AIDS and trust.

There've been many documentaries of late surrounding AIDS. I've been taken aback by the tendancy for people to have such a dogmatic hold to the thought of humanity somehow stumbling upon a currently unconceived of cure. So many of these programs have been full of commited, admirable, and dutifully resolved scientists and advocates. All seem so convinced that a cure can at some point be manufactured. Many came to the conclusion that a percistant enough continual on slaught of trys would eventualy bring something to provide an irradication akin to that which nullified smallpox. I find the trust in such a dogma amazing. Not for the existance of such, rather for the source and place of residence for such a trust. That it would be so rooted in such a naturaly anti-dogmatic group. Faith constantly exercised in the idea that if the government and people fund their efforts with a commitment of indefinite depth that they will eventualy prevail. They can't say when, or how, or even if they'll understand the nature of such a cure in the hypothetical event that they arrive at such. All the same they are all convinced that it's an effort worth pulling out all the stops indefinently by society and it's associated institutions.

Contrasted to this steep faith in such a goal of institutionaly based AIDS cure is the odd lack of trust given to another group with a theoretical solution which is understood by all to have a 100% efficacy rate if fully implimented. Yet such an implimentation demands great faith in the capacity of individuals, namely in individuals capacity to control their passions.

This strikes me as odd because, as institutions are driven, and hindered, by human passions, trust is fully given in their capacity to eventualy solve the problem of AIDS. Never mind the fact that those who have such faith in the eventual discovery of a biologicaly engineered cure for AIDS are depending on institutions that would cease to opperate, yet are forever hinedered, by the intricacies of fallible, illogical, dogmatic, and unpredictable nature of passions, regardless all this the one side holds the other as having an utterly indefensable and illogical condition as it expects humanity to exercise restraint with regard to their natural passions. On one side they see a system driven by controling and focusing passion as absured due to it's 'implausibility.' They can never see humans exercising self restraint to fix the problem. Yet they expect, contrary to the lessons of history, that a human, passion, driven institution, comprised of these same humans is a plausible and probable solution. One needs but look at man's attempts, through governments and institutions, to stop war and strife. These endeavors have had terrible results in their attempts, laughible oft times, other times just inane. Yet still these individuals cling to the idea that the 'other side,' those advocating a dogmatic allegiance to fidelity and traditional sexual morality, are a bunch of dogmatic crack pots while they are the rational ones.

If either side is irrational than both are. For they both persue their goal absent any evidence ensuring the viability of their position. Both ensuring that if their plan is held to indefinently that it will effect a cure, yet neither side can give proof of such or a specific time line of feasability report untill after the cure has been effected, assuming it will come. Something they both do. Dogmas unavoidably stick to us, some of us just forget about such because they are stuck to parts and sides of us that we don't frequently allow our senses to bring to our minds. Like the lost eyeglasses that are only inches from a position in which they could be used.