What if, through some act of sheer luck/Divine Providence/insert something here, instead of crossing over to humans, HIV doesn't exist, or that a cognate form is transmitted to another animal, say, dogs? What does that mean for the Third World? The First? Does this change attitudes regarding birth control or condoms?
WI A world without HIV?
- Thread starter Francisco Cojuanco
- Start date
wolf_brother
Banned
Well, more people alive in the world.
Also, less foreign aid sent to Africa as a whole. Most of it from the last thirty-years or so has mostly been, afaik, AIDS-related.
Also, less foreign aid sent to Africa as a whole. Most of it from the last thirty-years or so has mostly been, afaik, AIDS-related.
Orville_third
Banned
Less stringent regulations on blood transfusion.
Less awareness of STDs and likely, less use of condoms.
Less use of needle exchanges. (Possibly a more stringent view of injected drugs?)
A larger gay community, though I'm not sure if they would be more or less visible.
Celebrities who died of AIDS would still be around, at least for longer than IOTL.
Hemophilia would be a bit more prevalent.
Drugs would likely take longer to approve than OTL, resulting in fewer drugs on the market, though also likely fewer ad campaigns for drugs. (ACT UP and similar groups were a factor in pushing for the loosening of FDA regulations in time it took to evaluate a drug's safety.
The immune system would be a bit less understood.
Fewer antivirals would be on the market. (HIV drugs were among the first major ones.)
Less awareness of STDs and likely, less use of condoms.
Less use of needle exchanges. (Possibly a more stringent view of injected drugs?)
A larger gay community, though I'm not sure if they would be more or less visible.
Celebrities who died of AIDS would still be around, at least for longer than IOTL.
Hemophilia would be a bit more prevalent.
Drugs would likely take longer to approve than OTL, resulting in fewer drugs on the market, though also likely fewer ad campaigns for drugs. (ACT UP and similar groups were a factor in pushing for the loosening of FDA regulations in time it took to evaluate a drug's safety.
The immune system would be a bit less understood.
Fewer antivirals would be on the market. (HIV drugs were among the first major ones.)
Yes, there will be a lot less condom use. More women will be on the pill.
Africa will have a lot more people, a lot more economically useful people. Some places may not be so much of a basket case.
Europe and the USA won't have a missing generation of gay men. Gay men who had started to be involved in mainstream politics.
Drug companies won't be making a small fortune, but will be looking into other fields. Herpes will be the big worry.
I wouldn't have to take a pill every day.
Flocculencio
Donor
Essentially the attitudes of 70s urbanites continue. Swinging and polyamory may be somewhat more mainstream.
RNA viruses are tricky. Retroviruses even moreso. (I mean Retroviruses helped create humanity). Perhaps a harmless strain is transmitted first, halting the spread of AIDS beyond a few isolated villages.
Subsaharan Africa would be a bit less homophobic. Homophobia for the most part was historically based on the fact that the same Gastrointestinal diseases that a Gay Man could tolerate living with, would kill many infants.
It is the same reason African Priests are condemning Gays; Unfortunately, there is a higher incidence of AIDS amongst Gay Men.
Africa will find another scapegoat for it's problems, likely Asian Immigrants.
Syphilis will probably re-emerge as a threat, as the Sexual liberty of the 60s and 70s continue.
Interestingly enough though, we may see more funds poured into cancer research. I wouldn't lose about a pound of body tissue in TTL! Horrah!
Sorry for your illness. We pray for your welfare.
You mean African ministers. Priests imply Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, and the former, while certainly not gay-friendly as commonly understood, isn't such of the level of Evangelicals in Africa, where the greatest support for such things comes.
No HIV might actually mean Gay activism is set back by a little (or maybe even a lot) because it keeps a lot of homosexuals who want a more mainstream life 'in the closet' and it keeps the more... colorful... activists at the forefront and in power where OTL many of them died or settled down once they contracted HIV.
One of the biggest reasons the gay community is succeeding now is because they changed their message from "We're here in your face! Get used to it!" to "We just want the same thing and rights."
One of the biggest reasons the gay community is succeeding now is because they changed their message from "We're here in your face! Get used to it!" to "We just want the same thing and rights."
No HIV might mean a less successful fundamentalist/would-be theocratic movement in the US (might still have nudity in movies like in the 80's), which in turn could either reduce Republican corporatist power or increase it after the Republicans dump the useless fundies.
There's plenty of nudity in movies.
Heck, in the remake of Piranha, we see a guy getting his penis bitten off and it gets passed around by the piranhas who don't want to eat it, while the reboot of Friday the 13th has a rather graphic sex scene.
Of course, with that smiley, you might not be serious.
I think I'd actually disagree with this. Most of the colourful activists of the 70's were slowly being faded out anyway. HIV held people back in the closet and created a lot more prejudice. In my first year at University, HIV was a story in New Scientist, I was openly gay and had no real problems. By my third year, I was getting an awful lot of crap off people because of HIV. A lot of people who became involved because of HIV activism, may well have become involved in other activism.
I think the reason why the gay community has succeeded is actually because of coming out. Loads of people know openly gay people now and know that we aren't that much different.
It certainly did for a while, the internet seems to have sort of reversed that.
Well, it wasn't exactly my main point. I concede that nudity hasn't been abolished from movies entirely, just that it doesn't seem to be sexy nudity
(your example, for instance: I'm glad I missed that one). The 80's were a great time to be a teenage boy.One of my former co-workers described wild doings in the pre-AIDS era, so I imagine promiscuity would be more common.
Well, I suppose it depends where you were. There were some pretty wild scenes in selected places (there still are, Berlin is quite an eyeopener). But they were notorious and only in a few places, certainly gay life in my city as a Pre-AIDS era teenager was fairly quiet, there were only a couple of bars, no public sex venues and whilst there were supposed to be some "parties", it was only amongst a selected group. One night stands were no less or no more common than now. These days, there's a dozen bars, three PSV's and I don't know about the party scene, but I suspect it's out there. I suspect this confidence and openness may well have come 5 years earlier without HIV.
From about 85 onwards, there was a genuine fear of HIV and in general people did nest and go monogamous and were more careful. That started to die off around 2000, as therapies made people think they could lead a perfectly normal life. There's a lot of foolishness these days, particularly amongst younger men and because there aren't many visibly ill people, because there isn't the constant funerals, the fear has gone. It's very easily to hook up off the internet as well. I'm no oil painting and in my mid-40's (which is like 90 in gay years), but I logged onto a site just after Christmas to give some friends seasonal greetings and to catch up with gossip. In the hour I was on, I received six proposals from people in the City I was in.
I do live a relatively normal life, I am pretty well 95% of the time, but the side-effects of the medication can be pretty brutal sometimes and I do get tired easily.
I still think the biggest overall effect will be Southern Africa - where remember the main mode of transmission is heterosexual. There's going to be a lot more economically active people, what the overall effect of that will be, I don't know.
My former coworker is straight. I think she'd move in different circles than what you're describing.
When did AIDS get into the non-drug-using straight population in the US to a large degree?
When did AIDS get into the non-drug-using straight population in the US to a large degree?