World War III - African Theater of Operations

Boko Harem razes town of 10,000 in Nigeria.

Remember, though, that the Catholic Church is responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa.

Irony alert -

Contraceptive Used in Africa May Double Risk of H.I.V.

The most popular contraceptive for women in eastern and southern Africa, a hormone shot given every three months, appears to double the risk the women will become infected with H.I.V., according to a large study published Monday. And when it is used by H.I.V.-positive women, their male partners are twice as likely to become infected than if the women had used no contraception.


The findings potentially present an alarming quandary for women in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of them suffer injuries, bleeding, infections and even death in childbirth from unintended pregnancies. Finding affordable and convenient contraceptives is a pressing goal for international health authorities.

So, if a person followed Catholic doctrine and only had sex within marriage to someone who also followed Catholic doctrine, then the chance of catching AIDS would be, well, zero.
 
On the other hand, following the advice of modernist secularists seems to be a good recipe for spreading HIV in Africa.
 
Ironic, what?
 
Via Mark Shea at his new Patheos digs.

Speaking the Unspeakable.

John Derbyshire questions the morality of governmental aid to Africa for AIDS relief.

Derbyshire raises the uncomfortable idea that we ought to occasionally check back on our charity recipients to determine what good we have wrought, such as in Ethiopia, which, according to Guardian columnist Kevin Myers, is not much, except to subsidize the creation of priapic, kalashnikov-weilding fornicators:

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again.


It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

What Africa needs is a conversion to a particularly severe form of Puritanism.

Parodoxically, it seems that a population's risky sexual behavior is somehow mysteriously related to whether that population will have higher levels of AIDS.

First Things points out the data that distributing condoms causes an increase in AIDS:

The predominant Western approach to preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa has failed. Though in theory the risk reduction strategies favored by Western governments and aid agencies—handing out condoms, promoting counseling and testing, and treating other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to block HIV transmission—can “work” in theory, they have not done so in practice. In Africa, despite years of promised improvements, they have not brought any downturn at all.


But a handful of African countries have actually forced down the AIDS rates, each of them by changing behavior—particularly reducing sexual partnerships—not through the heavily promoted risk reduction measures.

Well before western donors and condoms arrived on the scene, Uganda had cut its level of casual sex by two-thirds and subsequently its HIV rate by two-thirds. Several years later, Kenya replicated this success. A few other countries have also done so, with partner reduction always the most important factor.

In sharp contrast, South Africa has maintained high rates of multiple (and concurrent) partnerships and, despite its vigorous promotion of condoms, still suffers from persistently high rates of HIV infection. The same can be said of many of its neighboring countries, which lead the world in the prevalence of HIV, with some 15 to 35 percent of all adults infected.

These successes and failures are, tellingly, too often treated in a manner inversely proportional to their merits. Behavior change, though responsible for success, remains the least emphasized approach, while risk reduction invariably receives the benefit of the doubt despite its failure to deliver as promised. Its disappointing results always mean that efforts—along with funding—must simply be doubled.

Many in the AIDS Establishment will only unreservedly applaud success if it comes through the technical means promoted by Western governments and activist groups. In a 2005 PBS documentary, UNAIDS’ executive director Dr. Piot refused to concede that behavior change played the paramount role in Uganda’s unparalleled success. “But we also know,” he added, “that no country has been successful in bringing down the number of new infections of HIV without strong condom promotion.”

To viewers who have never had reason to think twice about the issue, this might sound like a sober assessment. Human sexual behavior, we tend to assume, is hard to change and so the most effective way to reduce the number of people getting sexually transmitted diseases must therefore be to reduce the risk of sexual activity. That appears to many people just common sense.

But Uganda clearly refutes Piot’s claim, as does the fact that the countries with the most robust condom promotion programs have some of the most severe AIDS epidemics in the world. The evidence suggests that common sense may be wrong.

For starters, people tend to take greater risks when they feel protected by technical innovation. In a state of the art program in Uganda, for example, those explicitly encouraged to use condoms ended up at greater risk than the control group not exposed to the sophisticated intervention, because they had more sexual partners than those not told to use condoms. People have also been seen to take greater risks when antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS became available.

This “risk compensation” or “behavioral disinhibition” is now, fortunately, receiving more attention in scientific circles. It is one reason why vigorous promotion of risk reduction—even if it “works” in isolated cases—can do more harm than good. The “common sense” presupposition that condoms will decrease infection rates does not easily give way to the common sense observation that promoting devices capable of reducing risk encourages people to take more risks.

But risk reduction measures have a deeper and more damaging defect: a deflating absence of hope. They too often imply that we cannot influence behavior—that the best we can hope for is reducing and controlling the damage of behavior people will engage in whatever we say. More damagingly, they too often imply that we cannot change our behavior, that in matters of sexuality in particular we are doomed to live dangerously, that we are too weak to do what is best for us.

Thoughtful strategies to change behavior, on the other hand, reinforce the human capacity to recognize and choose what is good. As the Ugandan experience has proved, all people—especially the young—respond to this message when it is sincerely delivered.

Abstinence and monogamy - they work in practice, but can they work in theory?