Pope rejects condom use in Africa
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
After thinking about this a little more, I actually agree with the Pope's stance. The reason being, as it was discussed in this thread, providing condoms is nothing more than a band-aid on the problem of AIDS transmission.
Giving out condoms all over Africa, is not going to solve the problem. The solution needs to come in the form of change in cultural paradigm. Human sexual behavior is a mixture of nature and nurture, some aspects can be changed, others cannot. For example the desirability of a mate with low previous sexual experience is extremely culturally relative
That level of desirability can be influenced in humans depending on what culture they identify with. In the same way, a change away from sexual attitudes in Africa that promote the spread of AIDS is a more long term solution, and promoting abstinence is more of a move towards a shift in cultural sexual beliefs than handing out condoms.
After thinking about this a little more, I actually agree with the Pope's stance. The reason being, as it was discussed in this thread, providing condoms is nothing more than a band-aid on the problem of AIDS transmission.
Giving out condoms all over Africa, is not going to solve the problem. The solution needs to come in the form of change in cultural paradigm. Human sexual behavior is a mixture of nature and nurture, some aspects can be changed, others cannot. For example the desirability of a mate with low previous sexual experience is extremely culturally relative
That level of desirability can be influenced in humans depending on what culture they identify with. In the same way, a change away from sexual attitudes in Africa that promote the spread of AIDS is a more long term solution, and promoting abstinence is more of a move towards a shift in cultural sexual beliefs than handing out condoms.
Giving out condoms all over Africa, is not going to solve the problem. The solution needs to come in the form of change in cultural paradigm. Human sexual behavior is a mixture of nature and nurture, some aspects can be changed, others cannot. For example the desirability of a mate with low previous sexual experience is extremely culturally relative
That level of desirability can be influenced in humans depending on what culture they identify with. In the same way, a change away from sexual attitudes in Africa that promote the spread of AIDS is a more long term solution, and promoting abstinence is more of a move towards a shift in cultural sexual beliefs than handing out condoms.
No, they are doomed if the other things that allow AIDS/HIV to take hold of the population are not addressed.
You're missing an obvious point that has been openly stated and/or implied several times in this thread. A cultural change can be made, but how is a cultural change going to help those who already have HIV or AIDS? Moreover, how long do you expect for a cultural change to last when there are other things like war, famine, poverty, other disease, lack of education, etc running wild? BTW, the questions presented to you are not hypothetical.
You're missing an obvious point that has been openly stated and/or implied several times in this thread. A cultural change can be made, but how is a cultural change going to help those who already have HIV or AIDS? Moreover, how long do you expect for a cultural change to last when there are other things like war, famine, poverty, other disease, lack of education, etc running wild? BTW, the questions presented to you are not hypothetical.
You are asking all of Africa to do something "Civilized & Educated" countries who know all the AIDS info aren't willing to do. Theory wise it works wonderfully yes. In real day to day life the theory can't work. Other changes have to be made prior to condoms or abstinence can happen.
To do this you need to travel 11,668,598.7 sq miles, meet 922,011,000 people and educate them on AIDS.
The news is sobering. In fact it is down right frightening. A report from the United Nations says that AIDS will kill half of all 15 year olds in Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa by 2012 if something is not done soon. The report goes on to say that about 24 million people in Sub-Sahara Africa are living with HIV. So why is the epidemic raging out of control in Africa and other undeveloped countries? Several factors are contributing to this tragedy.
No Money
The problem is so basic but so difficult to remedy. There simply is not enough money to fight the disease. Prevention efforts in the western world centers around education, condom use and testing and counseling. And statistics show that while HIV transmission has not been eradicated, these measures have helped dramatically. Unfortunately, for those living in Sub-Sahara Africa, the availability of these important prevention techniques are rare. Without HIV education, the people of Africa continue to lack the tools necessary to change behaviors and halt the spread of the disease.
Without condoms, heterosexual transmission continues to soar. Consider this. In some African nations, 1 in 3 adults are infected with HIV. The majority of sexual contact is unprotected, making transmission more likely and more widespread.
And finally, widespread testing and counseling is just not available. Of the 24 million or so with HIV, a large number of them do not know they are infected. Because of this, heterosexual contact becomes a major transmission route of young adults in Africa. The combination of not knowing their HIV status and the lack of available condoms, allows unprotected sexual transmission to continue.
To combat this lack of funds, the United Nations is urging developed countries to fund the war on HIV. Experts place the cost of containing the epidemic to be approximately $4 billion.
No Medications
In the western world, the fight against HIV has been bolstered by the emergence of HIV medications. Unfortunately, the lack of available health care dollars in the countries hardest hit has made medications scarce in those regions. Medications have be proven to slow the progression of HIV infection to AIDS, thus allowing people to live longer, more productive lives. Without the benefit of these medications, the people of Africa continue to fall victim to AIDS at alarming rates.
Cultural Differences
A big barrier to containing the HIV virus is cultural differences that make fighting the disease that much more difficult. In some African populations, multiple sexual partners are expected as part of cultural expression. This increases the risk of transmission because of the shear number of sexual contacts, most of them between parties who are unaware one or both of them is HIV infected.
Culturally Sensitive Care of the HIV Patient
Complacency
In Africa alone, more than 11 million people have died as a result of AIDS. Yet, South African President Thabo Mbeki denounces HIV as the cause of AIDS, saying that nothing has been proven that links the two. Instead, Mbeki is representative of a growing number of people that feel HIV drugs themselves may be the cause of AIDS. This stance has made it more difficult to educate the general population on the importance of medicines in fighting HIV and AIDS.
The Case of the Denialists
Oddly enough, the success of HIV medications is also contributing in a small part to the African epidemic. Complacency has led to a rise in unprotected sex, both heterosexual and among gay men. People have seen the success of medications and feel that if infected, a few pills is not too large a price to pay for spontaneity. This state of mind can and will have huge ramifications.
A Step-by-Step Explanation of Medication Resistance
So the epidemic rages on. Some experts expect two thirds of the Sub-Sahara population will eventually be wiped out by AIDS. A sobering thought indeed. While there have been a few successes in the region, AIDS continues its devastating attack on a population, a culture, and a people. Changes have to be made soon while there is still time.
To do this you need to travel 11,668,598.7 sq miles, meet 922,011,000 people and educate them on AIDS.
The news is sobering. In fact it is down right frightening. A report from the United Nations says that AIDS will kill half of all 15 year olds in Zimbabwe, Botswana, and South Africa by 2012 if something is not done soon. The report goes on to say that about 24 million people in Sub-Sahara Africa are living with HIV. So why is the epidemic raging out of control in Africa and other undeveloped countries? Several factors are contributing to this tragedy.
No Money
The problem is so basic but so difficult to remedy. There simply is not enough money to fight the disease. Prevention efforts in the western world centers around education, condom use and testing and counseling. And statistics show that while HIV transmission has not been eradicated, these measures have helped dramatically. Unfortunately, for those living in Sub-Sahara Africa, the availability of these important prevention techniques are rare. Without HIV education, the people of Africa continue to lack the tools necessary to change behaviors and halt the spread of the disease.
Without condoms, heterosexual transmission continues to soar. Consider this. In some African nations, 1 in 3 adults are infected with HIV. The majority of sexual contact is unprotected, making transmission more likely and more widespread.
And finally, widespread testing and counseling is just not available. Of the 24 million or so with HIV, a large number of them do not know they are infected. Because of this, heterosexual contact becomes a major transmission route of young adults in Africa. The combination of not knowing their HIV status and the lack of available condoms, allows unprotected sexual transmission to continue.
To combat this lack of funds, the United Nations is urging developed countries to fund the war on HIV. Experts place the cost of containing the epidemic to be approximately $4 billion.
No Medications
In the western world, the fight against HIV has been bolstered by the emergence of HIV medications. Unfortunately, the lack of available health care dollars in the countries hardest hit has made medications scarce in those regions. Medications have be proven to slow the progression of HIV infection to AIDS, thus allowing people to live longer, more productive lives. Without the benefit of these medications, the people of Africa continue to fall victim to AIDS at alarming rates.
Cultural Differences
A big barrier to containing the HIV virus is cultural differences that make fighting the disease that much more difficult. In some African populations, multiple sexual partners are expected as part of cultural expression. This increases the risk of transmission because of the shear number of sexual contacts, most of them between parties who are unaware one or both of them is HIV infected.
Culturally Sensitive Care of the HIV Patient
Complacency
In Africa alone, more than 11 million people have died as a result of AIDS. Yet, South African President Thabo Mbeki denounces HIV as the cause of AIDS, saying that nothing has been proven that links the two. Instead, Mbeki is representative of a growing number of people that feel HIV drugs themselves may be the cause of AIDS. This stance has made it more difficult to educate the general population on the importance of medicines in fighting HIV and AIDS.
The Case of the Denialists
Oddly enough, the success of HIV medications is also contributing in a small part to the African epidemic. Complacency has led to a rise in unprotected sex, both heterosexual and among gay men. People have seen the success of medications and feel that if infected, a few pills is not too large a price to pay for spontaneity. This state of mind can and will have huge ramifications.
A Step-by-Step Explanation of Medication Resistance
So the epidemic rages on. Some experts expect two thirds of the Sub-Sahara population will eventually be wiped out by AIDS. A sobering thought indeed. While there have been a few successes in the region, AIDS continues its devastating attack on a population, a culture, and a people. Changes have to be made soon while there is still time.
try focusing on what is posted and not what is not posted. Any one of you could find this info on the machine called a computer and by traveling online. Most all things relating to this subject state the same, unless THEY are educated and givin the resourses they will never overcome AIDS in Africa. Unless the Pope is willing to donate hella time and money to the education, hospitals, treatment centers, test sites, so on and so on fuck his thoughts.
You think it is wise to listen to a man in regards to Condoms or abstinence when he hides his employees who sodomize and molest young boys? Do they use abstenence or condoms? I know its off subject but oh well.
You think it is wise to listen to a man in regards to Condoms or abstinence when he hides his employees who sodomize and molest young boys? Do they use abstenence or condoms? I know its off subject but oh well.
As "sinister" as it is, the more people die from AIDS, the better this is for Africa. So the people is indeed a saint for saying this 
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48611
Malthus and vice
Malthus and vice
Published Apr 12 2009 by Energy Bulletin
Archived Apr 12 2009
Malthus and vice
by Kelpie Wilson
Without growth, there would be no economy as we know it. But modern culture, by and large, doesn't see that it can exist only in the medium of ceaseless growth and expansion, because a fish doesn't see the water it swims in. Only today, in the recent, breathless moments of the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression, do we begin to perceive the waters around us.
Slowly, we are coming to realize that the last 200 years of economic growth have been based on a monumental Ponzi scheme that has pushed the final reckoning ever forward in time, until the future is now. Slowly, we are coming to realize that Malthus was right.
It was the warrior cry of the radical environmental movement in the 1980s: “Malthus Was Right!” But Malthus, a mumbling country parson with intellectual ambitions, had been transmogrified by capitalists and communists alike into a fearsome bogey man possessed of “dangerous” ideas. Environmentalists who invoked his name were invariably corrected by their progressive friends who told them that excess consumption by the rich was the problem, not the reproductive profligacy of the poor.
Yet, as we drive deeper into the greenhouse world, with its crazy weather, water shortages and general degradation, more and more of us from across the political spectrum are wondering how on earth we will feed the 3 billion more people projected to arrive by 2050, or even the 6 billion or so we already have. It is worthwhile, therefore, to examine the Malthusian idea, to discover what truths it holds and to see if they can be of any help.
Malthus’ big idea, published in 1798 in “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” was that human population would always grow exponentially, and that it would always push up against the limits of food production, thus creating a permanent class of poor whose numbers could only be checked by “misery” and “vice.”
His Law of Population is based on this simple observation:
Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room, and the nourishment necessary to rear them.
Later, Charles Darwin would base his theory of natural selection on this observation. He saw that a superabundance of progeny allows natural selection to work so that only the fittest survive.
Malthus wrote his essay in response to William Godwin, an outspoken liberal of the day. Godwin wanted to abolish the aristocracy and redistribute the wealth. He believed in the “perfectibility of man.” As a member of the landed elite, Malthus felt a need to address the rabble rouser Godwin and prove that even in a perfect society where the working man received according to his needs, all benefits would soon be wiped out by population growth. The poor man’s “lack of moral restraint” would ensure that his family would continue to grow until they ate him out of house and home. Starvation and disease would then do the job of reducing the population to a supportable size.
Malthus made a big impression on the British upper classes (who had access to concubines and prostitutes and hence no need for moral restraint to curtail family size). Since the poor were destined to continually breed themselves back into poverty anyway, there was no point in improving their condition. Politicians seized on Malthus’ theory to end subsidies for the poor (“a shilling a week to every labourer for each child he has above three” and pass the Poor Law of 1834 that forced those seeking relief into workhouses designed to be as much like prisons as possible. It’s no wonder then that Engels declared Malthus’ Law of Population to be the “most open declaration of war of the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat.”
Marx and Engels put their faith in technology and believed that progress would continually expand agricultural production, mooting the issue of population growth. While they thought Darwin’s use of the Law of Population to explain evolution had some validity, they insisted that humans were exempt. Animals were only “collectors” of nature’s bounty, but humans were “producers” and masters of their own destiny.
Indeed, Malthus might have earned more respect for his Law of Population if he hadn’t proposed it just at the moment when human production first tapped into the coal seams and oil streams that fueled the industrial expansion. It is only today, when those resources have peaked, that we are revealed to be much more like the other animals than we thought – “collectors” of ancient sunlight, our fossil fuel inheritance, and not the all powerful “producers” we thought we were.
As a progressive, I want to believe that humanity can control our destiny. But as an ecologist, I have to accept the Law of Population. Is there no way out? Yes there is. But it requires us to embrace what Malthus called “vice.”
Malthus saw three ways to control population growth: abstinence, misery and vice. Abstinence was too challenging for most. Misery included starvation, disease and death. That left vice: a category that included prostitution, abortion and infanticide, but also “promiscuous intercourse, unnatural passions, violations of the marriage bed, and improper arts to conceal the consequence of irregular connexions.”
Blinders imposed by the Church and centuries of violent repression of women healers and midwives had so deeply branded contraception as an “improper art” that even a revolutionary like William Godwin could not advocate it. He could only insist that redistribution of wealth would result in more “moral restraint.” Malthus found this laughable:
I do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earth man will ultimately be able to live without food. But Mr. Godwin has conjectured that the passion between the sexes may in time be extinguished… the best arguments for the perfectibility of man, are drawn from a contemplation of the great progress that he has already made from the savage state, and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. But towards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress whatever has hitherto been made.
When the radical Francis Place publicly advocated birth control in the 1820s, he was condemned for promoting vice by church, state and even his fellow working men in the labor unions he helped to found. Nearly a century later, Margaret Sanger finally opened her first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, and contraception was only fully legalized in the United States in 1965. The definition of “vice” evolved very slowly.
Malthus’ list of vices included infanticide, which today stands well apart from birth control, abortion, prostitution and homosexuality. And yet, throughout history and pre-history, infanticide was probably the most widely used method of curtailing population growth, mostly because the contraception and abortion methods of the past were either ineffective or dangerous to women. Before the fossil fuel era, the need to prevent famine often dictated infanticide, especially female infanticide, which relieved population pressure by reducing the number of breeding females. It is good to know this bit of history, because it gives us the proper context for updating the definition of “vice.”
Still, there are conservatives who would prefer to see famine and misery rather than condone contraceptives, abortion and homosexuality. Among them is Pope Benedict, leader of the world’s largest religious organization, who has just condemned untold numbers of Africans to death by opposing condoms for prevention of AIDS because it might lead to “vice.”
There are also still progressives who insist that population growth is not a problem. They should go back and read Engels, who hated Malthus and thought the idea of population outstripping resources was ludicrous, but still said this:
"There is, of course, the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obliged to regulate the production of human beings, just as it has already come to regulate the production of things, it will be precisely this society, and this society alone, which can carry this out without difficulty… it is for the people in the communist society themselves to decide whether, when and how this is to be done, and what means they wish to employ to the purpose."
We are those people and many of us now understand that the real vices are found in war, injustice and repression. Increasingly we realize that we must work together for humane and liberating solutions to the problem of human overpopulation, as we build a new, non-growth, steady-state economy that provides for all.
Kelpie Wilson www.kelpiewilson.com is an environmental writer and journalist. She is the author of Primal Tears, a novel about a human-bonobo hybrid girl who saves the planet from human overpopulation.
Archived Apr 12 2009
Malthus and vice
by Kelpie Wilson
Without growth, there would be no economy as we know it. But modern culture, by and large, doesn't see that it can exist only in the medium of ceaseless growth and expansion, because a fish doesn't see the water it swims in. Only today, in the recent, breathless moments of the greatest economic crash since the Great Depression, do we begin to perceive the waters around us.
Slowly, we are coming to realize that the last 200 years of economic growth have been based on a monumental Ponzi scheme that has pushed the final reckoning ever forward in time, until the future is now. Slowly, we are coming to realize that Malthus was right.
It was the warrior cry of the radical environmental movement in the 1980s: “Malthus Was Right!” But Malthus, a mumbling country parson with intellectual ambitions, had been transmogrified by capitalists and communists alike into a fearsome bogey man possessed of “dangerous” ideas. Environmentalists who invoked his name were invariably corrected by their progressive friends who told them that excess consumption by the rich was the problem, not the reproductive profligacy of the poor.
Yet, as we drive deeper into the greenhouse world, with its crazy weather, water shortages and general degradation, more and more of us from across the political spectrum are wondering how on earth we will feed the 3 billion more people projected to arrive by 2050, or even the 6 billion or so we already have. It is worthwhile, therefore, to examine the Malthusian idea, to discover what truths it holds and to see if they can be of any help.
Malthus’ big idea, published in 1798 in “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” was that human population would always grow exponentially, and that it would always push up against the limits of food production, thus creating a permanent class of poor whose numbers could only be checked by “misery” and “vice.”
His Law of Population is based on this simple observation:
Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room, and the nourishment necessary to rear them.
Later, Charles Darwin would base his theory of natural selection on this observation. He saw that a superabundance of progeny allows natural selection to work so that only the fittest survive.
Malthus wrote his essay in response to William Godwin, an outspoken liberal of the day. Godwin wanted to abolish the aristocracy and redistribute the wealth. He believed in the “perfectibility of man.” As a member of the landed elite, Malthus felt a need to address the rabble rouser Godwin and prove that even in a perfect society where the working man received according to his needs, all benefits would soon be wiped out by population growth. The poor man’s “lack of moral restraint” would ensure that his family would continue to grow until they ate him out of house and home. Starvation and disease would then do the job of reducing the population to a supportable size.
Malthus made a big impression on the British upper classes (who had access to concubines and prostitutes and hence no need for moral restraint to curtail family size). Since the poor were destined to continually breed themselves back into poverty anyway, there was no point in improving their condition. Politicians seized on Malthus’ theory to end subsidies for the poor (“a shilling a week to every labourer for each child he has above three”
and pass the Poor Law of 1834 that forced those seeking relief into workhouses designed to be as much like prisons as possible. It’s no wonder then that Engels declared Malthus’ Law of Population to be the “most open declaration of war of the bourgeoisie upon the proletariat.”Marx and Engels put their faith in technology and believed that progress would continually expand agricultural production, mooting the issue of population growth. While they thought Darwin’s use of the Law of Population to explain evolution had some validity, they insisted that humans were exempt. Animals were only “collectors” of nature’s bounty, but humans were “producers” and masters of their own destiny.
Indeed, Malthus might have earned more respect for his Law of Population if he hadn’t proposed it just at the moment when human production first tapped into the coal seams and oil streams that fueled the industrial expansion. It is only today, when those resources have peaked, that we are revealed to be much more like the other animals than we thought – “collectors” of ancient sunlight, our fossil fuel inheritance, and not the all powerful “producers” we thought we were.
As a progressive, I want to believe that humanity can control our destiny. But as an ecologist, I have to accept the Law of Population. Is there no way out? Yes there is. But it requires us to embrace what Malthus called “vice.”
Malthus saw three ways to control population growth: abstinence, misery and vice. Abstinence was too challenging for most. Misery included starvation, disease and death. That left vice: a category that included prostitution, abortion and infanticide, but also “promiscuous intercourse, unnatural passions, violations of the marriage bed, and improper arts to conceal the consequence of irregular connexions.”
Blinders imposed by the Church and centuries of violent repression of women healers and midwives had so deeply branded contraception as an “improper art” that even a revolutionary like William Godwin could not advocate it. He could only insist that redistribution of wealth would result in more “moral restraint.” Malthus found this laughable:
I do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earth man will ultimately be able to live without food. But Mr. Godwin has conjectured that the passion between the sexes may in time be extinguished… the best arguments for the perfectibility of man, are drawn from a contemplation of the great progress that he has already made from the savage state, and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. But towards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress whatever has hitherto been made.
When the radical Francis Place publicly advocated birth control in the 1820s, he was condemned for promoting vice by church, state and even his fellow working men in the labor unions he helped to found. Nearly a century later, Margaret Sanger finally opened her first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, and contraception was only fully legalized in the United States in 1965. The definition of “vice” evolved very slowly.
Malthus’ list of vices included infanticide, which today stands well apart from birth control, abortion, prostitution and homosexuality. And yet, throughout history and pre-history, infanticide was probably the most widely used method of curtailing population growth, mostly because the contraception and abortion methods of the past were either ineffective or dangerous to women. Before the fossil fuel era, the need to prevent famine often dictated infanticide, especially female infanticide, which relieved population pressure by reducing the number of breeding females. It is good to know this bit of history, because it gives us the proper context for updating the definition of “vice.”
Still, there are conservatives who would prefer to see famine and misery rather than condone contraceptives, abortion and homosexuality. Among them is Pope Benedict, leader of the world’s largest religious organization, who has just condemned untold numbers of Africans to death by opposing condoms for prevention of AIDS because it might lead to “vice.”
There are also still progressives who insist that population growth is not a problem. They should go back and read Engels, who hated Malthus and thought the idea of population outstripping resources was ludicrous, but still said this:
"There is, of course, the abstract possibility that the number of people will become so great that limits will have to be set to their increase. But if at some stage communist society finds itself obliged to regulate the production of human beings, just as it has already come to regulate the production of things, it will be precisely this society, and this society alone, which can carry this out without difficulty… it is for the people in the communist society themselves to decide whether, when and how this is to be done, and what means they wish to employ to the purpose."
We are those people and many of us now understand that the real vices are found in war, injustice and repression. Increasingly we realize that we must work together for humane and liberating solutions to the problem of human overpopulation, as we build a new, non-growth, steady-state economy that provides for all.
Kelpie Wilson www.kelpiewilson.com is an environmental writer and journalist. She is the author of Primal Tears, a novel about a human-bonobo hybrid girl who saves the planet from human overpopulation.