Dilemma : A man currently serving life in jail for the murder of 20 people finds a cure for AIDs. However, he says he will only reveal the cure if he is released from jail and not monitored. What do you do ?

Of course, if you give him his freedom and don't monitor him, that doesn't promise that nobody will ever find out who he is. Vigilante justice still exists out there....

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

I expect the publicity will solve the monitoring problem.

Would you let him go free if he donated $1,000 to the charity of your choice? $1,000,000? $1,000,000,000? What's your price?

i would think this would be very highly unlikely to happen!!! but if i must answer, i would say set him free and benefit..... i would think there would be a way to monitor him without him knowing for a bit!

Bullcrap him. Make him turn over the cure and then once it has proven to work, send him back to the slammer.

On another note, I don't really consider AIDS to be the largest threat to humanity. Things such as cancer are much scarier since we don't even know what causes some forms of it. AIDS is pretty easy to avoid if you play it safe (except in the cases of children born with, it tainted blood supplies and mosquitoes..but these cases are a very slim minority)

I'd have to say that since we were discussing defence mechanisms built into the species in the "should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt" survey...could we consider AIDS a form of population control?

We normally punish people for doing harm, not for doing less harm than they do good. I think that's a good thing. If we free him and he kills some more people who weren't about to die of AIDS, we've traded their lives for some others. Hardly unheard of, but I wouldn't sleep well having done it.

I don't think we could force the cure out of him by beating him up, but maybe by going through his notes and research. But that's weaseling out of the dilemma, so we should probably assume he did it all in his head.

North79: My shooting you in the face for saying such an evil thing would be population control...controlling the population of homophobic dicks who don't deserve to live!!! Why don't you go watch a friend die of AIDs you creep, and see if you're still inclined to make such statements.

Judging by the survey results so far, all I have to do is come up with the cure for AIDS and I can go kill a few people without being punished. It's an interesting incentive program for researchers.

You're tough in your anonymity.

By the way, what does AIDS have to do with homosexuals?..

North79 - if by your response you are saying that AIDS is some sort of great population control because it kills homosexuals, you are wrong. Lesbians have among the lowest incidence of AIDS on the planet.

I note that, if your comment is interpreted another way, you might have been saying that AIDS as an illness is just another form of population control which increases during times of overcrowding, like famine, and Steve's suggested increase in same-sex couples who need outside assistance of one sort or another to reproduce - if so you'll need to clarify that, and hopefully you'll do it soon to avert any unnecessary unpleasantries.

North79- I have to agree with the reaction of anonymous. The thing about AIDS as "population control" was pretty harsh.

C'mon now, don't knee-jerk...viruses of all types are part of the natural universe, they are our predators, in a way. There is a macro level at which it would seem that HIV, Ebola, Marburg, and the other newly discovered viruses are a result of our expanding our reach into areas of the world where they developed. Sure, if you buy either God or the Gaea Theory, all fatal viruses could be considered population control. Considering, however, that most of the deaths from these viruses have been and will probably continue to be in sub-Saharan Africa, making a conversational connection to homosexuality, North79, does seem to be a deliberately provocative tactic.

Oh oh oh I realize now I made the mistake of putting the homosexuality example in the same paragraph as the population control thing.

I did not mean it as control on the homosexual population, I meant on the entire population.

Also hunter hats off to you for your sharp interpretive skills. Doesn't anyone ever think I say something just to get people to say something back?...its no fun if you never rock the boat ;)

I wouldn't believe him.

Let him free in return for the cure, then throw him back in jail after you have it.

I know I'll get slammed for this one... but leave his ass in jail... AIDS is a great way to keep the population in check. Granted, if we let him out, he could do the same... but not to the same degree.

AIDS is a *terrible* way to keep the population in check. It is a lingering, expensive, punative way to die. Birth control is a much better way to keep the population in check.

well said, Pomeranian. I agree.

Birth control doesn't work quite as well-people either don't use it or it doesn't work... our population is still growing. While it might linger, it's still 100% guaranteed AIDS victims will die. Birth Control doesn't come anywhere close to matching what AIDS can do to a population.

It is 100% guaranteed that everybody is going to die.

I'm assuming this is a magic land and we can be sure he does have a cure that works :)

I'd release him from jail and monitor him without telling him :) Even if I knew he could and would kill people while he was out it's a cheap price.

Let him go free, then when he gives the cure hunt him down and throw him back in jail.

north 79- i think why everyone is jumping on you lately is that all of your harsh remarks and prodding seem to be directed in the same way, towards homosexuals or seem to be slanted that way. so i to took your statement as rather harsh. i too believe it is good to ask stimulating questions, but spread them around or you will continue to be slammed. Secondly, HIV and AIDS is/are a large threat in third world countries where there is no focus, care or education about the virus. in certain parts of africa, 50-75% of populations are infected and numbers are still coming out of the far east. look at how hard the US is being hit with all the money and education we have done. we won't see the true devastation until well in to 2010 or so.
they- i don't think you could possibly have seen anyone die from AIDS or if you have you are a very cruel individual. i know you are speaking outside of the personal and talking populations here but i think education and birth control are the way to go here. quick cures, never solve the problem.

jettles..point taken except this argument has nothing to do with homosexuals.

What do *I* do? Probably: read about in the paper, grin lopsidedly, maybe get into a couple of conversations about what ought to be done about it, forget about it within a few months.

jettles.. I don't mean to offend anyone really. The first time I read the book, The Stand, I was in awe. I was so hooked on the idea that I read the book two more times. I love the idea that there could be a virus that could eliminate the entire human population without harming any other living creatures(for the most part). I think our planet is in a very sad state... and humans put it in this state.

You're right, I have not watched anyone die from AIDS.. but I have watched several people die from Cancer and would be just as pleased if that was the way we were finally destroyed. I'm not cruel... I just worry more about living creatures that don't happen to be human.

They how can you say that you are not cruel when you would pleased for people to die a slow painful death?

doom.. how can you say that humans in general are not cruel when we pollute the ground, air, and water on a daily basis? When we hunt for fun? When we pour chemicals in rabbits' eyes to see if our make-up is safe to wear? When we run over animals on the road without a second thought? Or how about when we breed animals for sale in places called puppy mills where dogs lay dying and giving birth on top of each other in their own crap? What about the way we slaughter cows? Slicing their necks open and letting them bleed to death while they stand there and scream?

I'm not cruel. I want revenge.

They: I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that no one in this forum has actually engaged themselves in any of those. I will also suggest that no one in or out of this group has ever done any of them to you or to anyone related to you or to anyone who even looks like you.

I can understand if you feel guilty for what some of your fellow humans have done to other species, but your desire for revenge seems a little misplaced.

Wow, they is on a totally different wavelength than me but I see her point..

If this question has asked about a cure for all forms of cancer instead of AIDS, I'd probably be more enthusiastic, thats all. AIDS is a disease which is almost totally contracted from a voluntary act. How are you supposed to defend against that? This is why I don't see AIDS itself as a problem. It doesn't attack you out of the blue; we know full well how it is caused and how to stop it.
Jettles points out the western world has thrown everything it can at it in terms of education but it doesn't slow the pace. Why? Look at the changing attitudes towards sex.

North79: I think you should have to present this lecture (about how you don't see AIDS as a problem because it's contracted from a voluntary act) to a roomful of children born with AIDS, people who contracted it from partners who hid their extracurricular sexual or drug-using activities from them, people who contracted it from being raped, and hemophiliacs who contracted it from a contaminated blood supply.

We know many of the contributors to cancer as well, but still, many people continue to smoke and eat unhealthfully...

drdt. I'm not accusing any one person of doing these things. I'm accusing the entire human population. How is anyone on this forum to know if their offspring won't grow up to do every one of the things I listed?

they: if we all get spayed, will you spare our lives?

elijah: The *vast* majority of AIDS cases are simply from consensual sexual intercourse. I thought I was rather clear in emphasizing that. Using that argument, I'd figure Americans would be anti-gun as well, since although the *vast* majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, the reckless use of them
is of the minority. I feel that the focus of any policy or viewpoint should center on the rule rather than the exception.

Speaking of cancer, I don't have much sympathy for smokers who clog up their lungs with filth either.
I am simply stating that while I feel sorry for those who contract a disease through a voluntary act, while in full knowledge of the risk they are taking, my sympathy is much greater for those who suffer from 100% completely unpreventable or unpredictable ailments.

North79: unless you are celibate, you have some risk of contracting AIDS. Consensual sexual intercourse does not always = informed sexual intercourse. You are basically judging people for having sex and being unlucky enough to get AIDS. Strange.

they: I never said that humans in general were not cruel with regards to the examples that you give. Do I think that was is being done by some people is wrong? Yes. Do I think that your statements of revenge and wanting people to die slow horrible deaths equates you as being cruel? Yes. If the state of human-animal affairs troubles you so much then become an activist and promote better conditions for animals, from previous surveys I believe that you have stated that you do not even vote so I tend to dismiss your complaints since you will not even participate in a system through which change could occur.

they: you accuse the entire human population, yet there are 39 people right here in this room, yourself included, who are innocent of your charges. You are innocent, and as a potential parent I should hope you have enough confidence in yourself to believe your offspring if any will not only be innocent but also be as vocal as yourself on the matter. I know my offspring if any will not do these things because their parents will educate them in such matters.

Doom is right, although she misses an important point, which is that if you chose to act on your convictions you would be dead by now. When you say 'I want all humans to die a slow horrible painful death for what they are doing to animals', you are really saying

'I want to die a slow horrible painful death.'
'I want my SO to die a slow horrible painful death.'
'I want my parents to die slow horrible painful deaths.'
'I want my children to die slow horrible painful deaths.'

That is your prerogative. But you are also saying

'I want drdt to die a slow horrible painful death.'

And with that I have a serious problem.

I agree completely with doom on the last point. People who are vocal about wanting change should work and vote for that change. I am all for slowing population growth and for saving habitat for animals. I actively vote, lobby, and donate money for these causes. If all the people I've met who said "I'm with you, I believe the way you do" actually got off their butts and did something, the progress we could make would be incredible. Educating our fellow humans is far more practical than waiting for a virus to come kill them off.

elijah: i would hope that any consensual sexual intercourse would be informed???

drdt.. If there was a way for me to eradicate the entire human population from the face of the earth quickly and painlessly without harming any other living beings, I'd be the first to snatch up the opportunity. Since there doesn't seem to be a way at this point, I'll settle for pain. If politics wasn't a bunch of bullcrap, I'd vote.

elijahblue.. you'd do that for me? ;)

North79: not even remotely. You simply cannot tell who someone has slept with or what risky activities they have participated in. People lie all the time. There are a ton of betrayed people out there who sincerely believed that they were "informed" about their partner(s).

elijah: I have a hard time believing that is rule rather than the exception. If you do not know enough about someone to know these things, you probably shouldn't be sleeping with them. I don't doubt there are cases where people lie, and if that is the case my sympathy for these people falls along the lines of those who have contracted AIDS through blood transfusions, born with it etc, but again, this is not the *vast* majority.

North79: I suggest you hole up in a tree trunk somewhere to avoid the inevitable let-down you will otherwise experience when life falls short of your Pollyanna expectations. (I am guessing that you are very young.) People lying to the people they supposedly care about -- even about something as life and death as whether they might be HIV positive -- is extremely common.

whatever happened to going with your partner to get HIV tested before having intercourse?

elijah: if what you say is true and the number of cases if of epidemic proportions, what does that say about attitudes towards sexual activity?

What you suggest is we start revising everything to suit the lowest common denominator. If I contract HIV from someone, it is my own fault and it is my own bad luck. I made a conscious choice to have sex with this person didn't I? If I go mountain climbing and break a leg, its my own fault. If I play the stock market and lose my shirt, its my own fault. I don't expect anybody else to have to solve the problems I create for myself.

As for my Pollyanna expectations..it must be depressing for you to wake up into a world which you are convinced the worst will always be the norm and therefore must approach everything with such pessimism.

sorry about the interruption : just coming up for air

North79, while elijahblue's expression of her worldview is a bit bleak, yours is extremely idealistic and you may as well fess up. You're extrapolating your experience (none of the people you've slept with ever cheated on you, you haven't needed medical care in a risky area of the world, you're not hemophiliac, you weren't raised in a high-crime and poverty neighborhood where IV drug use is common) onto the rest of the world, which probably keeps you pretty cheerful, but doesn't in any way reflect what's really going on in the world.

they: and I would be among the first to try to stop you.

hunter: I prefer to call it "optimistic" instead of "idealistic" but you've probably got a point.
I can only derive conclusions from my own choices, those that were good and those which were bad.

Fair enough, North79, but your starting conditions are not those enjoyed by everyone.

North79: I understand that believing in just world theory makes some people more comfortable in an uncertain world, but, as you are so perfectly demonstrating here, it also makes them very judgemental toward people's misfortunes. You do not have as much control as you think, and if you are at all honest with yourself, life will show you that, probably sooner rather than later.

I just refuse to sit on the fence. I will not and can not allow what I think to be dictated by hypothetical situations. If I do not attempt to analyze things ceteris paribus I will exhaust all my time exploring infinite possibilities and accomplishing nothing.
There is a difference between not knowing something is possible and knowing of, but not entertaining, the possibility of something.

99.9% of AIDS cases are due to sleeping around.

STOP SLEEPING AROUND, AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AIDS!!!!!!

North79, there's a difference between sitting on the fence and accepting that most human problems are very complex and that even when there are "right" answers, implementing them becomes complex. You may not need to worry about AIDS, personally, but that makes you lucky, not right. Simple answers are a crutch. If you need them in order to let yourself sleep at night, that's fine, but whacking other people with your crutch isn't either polite or productive.

hunter: I see there is no pleasing you :) What do you suggest as an alternative?

Oh, I'm easy to please :)

I suggest that when you know that you are deliberately limiting your worldview to you and people like you, that you refrain from stating opinions on what everyone else should do. Everyone isn't you and giving in to that fallacy is the source of narrow-mindedness that cripples our ability for rational discourse.

hunter: thats why I come here, you know ;)

Good choice! :)

It is later revealed that his cure for AIDS is to go out and murder 20 people.

Jen: He doesn't sound like a terrorist to me, he sounds like a shrewd businessman. Who knows, maybe he has served thirty years of his life sentence and has actually reformed... Maybe he was innocent and angry.

jen: AIDS will not be cured because enough people care about it to cure it. AIDS will be cured because someone can make a profit finding and implementing the cure. The people who care provide money to make it more profitable, perhaps even profitable enough for someone to work on it. The same goes for any such thing - cancer, children's diabetes, the common cold.

Try and mediate other options. Try and get him to confirm it with one scientist.

the cure to a plague is far more important than the punishment of one man.

If he is philanthropic enough to reveal a cure for AIDS, it seems likely that he's not particularly interested in killing people.

This is far too hypothetical for me to even imagine. How could someone in prison find a cure for anything? Wouldn't that require the use of a laboratory? This does not compute.

SueBee : Maybe, he had a cure for AIDS before being imprisoned and has only now decided to disclose it in an attempt for freedom !!!

Hmmm....the mad scientist turned murderer? And maybe Mr. Spock will beam down and zap him with his phaser.

Okay, I'll quit being so skeptical. I changed my vote to "give him his freedom". It's about time we had a cure for AIDS. You certainly prompted some interesting debate with this survey, Wicksy!

thanks suebee