Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1900Re: Why breed? Re: Almost no breeding

Expand Messages
  • suza2875
    Feb 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      You miss the central point, which is that excess breeding must
      stop FIRST! If longevity were to increase before breeding is controlled,
      or even simultaneously, then earth gets destroyed along with everyone on
      it. The breeding must stop FIRST and THEN we can consider increasing
      longevity when we get to that bridge and not before.


      Well said! Such things could go a long way in addressing the problem of
      how youth tends to get wasted on the young. Long-lived wiser people
      could actually accomplish a lot more good by having the bodily
      capabilities of youth, including stamina. Not having to straighten out so
      many messes like the ones young adults often cause, including warfare and
      other violences of inexperienced youthful passion, would be a plus, too.

      --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Beth" <beth_h8@...> wrote:
      > If 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
      > > thus undermined the "population aging" arguements against us. I hate
      > > 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
      > > deal and need to be brought to more states for that purpose.
      > > care is highly polluting.
      > > -Alan.
      Woman is 53 But Looks 25
      53/YO Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic