that it could be a reason. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation being declared on January 1, 1863. The development of the virus a mere 21 years later at it's earliest approximation could be a result.

However, the discovery of many other viruses found almost randomly throughout the world and particularly within Africa would suggest that it's a naturally occurring phenomenon like any other.

Perhaps it was God's vengeance upon the gay community?

Ummm... "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)

Tell me again how this is a tolerant religion promoting good will towards man? In any case, a great number of animal species 'take it where they can get it', so to speak. Including homosexuality and cross-species, mostly for lack of alternatives rather than some odd preference. Assuming Creationism, God created the animals as well as humans (which I think of as just really smart animals), if this was such a sin, and animals are without souls and therefore without sin, then why should the shepherd be killed for following in the pawprints of his sheepdog and flock?

Perhaps E.T. phoned home, and that was the day Africa stood still?

There is a hypothesis put forth to explain the 'missing link' that aliens genetically engineered humans from their own DNA and indigenous primates to form a slave race. Then abandoned Earth for whatever reason. A hypothesis that even made it onto the History channel.

^^ Bugging editor auto-translates links into embedded video. Relevance starts about 22:40.

If this was assumed to be true, it might be that aliens created the virus to exterminate the human race after we proved that our technological development might at some point in the future rival their own. Though one would think they could develop a better means of genocide, that their technology would remain superior after the thousands of years of development, and that a race that travels between the stars might have a much higher population to start with.

I'm under the impression there was never a legitimate reason discovered yet, but I could be wrong here.

Is there a legitimate reason a crocodile cannot stick out it's tongue? Or polar bear's are left handed?
Random chance and natural selection. Kind of like government sponsored studies that determine the two items above.

[willis888]

There is a hypothesis put forth to explain the 'missing link' that aliens genetically engineered humans from their own DNA and indigenous primates to form a slave race. Then abandoned Earth for whatever reason.
If this was assumed to be true, it might be that aliens created the virus to exterminate the human race after we proved that our technological development might at some point in the future rival their own. Though one would think they could develop a better means of genocide, that their technology would remain superior after the thousands of years of development, and that a race that travels between the stars might have a much higher population to start with.

I love to daydream about this sort of thing.

If extra terrestrial intelligences took monkeys as pets and modified them into a more self-aware form, what would be the motive? Any intelligence capable of interstellar travel would have the energy resources to make manual slave labor redundant, so it may have been to their benefit either emotionally or morally. If we assume malevolent intelligence would either destroy itself before reaching a sufficient level of technology or stagnate in a Dark Ages-like cultural state, we reach the conclusion that our hypothetical aliens were likely benevolent and probably more benevolent than the average human. They may have also been naive, having no cultural memory of Evil.

So naive aliens modified some monkeys, gave them advanced technology, then watched in horror as the newly formed humans used that tech to enslave other humans. Realizing they made a mistake, they left, but being benevolent they'd try to undo the damage they inadvertently caused . . . perhaps by sharing moral codes with individuals who had the personal charisma to spread that way of thought (e.g. shaman and prophets) or who were in positions of power and could decree codes of behavior as law (e.g. tlatoani and pharaohs).

This obviously backfired, with the words of the prophets and laws of the pharaohs being twisted over time by myopic, greedy, and sociopathic priest and politician classes, who used the gifts as means and justification for further barbarism, control, and enslavement.

So now what is a benevolent alien to do about their misbehaving pet humans? Every direct intervention leads to suffering. Perhaps those silly monkeys will examine their behavior more closely if they were instilled with a sense of wonder, awe, and of anything being possible. Enigmatic messages left in corn fields, brief glimpses of fabulously agile flying machines, all the hints required to develop a theory such as this one being seeded into their culture . . . yeah, maybe that will work. *crosses fingers*

[Falan]

Yes. Most of these conspiracy theories are fun just to consider the possibilities! Provided they're not taken too seriously.

If extra terrestrial intelligences took monkeys as pets and modified them into a more self-aware form, what would be the motive? Any intelligence capable of interstellar travel would have the energy resources to make manual slave labor redundant, so it may have been to their benefit either emotionally or morally.

Although aliens might have the ability to travel between the stars, we cannot assume constant high energy production because of it. It's possible that they have found some obscure loophole in physics that allows them to travel faster-than-light with low power requirements or that they are only able to produce limited quantities of the high energy required or the fuel to produce that energy is very expensive and thus would only be used for specific purposes (like faster-than-light travel), or even that they do not have faster-than-light travel and instead used a 'generational' ship to reach our planet.

The requirements, once arrived, wouldn't just be energy, machines and technology require maintenance to continue functioning. An organic lifeform would not only be self-supporting, requiring only natively occurring foodstuffs, but would also be self-replicating. And some form of intelligent thought would be required to teach complex tasks.

Besides which, currently our own technology has weight and mass requirements for traveling outside the atmosphere in order to use the minimum required fuel (which is expensive). If these aliens were using humans as a gold-mining force (as many supporters of the theory purport) we could assume they might also be using some form of capitalism. Even if they were not using gold for money, it's commonly used (by us) in a variety of sensitive technology. Gold-plated cables are used for better signal transmission in A/V (and other) equipment. Scanning Electron microscopes use gold as a conductive coating. It's used in artificial satellites as a EMI reflector.

So from a practical standpoint, assuming similar limitations in alien technology as our theoretical technology, it would make sense to build a ship using the minimum required with the intention of using materials at the destination to accomplish whatever task is in mind. If the technology exists, this could include labor forces. If we were to colonize another planet it would make sense to reduce the animals we might desire to bring with use; down to their respective DNA (including diversity) and thus reduce the size of the ship and effort to reach that other planet (assuming we know how at that point).

If we assume malevolent intelligence would either destroy itself before reaching a sufficient level of technology or stagnate in a Dark Ages-like cultural state, we reach the conclusion that our hypothetical aliens were likely benevolent and probably more benevolent than the average human. They may have also been naive, having no cultural memory of Evil.

So naive aliens modified some monkeys, gave them advanced technology, then watched in horror as the newly formed humans used that tech to enslave other humans.

A malevolent intelligence would not necessarily destroy itself, despite our morality tales. Concepts such as 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) can be great limiters on a society to insure continued cooperation. Anyone crazy enough to fire the nukes out of spite would presumably be removed from the ability to do so, before they can.

Assuming the non-existence of good and evil (which I do normally in any case) what might be considered malevolent is a valid means of biological, societal, and technological development; at least on our planet. Competition between species for food or corporations for contracts is what drives our society towards becoming "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" (I love Daft Punk!)

It's unlikely that a society that would truly be benevolent would develop the level of technology required to travel interstellar distances. To my mind, benevolence also encompasses contentment and inner peace. Why would a society already content feel any desire to improve themselves?

Even if such a race made it to Earth and through naivety combined their genes with native creatures for companion animals, they would of necessity have to perform species comparisons and cataloging to find the most suitable candidate. Presumably this would include knowledge of the behavior common to both humans and primates that a benevolent race might find abhorrent. Unless they were to assume that their double helix dabbling would remove such behaviors.

Even more disturbing, what if the DNA of native primates actually tempered the biological behavior of the donating race?

[willis888]

I'm not aware of enough data to say with any level of certainty what might have happened in prehistoric times. Speculating is fun, and telling sci-fi narratives is fun.

. . . what might be considered malevolent is a valid means of biological, societal, and technological development; at least on our planet. Competition between species for food or corporations for contracts is what drives our society towards becoming "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" (I love Daft Punk!)

It's unlikely that a society that would truly be benevolent would develop the level of technology required to travel interstellar distances.

I disagree on both points, but perhaps that is a discussion for a different thread or even a different forum.

[Eylrid]

^^ Bugging editor auto-translates links into embedded video.

If you go into advanced editing mode, there's an option below the editor, "Automatically convert links into videos", that is checked by default. If you uncheck it, then you can include video links with without having them embedded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ