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

Re: Almost no breeding

Expand Messages
  • joseph2u4us
    I don t think that I m in the wrong group because this group discusses breeding, which I oppose. I think a lot of people would be offended by the idea of not
    Message 1 of 13 , Feb 1, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't think that I'm in the wrong group because this group discusses breeding, which I oppose. I think a lot of people would be offended by the idea of not wanting to give everyone on the planet the best life possible. We didn't choose to be born, but now that we are here, a lot of us want to stay living here comfortably as long as possible.
      -Joe

      --- 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.
      > -Alan.
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > 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.
      >
      > Beth
      >
      > --- 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...
      > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/510b549e24cee549d5481st04vuc
      >
    • Beth
      Companionship and help from a sexual partner, and enjoyment of the sex can be gotten quite well without procreation. My observation is that I m not exactly
      Message 2 of 13 , Feb 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Companionship and help from a sexual partner, and enjoyment of the sex can be gotten quite well without procreation.

        My observation is that I'm not exactly sure what people get or hope to get from offspring. It's like they're ga-ga over the idea of "a baby", feel very 'put out' from everything from the labor pains to nursing to changing diapers, then really don't like their "baby" once it learns to say "no" at about age 2, they like it even less when it learns to read, then every choice they make is only "right" if the baby is "a little 'me'". Maybe it's a chance to vicariously live one's life over, avoiding the mistakes, and frustrated that they cannot force their children to live a mistake-free life - or even that the children want something different out of life than they did.

        Beth


        --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "joseph2u4us" <jos.meis@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Beth, thanks for writing and thanks for that reassurance yet I'm wondering if no response could be seen as being inclusive.
        >
        >
        > I'm glad that you haven't had offspring. I haven't either and if I had been more financially well-off and secure before I found out how overpopulated the world is, I might have. You've alluded to how uncaring it is to bring new people into this world that has such a bleak outlook. Reproduction is an act of self-interest, and self-interest alone. The main thing to get from it is the companionship and help of the offspring and the sexual partner, and also the pleasure gotten from the sex. It's a tyranny of nature, if you ask me.
        >
        > Joe
        >
        > --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, "Beth" wrote:
        > >
        > > 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.
        > >
        > > Beth
        > >
        > > --- 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.
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • Beth
        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
        Message 3 of 13 , Feb 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 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.
          > -Alan.
          >
          > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          > 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.
          >
          > Beth
          >
          > --- 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...
          > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/510b549e24cee549d5481st04vuc
          >
        • joseph2u4us
          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
          Message 4 of 13 , Feb 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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.
            --Joe

            --- 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 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.
            > > -Alan.
            > >
            > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            > >
            > > 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.
            > >
            > > Beth
            > >
            > > --- 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...
            > > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/510b549e24cee549d5481st04vuc
            > >
            >
          • suza2875
            You miss the central point, which is that excess breeding must stop FIRST! If longevity were to increase before breeding is controlled, or even
            Message 5 of 13 , 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.
              -Alan

              -------------------------------------------------------------------------
              ------

              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.
              --Joe

              --- 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
              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.
              > > -Alan.
              ____________________________________________________________
              Woman is 53 But Looks 25
              53/YO Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
              http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/512ae1b0840a361b027bdst04vuc
            • Beth
              I thought I put that in my last paragraph, along with explaining how much worse this supposedly replacement level breeding actually makes the population
              Message 6 of 13 , Feb 25, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                I thought I put that in my last paragraph, along with explaining how much worse this supposedly "replacement level" breeding actually makes the population problem.

                It'll never happen. At best/worst, this will be so expensive that it's only available to a very few people. People show no signs of even slowing the breeding down, so there will be a vast number of very poor people in the world, who cannot advance technology at all - but merely must maintain its use to fight a losing battle to minimally support the bulging population with ecological disasters accelerating to make the planet unlivable.

                Beth

                --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
                >
                > 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.
                > -Alan
                >
                > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                > ------
                >
                > 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.
                > --Joe
                >
                > --- 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
                > 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.
                > > > -Alan.
                > ____________________________________________________________
                > Woman is 53 But Looks 25
                > 53/YO Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
                > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/512ae1b0840a361b027bdst04vuc
                >
              • joseph2u4us
                Maybe you missed the general thing I m saying which is that because we can live longer, almost all breeding is even more urgently in need of being ended. I
                Message 7 of 13 , Feb 25, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Maybe you missed the general thing I'm saying which is that because we can live longer, almost all breeding is even more urgently in need of being ended. I think we are really pretty closely in agreement. An important aspect of all this is that anyone not conceived yet will never care. Regardless, things are going to get very different before long, one way or another.

                  --Joe

                  --- In Why_breed@yahoogroups.com, aditmore@... wrote:
                  >
                  > 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.
                  > -Alan
                  >
                  > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  > ------
                  >
                  > 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.
                  > --Joe
                  >
                  > --- 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
                  > 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.
                  > > > -Alan.
                  > ____________________________________________________________
                  > Woman is 53 But Looks 25
                  > 53/YO Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
                  > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/512ae1b0840a361b027bdst04vuc
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.