h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

They asked questions to a group of 2000 kids over here. They were between 12 and 17 years old. The findings:

Nine percent have never even heard of the disease called AIDS or of the HIV virus.

One quarter believed that sex with a virgin would cure HIV/AIDS.

One third of the kids polled have already had sex.

One fifth of them have already had sex by the age of 12.

Sixteen percent of the sexually active girls had already traded sex for money, drinks, food or other gifts.

Twenty percent of the boys had already traded money, drinks, food or other gifts for sex.

One quarter of the girls had already been forced to have sex.

Seven percent of the boys had already been forced to have sex.

Now consider all of this in the light of the following:

About 30% of all people in South Africa already have AIDS. About 40% of the current population of the country are under the age of 15. That is about 16 million kids. It is estimated that at the current rate of infection, 50% of all these kids may die of AIDS within the next 5 to 10 years.

Wow, this is truly shocking. Something really radical needs to be done about this virus and soon. Do you know if anything is being done based on these findings or is it all going to be brushed to one side?

I would say, based on this, that there should be a massive educational effort targeted towards young people. Cover all bases: first inform them about the disease and its symptoms, the virus and the way it's transmitted; next encourage them to be responsible about sex, as in abstaining or using condoms (which are only about 90% safe anyways), give them good sex education from a young age (they start having sex very early whether you tell them anything or not, so they might as well know what they'll be getting into) teach the boys to be respectful towards girls (there's a huge incidence of rape over here), teach the girls to keep themselves safe and defend themselves, debunk myths such as that sex with a virgin or a potion by a witch doctor can cure AIDS, encourage people not to use drugs and alcohol (drug injection syringes can spread the disease while drugs as well as alcohol can lead to irresponsible behaviour). Unfortunately over here not even the first step is being done very well - at the moment some of our politicians and scientists are arguing that it's not the HIV virus that causes AIDS, but poverty.

I think research should be done into medications to combat the spread of AIDS. There is a drug, AZT, that does not destroy the AIDS virus in infected cells but prevents it from spreading to uninfected cells. This is quite effective in that it prolongs the life of sufferers and also prevents infected mothers from spreading the disease to their babies. Unfortunately our government is disputing the effectiveness of AZT and is not spending much money or effort to make it available to AIDS sufferers and HIV positive mothers. But what I hear is that if any POLITICIAN or his/her relatives ever gets AIDS there is immediately cartloads of AZT available for them.

The awareness of the disease here is similarly poor, maybe not to the same level, I don't know. I tend to agree that a good program of sex education is neccesary, to risk the lives of millions of people for the sake of "protecting" children based on the assumption that as soon as they get taught it in a classroom they'll want to rush out and start having sex is just criminal in my opinion. To have a real effect a model like the netherlands should be adopted where kids are basically taught the biological and anatomical workings and risks of sex basically from when they're about 4 both at home and at school. The other issues that you mention need to be addressed particularly rape (either male or female). Education should be given on drugs although how effective at preventing young people using it would be I don't know, they should at least be taught how to clean and sterilize needles if they must use dirty needles.

Reserarch into drugs to combat the disease is definitely needed in the long term and widespread screening and administration of anti-HIV and AIDS drugs must be implemented as soon as possible. Although there would be a high economic cost this should not be a factor when it comes to peoples lives. Favouring politicians and their families in the use of anti-AIDS drugs is despicable and really ought to be stopped.

The problem of the politicians is that they have enough money to provide AZT for themselves and their friends, but not enough to provide it to everybody who needs it. Politicians can always get stuff more easily than Joe Public - that's the nature of their position, if it wasn't the case then there wouldn't be much that they could do for the people who elected them. What is bad is that they are trying to save face not by admitting that they don't have enough money, but by saying that the drug doesn't work and then still using it themselves.

The government says it cannot afford anti-AIDS drugs now, and that may be true in that they don't have ready funds available. But many people have calculated how much AIDS sufferers actually cost the country, and from that it is possible to figure out that preventing AIDS will in the long run actually save the country billions of dollars. My sister, who is a doctor, says that the rate of infection is so high that in ten years time all available hospital beds will be occupied by AIDS sufferers. There will simply not be room for anyone else. If you have a heart attack, or if your appendix bursts, or if you are injured in a car accident - you can just forget about getting attention because the hospitals will simply not be able to accommodate you. Already our hospitals are under great strain. Doctors are pushed to breaking point. My sis is half going out of her mind. She's seen so many people die and she's so helpless to do anything about it.

The people are not dying of AIDS alone. At the moment tuberculosis is still killing more people than AIDS. Also many people die of gastro- enteritis. There are also outbreaks of malaria and cholera. These diseases are all extremely preventable, we just don't have the money and the expertise to respond effectively to them. I can also vouch for this: many people commit suicide, many more than would appear in official statistics. We have huge numbers of people who live in dismal circumstances, who don't have good jobs, or any jobs, and whose prospects for the future are hopeless. The preferred way of committing suicide for people like this is to ingest nothing but alcohol, which leads to a rapid onset of oblivion, and death some years later.

The dishonesty of the politicians is indeed a disturbing thing, mainly because I think it could lead to people not using effective drugs when they have the option. However I think using two systems one for public servants and one for the voters is equally disturbing. My justification for this is that basically any public money spent should benefit people equally and not just those who allocate the money. Another possible reason is that if they were under the same conditions as others then they would be better motivated to change the situation for the better.

The question is whether they need to buy potentially expensive drugs to clean the problem up or to implement a (relatively cheap) education program to reduce the future incidence. I think both these things need to be done to prevent the frankly very scary situation that your sister forsees. Unless action is taken soon then the situation will be become nearly impossible to recover from as evinced by the problems you appear to be experiencing with perfectly curable diseases. It really needs a politician to take a long term view rather than the short-term view most take. The problem of poverty is a particularly crippling one and needs to be addressed by both the government and richer ones.

The politicians get all their money from taxpayers. Of this money a part goes to paying the salaries of politicians and officials and the rest is public money. They politicians pay for the drugs they use out of their salaries, not out of public funds. But as it is their salaries are very, very high compared to the income of the average South African. And also there are many more government employees than there needs to be. It is the same in every country with a modern liberal democratic system of government. Politicians get all of their money from the voters, and this money they use mostly to buy themselves expensive cars, houses and aeroplanes. When the voters ask a politician why he drives a fancy car but doesn't provide all of them with fancy cars as well, or why he lives in a fancy house, he'll simply answer that he needs those things. Our president has bought himself a hugely expensive jet aircraft. When asked why he said that he had to fly internationally as a part of his presidential duties. We can't really argue with him, because that's the nature of the political system at the moment. The system is propped up by the Constitution, the courts and so on, and they are in turn propped up by the police and the army. How do you change the system, and more importantly, into what? What would be a better system, that actually works? We are kind of in a Catch 22 situation.

Do you know why politicians NEVER take long term views? Because they are elected for only a short period. Will an American President serving his last term worry about leaving lots of problems for his successors? I wonder. But the opposite situation is like we have here with presidents for life like Bob Mugabe in Zimbabwe who has been the boss for twenty years and is now going senile but still refuses to relinquish power. Political ethics - now there's a thorny dilemma for ya.

I do think there are politicians with long term vision and with solid principles, who can be trusted - but because of the nature of the system - what it takes to be promoted and become popular and powerful - the 'nice guys' have it very hard to get into positions of power and once there it is very difficult for them to keep on acting in a nice way. But there are some who make it past these obstacles. Maybe we must not be too cynical about politicians because they are still human and I believe there are some worthy qualities in human beings, and we may be pleasantly surprised one day by a capable ruler coming to power somewhere and making things better.

That 'NEVER' of course can be qualified: never say never! There are politicians who are exceptions to the rule. I really admire our previous president Nelson Mandela. Through history there have been a number of other exemplary leaders. Consider Gandhi. Now he was straight edge! Living by rigorous principles, strict veganism, fasting, and trying to improve the conditions of miserable people. I wonder what kind of music he liked.

In that case it's a bit more acceptable, but in a perfect world politicians would do it for the love of helping people. There must be something that happens to make them be driven more by power than idealism. As to changing the system that debate could go on for weeks .

To cure the problem of short term views I think that politicians shouldn't be allowed to be re-elected more than once. This would hopefully mean they would look further than next election day as they have no chance of getting back in. I can already see several problems with this thing, so even that isn't a perfect system.

I don't think we should circumvent politicians entirely but should make a system whereby those such as Mandela and Ghandi are encouraged and the power driven majority are discouraged. I think my suggestions may go some of the way towards that but maybe not.

p.s I think Ghandi would like the Beatles .

I think we should think of ways to make the work of governing more demanding and more unpleasant! So that it wouldn't be an easy road to riches. There are ways in which voters can put pressure on politicians and make them uncomfortable. Then we must also make it widely known that no politician will ever be safe from our hassling. Then we can investigate corruption and make lots of noise about it when we find it. Hey you know what, this sounds to me like the press! And in many countries there is a free press. And an ordinary person can take part in it. I have had letters of mine published in national newspapers over here. This is a way to get involved don't you think?

Many newspapers may have hidden interests though and sometimes distort news for their own gain. Personally I think the internet can be a big help. If we make the most of it. I am quite busy online. Have you checked out the Utopia Cafébar yet? It is a site that I'm running along with two other h2g2ers, Happydude and Purplejenny, and you can find the link at the top of my userpage if you're interested. It is still in its testing phase, we would welcome comments and suggestions.

I think your ideas make sense, finding corruption is probably a full time job and this is why I think journalists tend to let us down by concentrating on sales more than making a difference. Personally I am considering standing for parliament at some point as this will I hope at least get my views heard.

Just checked out the Utopia Cafebar which I thought was very good, some well thought out essays. The sheer quantity of news was a bit bewildering although I read some good articles and I also spotted one about South Africa being allowed access to an anti-AIDS drug.

Yes, that has happened recently, there was a court case where drug companies tried to stop us from implementing a law to provide people with 'generic' anti-aids drugs. The drug companies withdrew their case so now we can import those drugs. It remains to be seen how many people will be helped by it. At least these drugs are somewhat cheaper so we can use more for the same money, and that's not bad.

But please check out the Cafébar from time to time. It is an absolutely excellent place to get international news if you are willing to spend some time searching the lists, and also discussions of international problems, as well as resources and some other stuff. We're going to change the organisation of the lists and the links when they become too large. We're going to work hard on it and it will probably go through many changes over time.

Are the new drugs as effective? If so then this is an extremely positive move. The drug companies seem to have been trying to maintain a monopoly is that the case?

As for the cafebar, I try and check it in the mornings now just to flick through the headlines and check out a few articles. It seems to me to be a really good idea and is quite well designed. I take it you get the stories automatically put there by an externa organisation?

Are the new drugs as effective? If so then this is an extremely positive move. The drug companies seem to have been trying to maintain a monopoly is that the case?

As for the cafebar, I try and check it in the mornings now just to flick through the headlines and check out a few articles. It seems to me to be a really good idea and is quite well designed. I take it you get the stories automatically put there by an external organisation?

Let me see now, the medicine ... I am not totally up to date on exactly how it works, but the generic medicines are basically copies of medicines that have been patented. I'll see if I can get more information, it might help to understand the process. The idea I have is that certain drugs are designed, patented and sold by big companies. The people who have designed the drugs get a part of the profits. Some other companies sell drugs that are copies of these drugs, but they don't give anybody money for patent rights and so the medicines are cheaper. But the people who design and patent drugs don't like this very much. It does make sense because the people who do the research and development ought to get some compensation. The key questions are 'how much?', and 'always?' In the case where large numbers of people are dying it is difficult to justify spending more money than absolutely necessary. I think I must look a bit deeper into this - who manufactures these generic medecines? How much money is spent on medical research and development in various countries? I personally think there is a necessity to pay people for doing the research and development because without it the medical world would not make progress. But I think there is something wrong with mainstream medicine anyway. My own ideas run to 'alternative medicine', or preventative strategies. Money spent on education can save huge expenses in medical treatments if people can learn how to avoid avoidable diseases. This kinda ties in with what we're talking about over in the straight edge forum, doesn't it?

The Cafébar: we are running it ourselves, we have a server who hosts it but we're the one responsible for the content. Happydude is in charge of the news. I'm not sure how he does it - he is a news addict, it might be that he uploads every item himself. I don't think he's using a program to upload them directly, because the news items are only those ones relating to our mission. Happydude is also the programmer of the site. He's responsible for the design. He's done most of the work on the site so far.

I will be responsible for the resource page. I will also post a number of essays that I will write myself. I am also writing a science fiction series (in the style of serious nonfiction) called the 'Voice of Valerie' that I hope will make people be interested in and think about some of the issues we'll be discussing.

Then apart from that we have discussions. People can join the Cafébar and then take part in these discussions. They can start a topic themselves or reply to other people's topics. It's rather like h2g2. Our members also have member pages where they can put info about themselves. On our site people can post pictures and links to other websites and they can talk use whatever language they want. My job is also to oversee these discussions. We're doing all of it ourselves.

Just to make sure you don't misunderstand: we're not writing the news items ourselves - they come from a variety of news sources online, but Happydude selects those that are particularly interesting and relevant to the 'world peace' angle. The news items are links. But the essays we write ourselves. By 'we' I mean everybody who's a member. If you're a member, you can write an essay and send it in and we (management - me, Happydude or Purplejenny) will post it. Or you can post it yourself as a topic for discussion.

More interesting news: Malawi is experiencing a breakdown of its education system. It is a small country a bit to the north of South Africa, and it has been hit by AIDS very hard. Their current problem is that they don't have enough teachers any more for all the schoolkids. Ever since democratisation they have had difficulty providing enough classrooms, books and teachers. Now AIDS is making it even harder. Every year an average of 600 teachers die of AIDS.

Education is definitely the most cost-effective solution to the problem. The sooner this is recognized the quicker the probelm will go away. However there needs to be a temporary stop gap and cheap medicine will go some way to solving the problem. Another point worth recognizing is the lack of knowledge about human psychology contributing to the difficulty of getting an educational method of health care to actually have the desired effects. I have no objections to individuals being paid a "royalty" for inventions of theirs, I do however have a problem with multinational corporations profiting out of human misery and suffering.

The news about Malawi's situation is certainly distressing. Most countries seem to be having some sort of problem with providing enough money for education and the situation in (to use the parlance of the rich countries) "third world countries" seems to be even more dire. How a country without massive funds can get themselves out of this situation is a real challenge. I believe external aid may be needed in this situation which seems unlikely.

As to the cafebar it is a very good resource, keep it up. I've read most of the essays and they seem well written and thought out. I will have to visit the H2G2 version at some point.

Heh heh, don't worry much about the UCB on h2g2, that's mostly a bunch of jokes and nonsense, OK enough when you're in the mood for that. We have lotsa jokes over on the offsite UCB as well, it's not all serious! I would like some time to try my hand at a bit of social and political satire!

I read a bit more about the medicine. It isn't just anti-AIDS medicines that were involved in the court case - it was all kinds of medications. The big drug companies aren't all bad - they did after all come to an agreement without pushing the court case forward. Basically the generic drugs are manufactured and sold in countries that do not respect patent rights. So they do not pay money to the holders of the patents of the medecines. But it seems as if this amount of money isn't very large, it will for us not make a great difference.

Today's paper has a large interview with John Kearney, the boss of GlaxoSmithKline (drug company) in SA. He says some sensible things: first of all they supply Combivir (anti-AIDS drug) at no profit whatsoever. They have made agreements with other companies to help supply third-world countries with needed drugs. He says that the best strategy would include: 1) a campaign aimed at prevention 2) A program to help stop the spread of AIDS from infected mothers to their babies (by using AZT or Combivir - they work, my sis tells me) 3) an extension of this program to keep treating mothers so they don't die and leave their kids as orphans 4) a campaign to treat people in vital jobs, like teachers. Kearney says that his company wil co-operate with the SA government as much as possible. He stresses that companies need to go on with research to develop new drugs and for that they need money.

What do you see as problems in your own country and society?

All the points he makes seem fair and I give him respect for not making a profit for the AIDS drug. On the whole they seem a moral and good company. I would be happier if governments could be trusted to invest enough in research to compete with these companies, but you can't win them all. As for the lack of payments to inventors of drugs I'd imagine that was because they are paid a pretty good salary by the pharmaceutical companies to develop the drugs.

The problems in my society aren't particularly dire, they're far from perfect, the main ones are :
1) A lack of funding for the Health Service - Badly understaffed with huge waiting periods, however the government is throwing a bit of money at the problem.
2) A lack of teachers - Due to the sizes of classes and lack of pay a lot of teachers are leaving the profession and taking better paid, less demanding and less stressful jobs in the corporate world. This means some schools have had to go onto a 4 day week and educational standards are constantly worsening.
3) General voter apathy - This is a problem that affects most of the world, I think and we experience it here. There are three sets of elections here (Local, Parlimentary and European) and all three have bad voter turnouts, the most acute problem is the European elections then the local. The parlimentary elections I can't discuss here for a couple of months but in the past they have tended to have average-ish turnouts of about 60%. The European elections are missed largely because of the anti-Europe xenophobic sentiment of a sizeable proportion of the population and this just exacerbates the apathy that disillusionment with the political system brings.
4) Underfunded transport system - Trains and buses have now been sold into private hands and are horribly unreliable and over priced (a train ticket costs at least 2 times the price of fuel on most routes) and recently ground to a halt for the best part of two months.

There are more problems but they're fairly minor mostly related to poor public sector funding. All in all I think this country largely has it easy but there are some problems that definitely need a lot of work on them.