Let's say that some french guy never did it with a monkey (or whatever the current theory is) AIDS never happened. What effects does this have on society? More unprotected sex and heroin use for one, this might mean other disease like Hep B are more wide spread. Famous people who died of AIDS: The lead singer of Queen, Rapper Easy-E, lots of them really. So, a World without AIDS, your thoughts?
The world without AIDS?
- Thread starter ArKhan
- Start date
No "Rent," for starters. "Rent" was basically "La Boheme" with AIDS instead of tuberculosis.
The population of subsaharan Africa would be considerably larger, and Russia's population wouldn't have decreased quite as much as it did in OTL.
Otherwise, Freddy Mercury lives...!
Otherwise, Freddy Mercury lives...!
Woo! Free love lives on, baby!
And Emperor, I fully agree about AIDS not being a "gay" disease, but I think the point is that it (very unfairly) attained that association in the early 80s (they called it "gay cancer", IIRC) due to some of the high-profile early cases (and thanks to that bastard flight attendant that knowlingly spread it around the globe). I think $9's theory is that without the AIDS stigma unfairly pined on the gay male community the public acceptance of male bisexuality would parallel female bisexuality OTL. $9 may have a point as the sexual revolution of the 60s/70s showed more openness to alternative lifestyles than the 80s. $9's theory seems to be that the AIDS stigma put the brakes on this trend, though the Reagan years return to traditional values may be a greater factor. Also, lesbianism gained alot of support in the hetero male population thanks to adult movies and Howard Stern.
And Emperor, I fully agree about AIDS not being a "gay" disease, but I think the point is that it (very unfairly) attained that association in the early 80s (they called it "gay cancer", IIRC) due to some of the high-profile early cases (and thanks to that bastard flight attendant that knowlingly spread it around the globe
). I think $9's theory is that without the AIDS stigma unfairly pined on the gay male community the public acceptance of male bisexuality would parallel female bisexuality OTL. $9 may have a point as the sexual revolution of the 60s/70s showed more openness to alternative lifestyles than the 80s. $9's theory seems to be that the AIDS stigma put the brakes on this trend, though the Reagan years return to traditional values may be a greater factor. Also, lesbianism gained alot of support in the hetero male population thanks to adult movies and Howard Stern.No, but it was believed to be, especially in the early years. It could be that without AIDS, the cultural stigma associated with male homosexuality would be no greater than that associated with female homosexuality.
And maybe not. At least he's thinking.
The greatest butterflies would be in southern Africa.
the_lyniezian
Banned
Woo! Free love lives on, baby!
And Emperor, I fully agree about AIDS not being a "gay" disease, but I think the point is that it (very unfairly) attained that association in the early 80s (they called it "gay cancer", IIRC) due to some of the high-profile early cases (and thanks to that bastard flight attendant that knowlingly spread it around the globe
I seem to think that any bias against male homo- and bisexuality runs a lot deeper than that. Possibly I might put this down to the machismo element in culture which has less of an obvious paallel with women- most straight men seem ingrained to prove that they are "real" men and more masculine than others, and often involves lack of physical contact, displays of affection, which are both more common and accepted in men (in certain cultures more so than others) which might either be easily confused with lesbianism, or makes its appearence more acceptable in certain cultures. And of course there is the influence of Scripture on particularly wastern, Christian-dominated society, where female homoseuality (or same-sex sexual acts) rarely recieves a mention, as compared to male homosexuality or same-sex sexual acts (which, of course, are condemned).
Hm, now this is an interesting PoD...
Personally, IMO Africa would be in a much better shape than it is OTLy. OTLy, I've heard people saying that there are two diseases which mean that Africa cannot match Asia in terms of development - malaria and AIDS. Now, both of those diseases exist in Asia as well as in Africa, but in both cases they are far more prevelent in Africa than they are in Asia. Eliminating one of those two diseases would seem likely to open the way for greater African development and for a more stable Africa.
The ripple effects of those changes are hard to guage - for one thing, Somalia could wind up stable enough that there would be no need for a US intervention, no Black Hawk Down or anything like that. If that were the case, then perhaps there would have been more hesitance on the part of terrorists to target US assets, since it has been argued that many Islamic extremists were convinced after what he saw in Somalia that the USA was weak and would not properly retaliate for attacks against its citizens and military.
Additionally, although the levels that this effect might reach cannot be determined, with no AIDS perhaps stronger and more orderly African governments might do something about malaria, at least to a greater extent than they OTLy did. Regardless of how extensive the effects of this are, it seems impossible to argue that the absence of AIDS in Africa will have any economic effect other than one that leads to greater economic growth.
In the western world, well, I don't know much about music or theater, but many famous and respected performers perished as a result of the disease, so I can only assume that the cultural situation would be different from how it developed OTLy. There could be greater support for gay rights as well, although how much of a change that would be is hard to say. There would probably still be something of a conservative backlash against '60s values, but it could well prove weaker than it OTLy was. Again, it's hard to say. Almost undoubtedly, there would be less of a stigma attatched to casual sex, although there would undoubtedly remain some sort of stigma.
Well, those are my thoughts on this, at any rate.
Personally, IMO Africa would be in a much better shape than it is OTLy. OTLy, I've heard people saying that there are two diseases which mean that Africa cannot match Asia in terms of development - malaria and AIDS. Now, both of those diseases exist in Asia as well as in Africa, but in both cases they are far more prevelent in Africa than they are in Asia. Eliminating one of those two diseases would seem likely to open the way for greater African development and for a more stable Africa.
The ripple effects of those changes are hard to guage - for one thing, Somalia could wind up stable enough that there would be no need for a US intervention, no Black Hawk Down or anything like that. If that were the case, then perhaps there would have been more hesitance on the part of terrorists to target US assets, since it has been argued that many Islamic extremists were convinced after what he saw in Somalia that the USA was weak and would not properly retaliate for attacks against its citizens and military.
Additionally, although the levels that this effect might reach cannot be determined, with no AIDS perhaps stronger and more orderly African governments might do something about malaria, at least to a greater extent than they OTLy did. Regardless of how extensive the effects of this are, it seems impossible to argue that the absence of AIDS in Africa will have any economic effect other than one that leads to greater economic growth.
In the western world, well, I don't know much about music or theater, but many famous and respected performers perished as a result of the disease, so I can only assume that the cultural situation would be different from how it developed OTLy. There could be greater support for gay rights as well, although how much of a change that would be is hard to say. There would probably still be something of a conservative backlash against '60s values, but it could well prove weaker than it OTLy was. Again, it's hard to say. Almost undoubtedly, there would be less of a stigma attatched to casual sex, although there would undoubtedly remain some sort of stigma.
Well, those are my thoughts on this, at any rate.
I think that while some of the stigma would've been reduced towards male homosexuality, there is still going to be some. As The_Lyniezian points out, in many cultures there is the whole machismo thing, as well as religious bias. Maybe not as prevalent in western society now though given the rise of metrosexuals and emo's, how men can be fashionable and sensitive, as well as a general decline in religiosity (if that's a word). Granted Judeo-Christian theology has several passages about the subject, but secularisation is on the rise in the west. The last poll I saw of the UK was that the majority of the population supported civil unions (and possibly gay marriage, but I forget). It won't stop a lot of preachers and the issue over gay clergy certainly isn't going to go away because of it.
A lot of people who died from AIDS related illnesses were outed because of it, Rock Hudson immediately comes to mind. Perhaps some of them would have never been outed, though given celebrity culture (*rolls eyes despairingly*) it's likely that there would've been a scandalous biography some years after.
Sub-saharan Africa is, as has already been mentioned, where the biggest changes occur. Other diseases would be the main focus of charity efforts (typhoid? cholera?). The pressure to distribute condoms in the area would be greatly reduced also, and would save the Catholic Church a theological issue. Greater population, more economically active, perhaps less overall poverty? I'm not sure, I'm trying to remember what I learned back in school but that was a while ago.
A lot of people who died from AIDS related illnesses were outed because of it, Rock Hudson immediately comes to mind. Perhaps some of them would have never been outed, though given celebrity culture (*rolls eyes despairingly*) it's likely that there would've been a scandalous biography some years after.
Sub-saharan Africa is, as has already been mentioned, where the biggest changes occur. Other diseases would be the main focus of charity efforts (typhoid? cholera?). The pressure to distribute condoms in the area would be greatly reduced also, and would save the Catholic Church a theological issue. Greater population, more economically active, perhaps less overall poverty? I'm not sure, I'm trying to remember what I learned back in school but that was a while ago
.Without the threat of HIV and AIDS, there is no push for safe sex practices, which means there could be a rise in teenage pregnancy, as well as an increase in traditional STDs in all populations.
Without the threat of HIV and AIDS there is a delay in the adoption of Universal Percautions in the medical field. It may not even happen at all. I remember at the beginning of my career, sticking people to draw blood without wearing gloves. This would dpend upon how fast and far the various versions of Hepatitis go without HIV to help them.
Lower or absent standards for testing donated blood, leading to other infective agents being passed along. Again, this depends upon the spread of Hepatitis.
Without the stigma that came with an HIV infection, public perception of the reaction to a disease will be less of a personal rights issue and more about treating those who are ill and keeping those who are healthy, healthy.
No Ryan White Act, which means many healthcare personnel getting sick and not necessarily knowing where or how that may have happened.
Other medical conditions don't lose funding to AIDS treatment and research, which is funded at a much higher rate than it's infection or death rate suggests. This could lead to new Tb or Anti-malarial treatments that could save millions more in the long run. Who knows, maybe it could lead to some cancer sures.
Torqumada
Without the threat of HIV and AIDS there is a delay in the adoption of Universal Percautions in the medical field. It may not even happen at all. I remember at the beginning of my career, sticking people to draw blood without wearing gloves. This would dpend upon how fast and far the various versions of Hepatitis go without HIV to help them.
Lower or absent standards for testing donated blood, leading to other infective agents being passed along. Again, this depends upon the spread of Hepatitis.
Without the stigma that came with an HIV infection, public perception of the reaction to a disease will be less of a personal rights issue and more about treating those who are ill and keeping those who are healthy, healthy.
No Ryan White Act, which means many healthcare personnel getting sick and not necessarily knowing where or how that may have happened.
Other medical conditions don't lose funding to AIDS treatment and research, which is funded at a much higher rate than it's infection or death rate suggests. This could lead to new Tb or Anti-malarial treatments that could save millions more in the long run. Who knows, maybe it could lead to some cancer sures.
Torqumada
Less of a push, but I'd say there would be a push. As you say, the traditional STDs are still around.
Yes, but there would be a considerable lag. AIDS was killing people. Herpes doesn't. So, without the idea that you can die from having sex, there is much less to no emphasis for the development of safe sex practices.
Torqumada
Well here are a few little items for the ATL:
* Tom Hanks doesn't get a second Oscar for Best Actor in Philadelphia and awaits Saving Private Ryan
*Sylvester James, one of the first "Queens of Disco" would have kept disco and R&B going until c. 1992, with the appearance of Boyz II Men....
* Actress Jodie Foster might have announced definitively if she was lesbian, straight, or bisexual....
* NBA, NHL, and MLB may have had an openly LGBT star, or at least one "out of the closet", brought before the public eye....
* Tom Hanks doesn't get a second Oscar for Best Actor in Philadelphia and awaits Saving Private Ryan
*Sylvester James, one of the first "Queens of Disco" would have kept disco and R&B going until c. 1992, with the appearance of Boyz II Men....
* Actress Jodie Foster might have announced definitively if she was lesbian, straight, or bisexual....
* NBA, NHL, and MLB may have had an openly LGBT star, or at least one "out of the closet", brought before the public eye....
Bill Hicks: "There'd be fucking in the streets!" "It's over! Nah we cured it!"