1895Re: Why breed? Re: Almost no breeding
- Jan 31, 2013Joe's ideas would aggravate overpopulation, not alleviate it, unless
perhaps reduced aging increased the retirement age far more than life and
thus undermined the "population aging" arguements against us. I hate to
censor people and am not a moderator either, but I hope that if joe's
priority is really increasing life expentancy, then he has little in
common with us and should go elsewhere on his own.
BTW, Oregon's euthanasia laws also help the environment a great
deal and need to be brought to more states for that purpose. Intensive
care is highly polluting.
I am not a moderator, but as your message has not been publicly answered
in over a week, I think you would be welcome in VHEMT.
MOST of the problems have been caused by the fact that the life
expectancy has gone up enormously over the past 150 years or so. In 1900,
the average life expectancy was to live to be 50 yeas old. Now, in the
US, the life expectancy is around 78 years old, while in other Western
countries life expectancy is in the mid-80s. The infant and maternal
mortality rate has plummeted in that time also. So, there are more of the
children living to be adults, more living generations of people, and
unless the birth rate goes down by a similar amount, the number of people
increases... and expands exponentially.
If life expectancy were greatly increased, as you suggest, that would
compound the problem UNLESS people stopped having babies. Human beings
are adapted to having hard lives of 35 years with a high infant and
maternal mortality rate... and we are the offspring that survived the
lifestyle of our ancestors up until the past 100-150 years. So, people
have this desire to procreate and have enough children that at least one
or two will grow up.... but we have not yet adapted to the changed
conditions that won't support this very high and growing population.
I do know that nature tends to correct itself. When other populations
expand rapidly because of a changed condition, they do so up to a point
where they make their (localized) environment unlivable, and then die
back or out in that given area. Whether this will be by disease, war, or
the other threat that human ingenuity alone could create - global climate
change, or something else, remains to be seen.
The question is whether we're going to stop voluntarily or by force (or
nature)? I think it's too late to stop the problems caused by climate
change and by improved means of spreading deadly diseases.
The more I see, the more glad I am that I have not procreated. The world
I see coming out of this situation in just a couple more decades is not
one I would wish upon an enemy, much less a child I love. I've protected
all of my children from living this horror by failing to conceive them.
--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "joseph2u4us" wrote:
> Hi everyone, I just joined up. I would have joined the main, big group
but didn't actually meet the requirement for wanting human extinction.
> I don't really want much or any breeding either.
> Here is how that would work. You might have guessed that I want the
people here to have their lifespans greatly extended. I think there is
enough understanding of stem cells and genetics to do that within a
decade, with enough resolve. We should put oodles of money into this
because by reversing agedness from a 70 effective age to a 30 efa, most
common degenerative diseases could be reversed or cured, too.
> P.S. Now that I've clarified my views, if you could, let me know if i
might be welcome in the main group.
Woman is 57 But Looks 27
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>