According to the World Health Organization, malaria is responsible for approximately 445,000 deaths every year. That number may be due to drop, however, as scientists have found that a human-safe blue dye kills parasites in patients' bloodstreams within two days – that's faster than has ever been possible before.
...
That's where the methylene blue dye comes in.In field tests conducted in Mali, it was added to artemisinin-based medication, and was found to eradicate all gametocytes in patients' bloodstreams within as little as 48 hours. The dye is typically used in laboratories to distinguish dead cells from living cells, and was reportedly well-tolerated by the test subjects. It does, however, have one interesting side effect.
According to the lead scientist it turns your urine blue, which is reason enough for anybody to take it, really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:20AM (7 children)
I know it would stop Human suffering, but Machiavellian in me says this will lead to hell of a lot more Human suffering. If you stop Malaria, you can add 3 billion to your 2100 population predictions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @05:29AM (1 child)
You're confusing Machiavelli for a dumb shit. Places with malaria have much higher population growth than places without.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @12:11PM
So make that 6 billion extra. .
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 09 2018, @05:49AM (1 child)
You're also confusing Machiavelli with Malthus...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday February 10 2018, @11:58PM
He was so funny in The Odd Couple!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @07:23AM (1 child)
That said, education and availability of contraception might be helpful in attaining decent happiness:contentment:suffering ratios.
I've seen people complain about UNICEF etc, and asking why there are always people starving etc despite donations etc. But it's like regularly giving food to stray animals in an area with insufficient food. They'll reproduce and then you'll have to supply even more food to postpone the inevitable and bigger population collapse.
So to me it's fine to merely give food if it's an temporary disaster etc. But if the place just can't support that many people then they should leave.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09 2018, @08:37AM
But if they leave, they are coming to some other place, and experience shows that at the other place they are usually not that welcome.
Unless you meant "leave" as an euphemism for "die", of course.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Aiwendil on Friday February 09 2018, @10:23AM
Actually - no, it will reduce the population estimate.
People tend to breed to the point where 1-2 offspring per couple are guaranteed survival, which means in countries with low mortality they only tend to get 1-2 children while in countries with high mortality it kinda gets out of control.