# Is HIV An Economic Positive In Light of Human Overpopulation? [closed]

A few economists say that the human population is too high and if it continues to grow, may become too large for our planet to sustain it. While others can debate whether this is true or not, let's assume that they're right for this question only.

If the human population is too large, wouldn't HIV or cancer be considered an economic positive since they control the human population from expanding too much (ie: they limit the supply of humans, thus reducing overall human demand)?

• The malthusians were wrong. Again. – EnergyNumbers Nov 29 '15 at 19:49
• I vote to close this question as off-topic. Stripped-down, it barely asks "If we have too many people, is it good to kill people?", which belongs rather on philosophy.SE than here. – FooBar Nov 30 '15 at 8:31
• Usage of pseudo-economic terms such as "supply of humans", "human demand" doesn't help with that. – FooBar Nov 30 '15 at 8:32
• Don't forget about the economic cost of treating those with HIV (or the cost of avoidance). Or the potential social cost of embracing the deaths of victims (suggesting a very low value to human life, which could negatively affect both the economy and society as a whole). I'd answer with facts and examples but it looks like this is on hold... – JSideris Dec 1 '15 at 23:08
• @Bizorke excellent point - HIV doesn't kill immediately and is slow, meaning that it carries costs. This, rt.com/usa/324792-phantom-menace-superbug-rise, is fast and on the rise, so it might be more economically efficient in its outcome than something like HIV. – user541852587 Dec 4 '15 at 23:46