Topic: Diseases......... good?

[mouse_clicker]

This is an article I wrote in 2000 for the GCN General Board on IGN way back when I was 12. It's about why I think diseases and viruses serve a very real purpouse and don't exist just to cause death and destruction. I revised it a year and a half later for PGC when they were still on EZBoards, although much of the writing stayed the same. I then revised it yet again (mainly a few rewordings to better get across my point) earlier this year to post on IGN once more. There's been a lot of new users here, so I've decided I'll post it here again for their benefit. I realise it's a long article, nearly 1,500 words, made all the longer by this unnecessarily wordy intro, but I think if you read the entire thing it will at least get your brain working. Hope you enjoy it.




For all eternity, or at least the period in which humans have existed, diseases and viruses have always been looked upon as a burden, as something that exists only to cause pain and anguish. I, however, propose a different and original theory for their existence. One that may not be all that orthodox, but certainly makes sense to me.

First let me preface it with a simple fact- the human race is overpopulated, too numerous, to put it simply. Our planet is incapable of not only containing 6 billion humans, but supporting them as well. In our roughly 30,000 years of existence in our current state (Homo sapiens), we have overrun the world with our presence. We've destroyed countless species' habitats, caused countless others to go extinct- basically our kind has wreaked havoc upon the Earth. What is now a small field nestled near a quiet little town could be a bustling mini mall within a much larger town several years later. In short, humans as a whole have a reckless disregard for nearly anything other than themselves. Granted many oppose this notion, but the fact cannot be denied that we as a whole care only for ourselves. Don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to preach to you the wonders of recycling and conservation. I'm mearly proving a point; a point I think which no one can claim is false. Without any natural predators, the human race has gone beyond the boundaries that contain us and keep us in order. But I think that we are not without a predator born from the wild.

I think you're all familiar with the food chain, or the food web, if you're picky about it. Basically, smaller animals are eaten by larger animals, more or less, the entire way up until you reach the human race who sits at the top. With this known, we automatically assume we have no natural predators. Rather I think the food "chain" is really a loop- in other words, it "loops" back in on itself, putting our natural predator as a very small being. I'd think diseases, one of the smallest known organisms, fit this bill quite nicely. Our connection with diseases, viruses, and of the such, would work like any other parasitic predator/prey relationship.

But first, let me explain the concept of population control as provided by Mother Nature. Take a deer and wolf population, if you will, on in a secluded forest untouched by humanity. Obviously, the wolves hunt the deer, thus keeping their population in check. Contrary to what you may believe, this is very precisely calculated process. If the wolves underhunt the deer, the deer's population will quickly grow too large to be supported by the forest. The deer will overgraze and eat all the available food and nourishment in the area faster than they can regrow. This, in effect, causes the deer to starve to death since they've eaten all of their food. Without deer to support them, the wolves in turn die out in the forest as well. However, if the wolves overhunt the deer, they bypass the overgrazing and go straight to killing off the deer population faster than they can make a comeback. This kills off the deer, which kills off the wolves as well, due to lack of food. Thus the way wolves hunt is nowhere near random, albeit varied. If the deer population gets too big, the wolves will increase their number of kills to bring it back down to a manageable level, all without knowing it. If the deer population suddenly drops, he wolves will back off on their number of kills so as not to endanger the deer. It's a process that has been occurring for 4 billion years and looks as if to leave no one species as an exception, and that includes the humans.

This is where diseases enter. THEY are responsible for keeping OUR population in check. With our recent surge in population, similarly a serge has been seen in newer and deadlier diseases, which threaten our population justly, for we are too numerous. Mind you diseases are not programmed, in a sense, to kill, however. Since this is a parasitic relationship, with us as the parasites' hosts, a well-evolved disease will not kill its victim. Since parasites can not feed off of a dead host, a dead host is of no use to them. You'll notice very old diseases have little or no effect on us now, while it's almost entirely the more recent diseases that cause most of the deaths. Of course, this doesn't stop diseases from killing us. Once one becomes accustomed to humans, another one jumps to take its "place" as the overseer of our population, basically to control it.

But I'm straying from the issue, which is diseases as a population control, in which a very famous example proves I think most of you are familiar with. Take the Black or Bubonic Plague, which ravaged Europe in the 1300's and London in the 1600's. Europe at that time was extremely crowded and overpopulated. Simply put, there were too many people, which in turn made living conditions inhumane. Then, unexpected and unwelcome, a quick spreading and very deadly disease strikes. It quickly moves across almost all of Europe, killing off a third of its population at the time, and has become one of the deadliest diseases to ever strike man. After 3 or 4 years, it ran its course, leaving a wake of utter destruction in its path. More bads are pulled from this than goods, though. I believe the prime reason the plague showed up was to cutdown the population of Europe, in which it succeeded marvelously. Without the plague, Europe would most likely have the worst living conditions in the world right now. The plague's effect might not have been immediate, but over the course of time, it has been unknowingly appreciated. As I stated, the Black Plague also struck later in London, which was also vastly overpopulated at the time, but instead of letting the disease run it's course, hence thinning down the population, it was stopped abruptly by a massive fire that killed nearly all of the plague carrying rats, and the evidence of it's premature foreclosure is evident today.

All this brings me to a major point- medical advancements in the last century have gone to protect us from most diseases currently alive and otherwise deadly. Medical research has artificially lengthened our ages, and I say artificially because without this medical research, we'd all most likely be dead by age 30, less in some places. The art of medicine has eradicated entire diseases and viruses, never to be seen again. This, in my opinion, is the foremost reason our race is overpopulated today, because we are conquering our only natural predators. It would be very akin to the deer killing off the wolf pack, thus killing themselves through starvation later on. We, the deer, are getting rid of our predators, the wolves, which is a grave mistake. Without them we will run rampant across our planet, and already have to some extent. Through our efforts to extend our lives, we have essentially brought about our own doom. The recent surge in new and extremely deadly diseases has shown Mother Nature is throwing everything she’s got as us, in essence as punishment for our selfishness, if you will. But we accept these challenges and in turn defeat them. We are ridding ourselves not of a burden to our race but our savior, the one thing that keeps our existence steady and eternal.

Eventually I believe a massive plague of proportions unimaginable will attack our species, finally succeeding where it has failed so many times before. I believe our population will be greatly reduced, at most perhaps by several billion, but more realistically in the hundreds of millions, and the toll will not only be upon our numbers but our psyche as well, bringing down nearly all of the technological advancements we've made in the last 1,000 years. It will be like the burning of the Library of Alexandria, except on an epic scale, that will set back civilization much further than four or five hundred years. It is a bleak future to look forward to- although far off on human terms, it is foreboding on the horizon on geological terms. A massive disease, our natural predators, will inevitably succeed in its sole duty.

I would like you all to know now that although I believe my theory is true, I don't necessarily believe in upholding it. I've always been one to get the most out of everything, and that includes life. So I’m not out to leave the sick and elderly to die, and while I don't see the good in holding off the inevitable that doesn’t mean we can't improve our lives by at least trying.

-mouse_clicker  

[The Omen]

Well, for one thing, the majority of these new diseases are created in a lab.  Aids was, as was Ebola.  The major reason for this is simple , as it says in some government medical journals in 1971-they want to create a disease that targets certain strains of genes in the human body.  And the certain segment of the population that they want gone is obvious if you look at who these 2 , and many others , have almost exclusively attacked.  Ebola was determined to be out of hand, and those experiments have ceased.  In the wild, your theory is correct.  But in our environment ,we have become 'mother earth'.  Our technology now is to the point where we can control things , such as population.  In the 1300's, we were not advanced enough to stop any disease, let alone the black plague.  Now we've come to the point where we can manipulate diseases to attack who and where we want , for the greater good, or evil .  There is a bigger picture here , which we won't fully see until its too late.  I don't disagree with your assessment, but i think in terms of population control , its more man-made now.

[Uglydot]

Kinda like some proof there "the omen"...

But yes, famine and disease are necessary  evils.  Population control is required.  

[The Omen]

The info. is readily available to anyone who looks it up.  But here you go...

Quote
At a Home Appropriations Committee hearing in 1969 the Defence Department's Biological Warfare division requested funds to develop, through gene splicing, a disease which would resist and break down a victim's immune system. Deputy director Dr Donald M MacArthur stated: 'Within the next five to ten years it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro organism which could differ in certain important respects from and known disease carrying organisms, Most important of these is that it might be refractory (unresponsive to treatment) to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease.' The funds ($10 million) were subsequently approved and the virus was created. In 1972 the World Health Organisation published a similar statement. 'An attempt should be made to ascertain whether viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune infection, eg, by ... affecting T cell function as opposed to B cell function. The possibility should also be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus damages more or less selectively the cells responding to the viral anti-gene.' Are any of these descriptions beginning to sound familiar ? It would appear that our killer virus originated not centuries ago in the wilds of Africa but in a Pentagon laboratory less than thirty years ago.

 

[Uglydot]

Interesting read.

[yellowfellow]

your story is well written, however i feel i have to comment on the fact that it focuses too much on viruses being the ONE thing that preys on humans (read: keeps the population down).
actually, viruses are simply one small component of the general population equation.  the fact that viruses aid in maintaining human population has already been noted and factored into average lifespan (along with violent acts, natural disasters, freak accidents, cancers, etc).
to believe that they are the only true predator of the human race is simply not true.  nothing ever really works on a one-to-one ratio you will find.

as for your cataclysmic plague theory, it is in some way true.  there will be a huge pandemic however the plague will most probably not be the agent.  what we should really fear is the influenzae virus.  all of the worst pandemics of the world have been caused by a genetic shift an influenza virus' OM receptor.  normally from year to year, a drift mutation in the hemaglutinin receptors causes some susceptibility of humans to "the flu" however, every 15 years or so (since the 1900s) a shift has occurred in the neraminadase receptor effectivily causing a widespread epidemic and in some cases, pandemic.  on average around 50 million people world-wide succumb at these points in history.  and not just the old-people; young children and people at the pinnacle of health (20-30 yrs) have also fallen victim.
it has been over 30 years since the last shift, to think we are in the clear would be foolish.

[manunited4eva22]

There is one major flaw about the circle of life thing you have, virii are not living.  

[manunited4eva22]

Blah, double post

One other thing though, how can plagues and starvation be neccisary? What is the birthrate in very well developed countries? Usually lower than the death rate. What I am saying is that on the opposite pole, humans live longer lives and slowly kill themselves off because at older ages they can no longer reproduce.

And where does starvation and plague strike the hardest? In the least economically developed places. Africa, North Korea, Latin America, etc. The only reason why these places have such tremendous birthrates is they all die young. The majority of the planet is not growing too much, except for india, and china, which will peak out at some point. The current estimates are 9 billion, which after that will drop down to around 5billion and stay at that.

What I am getting at is that life trys to maintane homeostasis, which is why the population has grown so much lately. It isn't anywhere near homeostasis. If we stay on earth long enough, it will reach a point where it stays even because there will not be enough people young enough to continue birthing children fast enough to keep the birthrate going.

I will work some more on that later.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
your story is well written, however i feel i have to comment on the fact that it focuses too much on viruses being the ONE thing that preys on humans (read: keeps the population down).
actually, viruses are simply one small component of the general population equation. the fact that viruses aid in maintaining human population has already been noted and factored into average lifespan (along with violent acts, natural disasters, freak accidents, cancers, etc).
to believe that they are the only true predator of the human race is simply not true. nothing ever really works on a one-to-one ratio you will find.

Name them. Compared to diseases, natural disasters and war kill a very small amount of people. Malaria alone has killed more people than every single war combined. True, things like war an cancer DO keep human population in check, but they're so insignficant next to diseases that I didn't think they warranted mention.

Quote
There is one major flaw about the circle of life thing you have, virii are not living.

Technically they are, in the same sense that the cells that make up our bodies are living. They do include DNA material and can reproduce, although not on their own. They may not be conscious and only governed by a strict set of rules encoded inside of them, but they serve the same functon as diseases.

Quote
One other thing though, how can plagues and starvation be neccisary? What is the birthrate in very well developed countries? Usually lower than the death rate. What I am saying is that on the opposite pole, humans live longer lives and slowly kill themselves off because at older ages they can no longer reproduce.

What would the infant mortality rate be like without modern medicine to insure the survival of the baby? Extremely low. Humans wouldn't even reach older ages if we didn't have our wide array of medicines and antibiotics to combat them. That's exactly why we're so succeptible to a super disease-  our bodies don't fight diseases anymore, and hence don't become immune to them (except for the very rare exception such as mononucleosis and chicken pox, although chicken pox can return as shingles). Our bodies are very weak and wouldn't be able to withstand most diseases were it not for modern medicine.

Quote
And where does starvation and plague strike the hardest? In the least economically developed places. Africa, North Korea, Latin America, etc. The only reason why these places have such tremendous birthrates is they all die young. The majority of the planet is not growing too much, except for india, and china, which will peak out at some point. The current estimates are 9 billion, which after that will drop down to around 5billion and stay at that.

Plagues strike hardest in 3rd world countries because they don't have the sanitation and medicinal capabilities to fight diseases. And our population will always either increase or decrease- it will never remain constant. A child limit will slow the population growth to the point where the death rate actually exceeds the birth rate, at which point the population will begin to drop. Too long of this will either cause distinction or massive population growth to correct the problem.

Omen: First off, which virus specifically does your quote apply to? I'm fairly certain the Ebola virus was natural, but I could be wrong. There is strong evidence that AIDS was manufactured. Secondly, although you may be right the more recent deadly viruses were man made rather than naturally made, you still can't compare their effects to such diseases as dysentery, malaria, the black death, yellow fever, etc.

The rest of your articles exactly what I've said- our technological advancements have held off our natural predators, which is why our population is out of control and we have very lnog life spans, despite being very weak for nearly half of it.



I'm not pointing any fingers, but please read my entire post people- it will save us a lot of repitition.

[manunited4eva22]

Quote
Technically they are, in the same sense that the cells that make up our bodies are living. They do include DNA material and can reproduce, although not on their own. They may not be conscious and only governed by a strict set of rules encoded inside of them, but they serve the same functon as diseases.

But they can't reproduce on their own, and only can reproduce by injecting DNA into another living cell. That is why only a handful of scientists will call virii life.

As for life will always wax and wane, why is that? Homeostasis is the best conditions for the survival of any species. If that can be maintaned in an aspect, say human life, then at that point life is able to maintane itself at a much better ability.

The problem with a super disease is that something so deadly cannot possibly replicate itself fast enough to get far out of china, or its source. The only reason the flu stays is that the earlier mutations stay around, because less harmful as they are, they survive longer than the deadly ones.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
But they can't reproduce on their own, and only can reproduce by injecting DNA into another living cell. That is why only a handful of scientists will call virii life.

Truthfully speaking, it doesn't matter whether technically they are or aren't life- the point is they serve a very real purpouse whether they know it or not. Some of the deadliest afflictions in recent times have been viruses (natural or otherwise), including AIDS and Ebola.

Quote
As for life will always wax and wane, why is that? Homeostasis is the best conditions for the survival of any species. If that can be maintaned in an aspect, say human life, then at that point life is able to maintane itself at a much better ability.

Homeostasis is indeed what every species strives to attain but Homo sapiens have only existed for around 30,000 years, a blink of an eye in geological terms. We've got a ways to go before we reach true equilibrium. An example of an animal that has reached equilibrium is the shark, which is neither over nor underpopulated and has existed in it's present state for hundreds of millions of years.

Quote
The problem with a super disease is that something so deadly cannot possibly replicate itself fast enough to get far out of china, or its source. The only reason the flu stays is that the earlier mutations stay around, because less harmful as they are, they survive longer than the deadly ones.

The flu, as it would seem, is a very old disease as it has grown to the point where it does not kill it's host. Our body has learned to fight it quite well, too, so you could easily survive a case of the flu without any medicines whatsoever. Deadlier diseases get poiunced on by pathlogists and of the like, who more often than not quickly make some new drug to fight the disease, depriving our immune system of learning how to fight it on it's own. That is why such diseases are deadlier and don't last as long. Another factor is that viruses like AIDS are relatively difficult to pass on- it requires an exchange of bodily fluids, which isn't something that happens all that often. Even so there is no known cure for it, so once you are HIV postitive, you will always be HIV positive, and if you develop AIDS you will die. Even with it's stringent requirements of spreading it has killed a huge amount of people in a relatively short amount of time. Picture a disease as deadly as the pneumonic plague (which even today has a 100% death rate) that is spread simply by being in the general vicinity of someone who has it, and has no cure whatsoever. To avoid such a disease would mean sundering yourself from the outside world, but some would argue that isolation from your own species is a fate worse than death.

[The Omen]

I did read your entire post, but felt i wanted my own opinions on the subject interjected as well.  This was in an attempt to agree with your post , for the most part, as i said at the end of my rant.

[mouse_clicker]

Well that's good then. But which virus was the quote you posted referring to?

[The Omen]

That was a quote about the origin of AIDS.  

Heres another:

Quote
Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola-Nature, Accident, or Intentional? by Dr. Len Horowitz

The AIDS and Ebola viruses were suppose to wipe out most of the populations and pave the way for surreptitious domination and exploitation of these continents.  The AIDS infection went as planned, but the Ebola virus infection proved too deadly even for its CIA handlers, who were being killed by the virus faster than its intended victims. The project was abruptly abandoned.

All one has to do is type in '(disease) origin' into a google search and you will see many respected doctors who will agree about this.

[mouse_clicker]

It's entirely, but it's very hard to prove as no government, especially the American government, would never admit to it. As such, I'm sure there's a nubmer of respected doctors who disagree that AIDS and Ebola are man-made. If you ask me, though, it sounds like something a conspiracy theorist hopped up on LSD or ecstasy would come up.

Even so, AIDS hasn't exactly wiped out populations and we haven't exactly began colonization. AIDS does affect many people in Africa, but it's only in certain parts, and it affects a lot of people in America as well. Ebola is indeed extremely deadly, but it wasn't anything that was unmanagable. It was containted fairly quickly and the main reason it killed so many people in Africa was because the 3rd world countries it originated in had very poor hospitals with little to no sanitation or quarantine. It has cropped up several more times, but it's definitely no super disease.  

[The Omen]

Quote
It's entirely, but it's very hard to prove as no government, especially the American government, would never admit to it. As such, I'm sure there's a nubmer of respected doctors who disagree that AIDS and Ebola are man-made. If you ask me, though, it sounds like something a conspiracy theorist hopped up on LSD or ecstasy would come up.

Well, how about the "real" cause-"a green monkey bit somebody and it spread through all of Africa, then made its way here."  ?  If you try to get un-conditioned from believing everything that is force fed to you, it sounds a lot more logical.  In fact, a lot of these 'theories' are more believable than the 'truths' we're told.   As for Ebola, it was on the verge of epidemic, with some cases being found here.  The fact is , it couldn't be controlled to the paticular type of person they wanted , so the government had to 'end' it.  

If there is one thing i've learned in my life, the first excuse the government gives you is damage control, and nothing else.  The truth can be found, but nobody will believe, due to dis-information.  And the doctors are no better, some will lose their practice if they step out of line.  

[yellowfellow]

Quote
The flu, as it would seem, is a very old disease as it has grown to the point where it does not kill it's host. Our body has learned to fight it quite well, too, so you could easily survive a case of the flu without any medicines whatsoever. Deadlier diseases get poiunced on by pathlogists and of the like, who more often than not quickly make some new drug to fight the disease, depriving our immune system of learning how to fight it on it's own. That is why such diseases are deadlier and don't last as long. Another factor is that viruses like AIDS are relatively difficult to pass on- it requires an exchange of bodily fluids, which isn't something that happens all that often. Even so there is no known cure for it, so once you are HIV postitive, you will always be HIV positive, and if you develop AIDS you will die. Even with it's stringent requirements of spreading it has killed a huge amount of people in a relatively short amount of time. Picture a disease as deadly as the pneumonic plague (which even today has a 100% death rate) that is spread simply by being in the general vicinity of someone who has it, and has no cure whatsoever. To avoid such a disease would mean sundering yourself from the outside world, but some would argue that isolation from your own species is a fate worse than death

i'm sorry, i really don't mean to sound like a jerk, but this entire paragraph is false.

the fact that influenza has not cause a major pandemic in the past 30 years is due to the fact that choice mutation has not occurred and a shift has not been noted, yet.  this is not to imply that a) virologists are not working with and developing new treatment methods in case such a mutation should arrive, b) influenza is not at all deadly without treatment... in fact if you are infected with the real flu, dehydration and diaharrea caused by it can be fatal, and c) the virus has adapted to us (trust me, it hasn't)
true virologists do "jump" onto a hot disease of a time, however, it's not to say that no one is researching them whenever else throughout the year and that the reason why they are deadly is because this research doesn't allow us to be exposed to them.  the fact is these agents are so deadly that even the smallest epitope from a membrane inhibitor say, may cause a huge autoimmune reaction.  no one wants to take that risk... for instance what if monoclonal antibody were raised to membrane binding receptor of HIV? a human who was infected by the HI virus would see a high secondary influx of B and T cells causing production of the antibody, this in turn would present the virus to T-cells, which bind with the cell.  Considerind CD4 T-Cells are the primary target of the virus, this would not be an opportune encounter.
Just for some information, the reason why HIV is the most problematic virus of our age is the fact that it is sexually trasmitted, and its RNA dependent RNA polymerase is very promiscuous, in that it is very "loose" so to speak, in which ribonucleotide is couples with.  so much so that constant point mutations frequent the genome, however, this genome is so "loose" itself that up to i believe 8 point mutations (depending on where they occur) can be present without a loss in infectivity.  HIV kills around 3-5 million people per year and can easily be transferred from human to human.
These deadly diseases do tend to fizzle themselves out, realizing that killing all hosts would be detrimental to its population.  human intervention is definitely a large part however, not in antisera or vaccines but mostly insolation and raising hyginene standards.
As for the pneumonic plague, it is caused by a bacterium and thus can easily be controlled with simple antibiotics, streptomycin comes to mind.  yes it does have a near 90% fatal rate if unchecked and untreated, but this is uncommon in our day and age.  transfer is easier for HIV than the Y. pestis bacterium and really diaharrea kills more people in the world each year than plague, Ebola and Yellowfever.

As for your comment to my original comment, i'm not saying its wrong to not mention war and natural disasters and violence.  it is true that these factors may seem small but it the great realm that is the world, so are viruses. they are all apart of the same probability equation that is our lives... they are all related to one another, just like a fish can succumb to disease or a virus or another fish or a fisherman or a boat falling on it or the lake drying up or wrong pH in water or not enough mineral in the water etc. similarly, a mineral deficiency can lead to a succeptability to a pathogen which the fish can then succumb to, or maybe the deficiency caused it to move to slowly to evade a predator. the food system is an interchaining web and to focus on viruses as being our ultimate demise because they are our ONLY predator is simply wrong.  thats the impression i got from your writing.
if you enjoy immunology is sincerely encourage you to follow that path, though viruses are not classified as living "beings", their molecular mechanisms will fascinate you and question your belief in a higher power.  

[mouse_clicker]

I never said that pathlogists and scientists were studying diseases not currently causing a problem. I'll admit I was a bit infactual with what I said there, but the fact remains you can survive the flu with little to no treatment. Obviously more serious cases would require medical treatment, but serious cases don't happen often (I haven't even had a cold in a few years).

You misunderstood me on a few of my points though. Firstly, thank you for explaining how HIV and AIDS work- I'm not sure if you disagreed with what I said about them, but it's good for people to be informed. But HIV is not that easily transferred. How often do you exchange bodily fluids with another person? Very rarely. How often are you in the general vicinity of another person? Every day, unless you're a hermit. A disease or virus that could spread through the air would spread much quicker than one that spreads through exchanges of bodily fluids.

And obviously the plague isn't nearly as prevalent as it once was, and neither is yellowfever or Ebola (which was never that prevalent in the first place). Yellowfever HAS killed a fair amount of people, though, before it was kept under control by doctors and scientists. That was my point, not that it's still a problem today. Like I said, overall Malaria's killed more people than every war combined, but that doesn't mean that if you get it today you will die- in fact, you probably won't. That's really why we're overpopulated.

[yellowfellow]

well, the true fact is with little to no treatment, any person has a high probability of being hospitalized or killed by complications due to flu.
In most cases, people of north america receive "flu shots" every fall thereby greatly reducing the chances of complications (eg. dehydration, hear failure, bacterial infections).  those who do not however still receive treatment with antiviral drugs, however, these are seen not to cure the illness rather shorten the duration by approximately a day.  without the uses of either or both of these options chance of complications is high leading to sereve consequences. around 45 000 people die in the US only, from influenza complications.  and this is taking into account treatment and preventative measures were administered.  
as for an airborne virus being more easily transmitted than one restricted to bodily fluid, again not always true.  you have to look at other factors like social problems as well, like i stated with HIV it is a sexually transmitted disease.  "lower economic class" citizens often only concern themselves with an unwanted pregnacy and not a disease.  as well as being a sexually charged species, you can see where the problem is.  additionally, humans have many defense mechanisms specifically for our respiratory system simply because any orifice is just asking to be invaded.  thus we have evolved cilia and mucus, (the latter of which contains several proteases and IgA antibodies) expulsion mechanisms, and a high naive and memory B-cell migration to these areas.

again i will repeat myself... i agree with your statement.  viruses aren't all bad... they cause inportant mutation, they are invaluable in some disease and disorder (including cancer) research, and of course they control our population.  and we humans do live uncharacteristically long lives now due to medical advances. however, i read your post again and i still believe it stresses viruses as being too much as the one and only overpopulation control.  my opinion i suppose, as an immunologist i don't see it that way.    

[mouse_clicker]

Only 45,000 a year? Considering the US's population is close to 290 million, that's nothing to get worked up about.

And I see what you mean that a sexually transmitted disease can be quite prevalent, as AIDS has proved, but nowhere NEAR as prevalent as an airborne disease. In fact, the difference is so extreme that it's ludicrous to believe a sexually transmitted disease wllever reach the proportions of a plague. The Black Death killed 25 million people in about 5 years- the reason it killed so many people in such a short amount of time was because it was airborne. Influenze killed just abotu as many people in the earlier part of the 20th century, again very quickly, again because it was airborne. AIDS has been around for about 25 years now and it was only recently that it's death toll even reached 1 million, despite it being an extremely deadly virus. The fact remains you can catch an airborne disease just by being next to someone, while you have to physically exchange bodily fluids in order to get a sexually transmitted disease. I'm sure everyone here has had the flu, or chicken pox, at some time in our life, yet how many of us have HIV or Hepatitis? I realise that sexually transmitted diseases can spread somewhat rapidly due to the reasons you listed, but I don't think it even needs to be acknowledged next to the incredibly fast rate at which airborne diseases spread.

Omen: Sorry I was a jerk in my last post. I just woke up and was really cranky, although that's not much of an excuse. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory stuff myself, but it wasn't my intention to flame you for having an opposing opinion. I apologize.

[yellowfellow]

i'm sorry but that is incorrect, last year alone 4 million people died from AIDS-associated complications.  Additionally, 5 million more people were infected by the HI virus (i believe 1 million of which were under the age of 15) last year, bringing the world-wide total to around 50-60 million people infected.  Plus, 50% of those living with the affliction were adult women meaning their children will theoretically be born with the deficiency.

the main reason why the Black Death caused such turmoil in China and Europe was because back in the mid-1300s, when it was prevalent, people probably saw it as an act of God rather than a microorganism of sorts.  The plague was never airborne, rather it was (and still is) transferred to people by rodents and other animals.  The main cause were bites or infections from fleas formally living on these disease spreading rats.

in addition to my last post, i should state that it is easier to transmit virus to another through airborne methods, however, to infect is another story.  we have evolved many defence mechanisms to block any foreign antigens from entering and infecting these orifices, and thus it is difficult for any invader to enter through these means.  most cold-like afflictions are caused not through inhalation of virus, rather through ingestion or direct insertion.  i myself have never been infected by the flu (i don't mean a bad cold... i'm talking about "the flu"), everyone else here who have are probably still here reading this because they received treatment.  45 000 deaths a year (in US) is nothing to scoff at considering only 20% of the population are infected by this airborne disease and approximately 90% receive treatment.  FYI the 50 million people figure of people killed by a flu pandemic was the 1918 (or 1919 something) antigenic shift which occured in 1 year.  every 15 years shift have amassed around 1-3 million killed everytime.
 
and i have had chickpox, the zoster virus that causes it however, is most commonly transferred through direct contact of bodily fluids.  

[manunited4eva22]

Wow, conspiracy theories eh? You know what they say, it takes brilliant people to make the dumbest answers.

[mouse_clicker]

Sorry, you're correct- I found an inaccurate report that said it was less than a million. Sorry.

Even so, the total death is no more than 25 million, and that's over 25 years- as I've stated numerous times by now, other disease, airborne disease, have killed that many people in a fifth the time. Unfluenza alone, which you seem to like, killed between 25 and 50 million people in one year.

And what are you trying to prove in the second part of your post? The fact is, airborne diseases are MUCH easier to spread than sexually transmitted diseases. The fact is that people hardly ever exchange bodily fluids, and even rarer is it that that happens between strangers. If you're sitting next to and talking to a person with HIV, are you going to contract it? No. If you're sitting next to and talking to someone with the flu or chicken pox, you most likely will contract it. That's a simple fact and I don't see the point in even acknowledging a super-disease being sexually transmitted, much less arguing it's more effective than airborne diseases. Do you think influenza would have killed as many people as it did had it been sexually transmitted? AIDS is 17th on the list of the deadliest diseases right now due to increased practice of safe sex in America. How could you prevent contracting an airborne disease with no vaccine? Only by isolating yourself from anyone, and like I said, there are fates worse than death.

[yellowfellow]

in argument of your point,
like i said yes sitting next to someone with influenzae will most certainly increase risk of transmission... not however infection.  what i am trying to express is that the airborne route is a most unfavourable path for a virus.  conversely, an exchange of bodily fluids will almost certainly yield infection.  look at the polio enterovirus, before the WHO decided to eradicate the virus from the world (1955) there was an increase of 20-30 thousand cases in the US each year of polio, despite the fact that the virus travels from a fecal-oral route.  think of a highly infectious, highly mutating virus like HIV.  think infection through sex, through operations, blood transfusions, tatoos, visit to the dentist, getting an ear peircing, someones blood while participating in a sport, heroin, etc. an exchange is almost certainly an infection (80% of the time).
i don;t recall however, arguing what would make the best super-virus.  

[mouse_clicker]

I realize that sexually transmitted diseases are much more likely to infect than airborne diseases, but that would only matter if the number of times you came in contact with both was roughly equal. However, that is most definitely not so. For example (actual deaths aside), even if 5 million people are exposed to an STD and 4.5 million become infected (90% infection rate), and 100 million people are exposed to an airborne disease and 45 million become infected (45% infection rate, have that of the STD), that's still 10 times more people with the airborne than the STD. The sheer number of times you're exposed to airborne diseases over STD's makes the fact that your chances of becoming infected each time are less makes that fact pointless.  

Sorry for the confusion on my part otherwise.