I’ll reluctantly respond with ‘yes’, although I don’t think that describes the situation thoroughly. Let’s clear out the obvious. Nature is not conscious, and cannot have intent. The title suggests intent upon nature to curtail human population. In species, it’s natural that when overpopulation occurs, scarcity will bring starvation and the population of animals will diminish. The same is true for humans for most of their history. Until the agricultural and industrial revolutions. Until this time population slowly grew towards one billion (roughly around the year 1800). Afterward the population skyrocketed and the current global population is close to 6.7 billion.
AIDS can be compared to other epidemics such as the black plague or the yellow fever. They do decrease the human population (generally limited to a specific area). AIDS is unique in that human transportation has enabled the virus to move much more easily to other parts of the globe. Comparing the Black Plague to AIDS shows transportation as an origin (rather than by a plane, trade ships through the Mediterranean brought the Plague to Europe). However, transportation was not widely available as it is today. Fewer people traveled and when they did, it was a shorter distance.
AIDS is a natural disease, but the elements associated with it are unnatural. The spreading of AIDS around the world could only be attributed to transportation. AIDS is a common disease in Africa, but had the opportunity to travel around the world. The richer countries have had an opportunity to deal with AIDS, and although there is no cure, it has treatments that can lead to a longer lifespan with someone with the virus. If AIDS had no opportunity to travel, it probably wouldn’t have the same amount of attention paid to it. A country will take upon itself to cure its’ own citizens, before anyone else. And it’s likely that AIDS wouldn’t have treatment had it not spread to world powers. A country’s own population is what is important-as everyone living in a country is tax livestock; and the last thing a farmer wants is for his animals to get sick.
One more note on the population aspect. A country’s wealth is related to the fact that business and science thrive. Let’s compare America to Africa and note the advancement of inventions and science. In America, light bulbs, radios, telephones, and automobiles have been invented through rigorous scientific work, and as a secondary benefit have improved American standards of living. Africa claims no such method, and many people live the same way their ancestors did thousands of years ago. In America, there is great respect for the scientific method and facts, whereas in Africa superstitions are promoted by tribalism. Human treatment in America is much greater (as least by American cultural consensus) than in Africa-an example would be the utter abhorrence Americans have to genital mutilation. In parts of Africa, it is encouraged. But it is because of this, why AIDS is so prevalent in population control in Africa. Rates of 15% in Zambia, 18% in South Africa, and 26% in Swaziland show a definite epidemic; compared to the less than 500,000 cases in the United States with a 300 million population (accounting for 2007 statistics). The point here is that this nonsense of rampant disease could be stopped with the correct methods of arriving at knowledge. If Africans abandoned tribal mentality and embraced science, there would be no way that AIDS would reach so many people.
