

Imagine 1985 heard 2015 would have AIDS cures, gay marriage and a black president - chrisyeh

If you took your DeLorean back in time to 1985, and you told someone, &quot;In the year 2015, we&#x27;ll have an effective treatment for AIDS, gay marriage will be the law of the land, and a black man will be president,&quot; your interlocutor would probably assume that you live in a perfect Star Trek future, where all racism and discrimination have been made obsolete. After all, you even have a portable, handheld supercomputer that can diagnose health issues.
Two things are undoubtedly true: 1) The world CAN change. 2) We still have much to do.
======
opendomain
Cure for AIDS? Is this Hyperbole or was there some news I missed?

~~~
schoen
"Effective treatment" rather than "cure".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_HIV/AIDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_HIV/AIDS)

The results of antiretroviral drugs have been astonishing, and most people
with a new HIV diagnosis for whom multidrug antiretroviral therapy is
available (and who comply with it) will never expect to develop AIDS symptoms.

"Effective treatment" is in the body of the post, while "cure" is in the
title, and is misleading.

~~~
rpietro
agree, nowadays HIV infection is a kind of chronic condition, far removed from
what it used to be

~~~
melling
We've spent a fortune on AIDS research in the past 30 years. Why wouldn't we
expect to have treatments?

[http://blogs.poz.com/peter/assets_c/2009/03/NIH_AIDS_Researc...](http://blogs.poz.com/peter/assets_c/2009/03/NIH_AIDS_Research_Budget-
thumb-540x367-2.gif)

We could do so much more research for all diseases. Personally, in 1985, I
would have expected cancer, AIDS, and many other major disease to all be cured
by now. It's actually depressing how much work remains.

------
paulhauggis
"black president"

I'm not sure why this is even relevant. I don't care who is president
(ethnicity,gender etc), as long as they can run the country. Focusing just on
race is part of the problem. We need to be focusing on the best person for the
job.

~~~
schoen
It would still have been surprising in 1985.

Gallup has been tracking people's willingness to vote for members of various
demographic groups since 1937 (!).

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/3979/americans-today-much-more-
ac...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/3979/americans-today-much-more-accepting-
woman-black-catholic.aspx)

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-
pres...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-
candidates.aspx)

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-
can...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-
least-appealing.aspx)

They've changed the questions in the survey somewhat over time. (I'd love to
see all of the historical data in this survey.)

If you think that any of these things is irrelevant to someone's being
president, and you think the poll is accurate (so people don't overstate or
understate their opposition to having presidents with particular
characteristics), these are probably the numbers that you should be worried
about if you hope people will focus on the "best person for the job". After
all, lots of people in each year have told Gallup that they would be moved by
these factors -- many of which you may see as irrelevant.

~~~
melling
79% in 1987 was probably high enough to win. Jesse Jackson ran in 1984 so it
wasn't a foreign idea. I'm sure a well-spoken Harvard graduate could have won
then too.

"The willingness to vote for a black for president was at 37% in 1958, when
Gallup first included the category in its survey tests. That number rose
through the 1960s and into the 1970s, although, as recently as 1987, only 79%
of Americans said they would vote for a black person for president. By 1997
that number had risen to 93%, and it is now at 95%."

