1898Why breed? Re: Almost no breeding
- Feb 24, 2013If a method which were available (affordable) by all could effectively stop death for hundreds of years, it would solve a number of problems. The people already here, already educated and/or trained to function in society are far more useful than producing "replacements" who require a couple of decades of training before they can be functional adults, and moreover, their babysitting and education takes another person out of the market to produce anything for society or individuals.
That will only work if breeding simultaneously STOPS. If people had "replacement level" reproduction, or even less, there would be many more people. It's bad enough if everyone has 2 children, and their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren all live at once, so effectively the population is increased 8-times over by "replacement level" reproduction. If people live to be 300, that would have about 15 generations alive at once!
--- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
> Joe'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.
> > Thanks,
> > Joe
> > 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 >>