4 ms·

if we tolerated disease - as man did from time immemorial, we would allow diseases to reach a steady state. We would soon die out as a race due to population de

if we tolerated disease - as man did from time immemorial, we would allow diseases to reach a steady state. We would soon die out as a race due to population decline as we are well below the required rate of replacement in a diseased population. We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5 - as they did in the 1700-1800's. Survivors might be more resistant, but I and many others do not feel this is a good strategy. Nature 'saw' the need for an immune system - it was that or die. About 90% of the native populations of North, South and Central America died from the diseases brought from Europe by Columbus and those that followed. This huge wave of deaths spread from the points of contact by tribal passage and preceded the later growth of hybrid populations of europeans/natives. It was only by later LIDAR surveys of large land areas that these ancient agricultural zones were revealed - some of which are now being explored - large structures - over grown by vegetation. Some were killed by older disease spreads prior to Columbus - it is not a new/unique phenomenon. So the article's premise is false - we can not back to the old ways. That said, a better understanding might allow the linked pathogen/prey relationship between diseases and their host populations to be broken - as we have done with smallpox?

lesiki 3y ago
> We would soon die out as a race due to population decline as we are well below the required rate of replacement in a diseased population Isn't there a strong correlation between birth rate & child mortality? Most rich societies have slowed down their birth rate in large part because you don't need 5 kids in order to ensure 1 makes it to adulthood. If we tolerated disease, we would probably increase birth rates to compensate for the spike in child mortality.
- tourgen 3y ago
  [dead]
- HelloNurse 3y ago
  Conversely, increasing child mortality necessarily increases child care effort per adult child: a bad deal that can only be compensated by having children at a significantly younger age.
slushh 3y ago
>We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5 We could also make rising children less of an obstacle. If you build the infrastructure around rising children so that rising 2 children is not a full-time job, then parents would get more children.
- explorer83 3y ago
  We do sacrifice a lot of our time to raise children. But it's the cost of childcare that makes it really difficult imo. Unless you have a high paying job, you are quite literally going to work so you can afford to pay other people to watch your children while you're at work.
  - namdnay 3y ago
    If that were the main factor you’d expect to see much higher fertility rates in French families for example, which isn’t really the case (especially if you exclude families of foreign descent)
- vidarh 3y ago
  There is little evidence of that. Countries with more support do not necessarily retain higher fertility rates. Look at e.g. the legal right to nursery places with capped costs, long parental leave, and subsequent financial aid in Norway. It might be it'd happen if you exceed a certain level of support, but we've not cracked that nut yet.
  - explorer83 3y ago
    I'm not familiar with Norway's culture. Personally, if I had access to these benefits, I would have more children and faster. But I do see people who have the financial means and time to raise children who view children as a restriction of their life experience.
    - vidarh 3y ago
maxboone 3y ago
That's quite the extreme, this article doesn't remotely propose tolerating a potentially devastating pathogen. It's more about the idea that someone can be healthy, even if they carry a pathogen.
XorNot 3y ago
Could you please read the article before typing? The article is about research into non-immune system based adaptive systems of the body that reduce disease susceptibility - i.e why some animals and people can tolerate higher bacterial or viral loads without dying then others, and can we develop drugs which enhance these effects or augment them (i.e. giving glucose support to malaria infected rats which arr experiencing an overactive drop in glucose production due to natural responses to effects of malaria). It's about therapeutic agents to boost survivability without looking directly at pathogen kill paths - it is admittedly weirdly titled.
- maxboone 3y ago
  Thank you.
- dang 3y ago
  Please edit out swipes like the first sentence here. The rest of your comment would be just fine without that. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. One of them is "Edit out swipes", and there's even another about this specific case: "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

lesiki 3y ago

> We would soon die out as a race due to population decline as we are well below the required rate of replacement in a diseased population Isn't there a strong correlation between birth rate & child mortality? Most rich societies have slowed down their birth rate in large part because you don't need 5 kids in order to ensure 1 makes it to adulthood. If we tolerated disease, we would probably increase birth rates to compensate for the spike in child mortality.

tourgen 3y ago
[dead]
HelloNurse 3y ago
Conversely, increasing child mortality necessarily increases child care effort per adult child: a bad deal that can only be compensated by having children at a significantly younger age.

slushh 3y ago

>We would have to outlaw birth control as the current rate of replacement would not be enough if half our children died by the age of 5 We could also make rising children less of an obstacle. If you build the infrastructure around rising children so that rising 2 children is not a full-time job, then parents would get more children.

explorer83 3y ago
We do sacrifice a lot of our time to raise children. But it's the cost of childcare that makes it really difficult imo. Unless you have a high paying job, you are quite literally going to work so you can afford to pay other people to watch your children while you're at work.
- namdnay 3y ago
  If that were the main factor you’d expect to see much higher fertility rates in French families for example, which isn’t really the case (especially if you exclude families of foreign descent)
vidarh 3y ago
There is little evidence of that. Countries with more support do not necessarily retain higher fertility rates. Look at e.g. the legal right to nursery places with capped costs, long parental leave, and subsequent financial aid in Norway. It might be it'd happen if you exceed a certain level of support, but we've not cracked that nut yet.
- explorer83 3y ago
  I'm not familiar with Norway's culture. Personally, if I had access to these benefits, I would have more children and faster. But I do see people who have the financial means and time to raise children who view children as a restriction of their life experience.
  - vidarh 3y ago

maxboone 3y ago

That's quite the extreme, this article doesn't remotely propose tolerating a potentially devastating pathogen. It's more about the idea that someone can be healthy, even if they carry a pathogen.

XorNot 3y ago

Could you please read the article before typing? The article is about research into non-immune system based adaptive systems of the body that reduce disease susceptibility - i.e why some animals and people can tolerate higher bacterial or viral loads without dying then others, and can we develop drugs which enhance these effects or augment them (i.e. giving glucose support to malaria infected rats which arr experiencing an overactive drop in glucose production due to natural responses to effects of malaria). It's about therapeutic agents to boost survivability without looking directly at pathogen kill paths - it is admittedly weirdly titled.

maxboone 3y ago
Thank you.
dang 3y ago
Please edit out swipes like the first sentence here. The rest of your comment would be just fine without that. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. One of them is "Edit out swipes", and there's even another about this specific case: "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""