Skip to main content

As we develop more and more advances in the medical field, more people are having their lives saved.

We have vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, and many other procedures that have saved millions of lives. Human average life span is increasing. All these things are good.

This has also been responsible for the population explosion.

At present, our population doubles every 35 years. This type of growth can have catastrophic impact on our Earth's ecosystem if not brought under control soon.

Let's say for instance if this 35-year population doubling were to have its start with the creation of Adam and Eve what would this mean mathematically.

A&E(2)(4)(8)(16)(32)(64) so in just 5, 35 year periods or 175 years the population is 64. Use a simple calculator, press 2, and raise it to the power of 5 you get 64 so it is a simple calculation to do on your calculator.

Now lets use our calculator and have a little eye opening fun.

Raise 2 to the power of 40 and we have a number over a 1 trillion. 40 x 35 = 1400. So in just 1400 years from Adam and Eve if the current 35 year doubling prevailed the population would be over 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion).

What would 6000 of this type of doubling amount to well that would be more than 2 to the 171 power or 1,993,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

My point is that as we continue to develop cures for illnesses we will be forced to control the amount of children that can be born. Sooner or latter this will have to happen.

There are other factors in keeping population down. I saw something about Euro populations are not producing fast enough to maintain current numbers but are in fact shrinking. If I can remember, Italy and France are in the most trouble. And AIDS and War is taking African populations down, some say to the point that Africa will be vulnerable to another round of colonization.

Just a thought smile

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

JuneBug, here's some more "eye-opening fun" for you. There's another catastrophic monster awaiting impact on our Earth's ecosystem (not to mention the ship that just emptied millions of gallons of oil in the sea near Spain); they're called Weapons of Mass Destruction and if not brought under control soon (which seems highly unlikely), nothing you mentioned above is going to save a dag gone thing, but it's guaranteed to keep the population explosion, you anticipate, from happening.
The chinese are already doing that restricting the number of children that families can have. I think that the number is either 1 or 2 children and no more. What is has done has caused an increased in the number of baby girls being killed when they are born because in chinese culture boy babies are considered more valuable to a family then baby girls. Its been going on for years and despite protests from other countries the chinese have continued the policy.
Yeah I know but many do not take it seriously. I think the attitude is "so what, nothing I can do about it, so I don't care. Meanwhile I will ignore any threat that does not fit my political sentiments and oppose what I don't like." I really think this is the general thinking in most shallow minded, agenda bent folks. Oh well.

Estimated for 2050.

United States 397 million
Canada 40 million
Brazil 247 million
Germany 71 million
Japan 109 million
Russia 104 million
China 1,462 million
India 1,572 million

An article in The Economist points out that by 2050, around 1/3 of the American population will be 60 or older. In Canada and much of Western Europe, 35-45% will be 60 or older. In most Western countries America included, the birth rate does not reach the replacement level. Consequently, young immigrants will become an increasingly sought after commodity.

Immigrants will come from less affluent areas, such as Africa, Asia. Europe, Canada, America and will be thoroughly chocolatized. In other words, white people will be in serious decline.

JazzDog, that is what I heard too about China, I also hear that women are trying to get out of China as fast as they can. Chinese women are becoming more educated and exposed to Western life they want it too and are seeking a way out.
Ah, China.

I used to think that once they realized the girls were scarce, they would start to value them more. And they do! Now men from rural parts of China kidnap girls and young women to be their wives. Now they have detectives freelancing to track down these kidnappers and their victims, and the government just executed a kidnapper a few months ago. Still, an excessive number of men won't have Chinese women to marry. I wonder what will happen next...

Several countries already voluntarily cut down on their child numbers, e.g., Italy is said to have achieved a one child per family goal back in the 70s, but it was mostly because people decided they didn't want to have to struggle to feed 8 kids. It's probably not an accident that it happened by force in China.

I think, JuneBug, that what would likely happen is that most people will voluntarily go for the Norplant before the Chi-com solution, but you're probably right about the immigration. What would also likely happen is that more jobs will be automated. Where I live the grocery stores already use computers where we can check ourselves out with only 1 person watching 3 lanes of customers. More to come of that sort of thing...
There was a BBC special about the AIDS explosion in Africa about 3 years ago when I was in England. Do you know a whole generation of adults is about to be wiped out. Many millions of children are being orphaned or infected due to the AIDS epidemic. Sadly it seems as if the culture could be wiped out if this continues.


"Every shut eye ain't asleep. Every goodbye ain't gone"

Lewis Micheaux on the death of Malcolm X
Souljah brings up a very good point. We often think we are at the top of the food chain. Nope. There will be more and more antibiotic resistant bacteria and viruses out there. Viruses are especially adaptable....they can mutate easily so that treatment is ineffective. I personally believe that most antibiotics and antivirals will eventually (soon) become ineffective. The next real frontier will be genetic therapy.

As a society, we need to get better at dying. In America, we tend to think of death as more or less optional. All the technology, all the time, keep on fighting when there is no chance at winning the war. Shoot, we do open heart surgery on 90 year olds routinely (with VERY mixed results.) The vast majority of our nation's healthcare dollars is spent in the last 6 months of life. Often we do stuff the family wants so they can feel that they "tried everything" and we can avoid being sued. No matter that the poor patient may not have wanted it in the first place or that their prognosis was extremely grim from the beginning.

The age group with the second highest suicide rate is the elderly (over age 75.) Very sad.

"Unless you're sharing what you have, you don't have as much as you think you do."

Another side effect of more lives being saved is that the natural selection process is being side stepped and more people are reproducing and passing down the defective genes.

I have a coworker who has a sister that has a bone disease that is carried through the female line. Its the kind of disease where the bones break easily. It the old days, she would have died young. Not that she should have not been saved, but I had a problem with her trying everything to have a baby. And guess what, she had a girl and the girl has the disease, but not as severe.

Why do something like this, why not adopt? Is our need to pass down our genes that important?

La Femme Nkechi
Be the change in the world you want to see
- Think about the effects even your smallest actions have on the world. You are often a part of the problem. Stop pointing fingers, accept responsibility and be a part of the solution. Create your higher self!
Hello LaFemmeNkechi,

I've been pondering a similar point myself. I read awhile back about this couple who happened to be deaf purposely choosing a deaf man to have a child with so that the child would be deaf, too. I don't think that was ethical of them.

But on the one hand, in the scenario you mentioned, it is possible that the lady thought her child wouldn't get the disease if her husband's family doesn't carry it. I can see how she would think that, and even so: everyone has some sort of time bomb in their genes. Everyone. So the idea of maybe passing something on, and therefore deciding not to have a child isn't so persuasive as it might seem at first. The lady might not be so kooky in that light.

But on the other hand...! Right now people have the option of selecting to have a girl or a boy, and I'm wondering if down the line your coworker's sister wouldn't be legally required to make use of that technology when it becomes more prevalent.
Hi, nice to see you smile

Why do something like this, why not adopt? Is our need to pass down our genes that important?

Hmmm, that was deep about your friend, reminded me of that movie, "Unbreakable".

I think many women if not most want to experience the whole range of being a woman and that includes, having a baby and raising your child. It's hard to fault anyone for that, I feel. Of course the wise thing to do is adopt.

You know it's somewhere written in our genes to bear fruit, for some it's a strong urge to do so. I think most of us have urges that will not listen to logic or even love.

Remember that Star Trek Generations episode when they saved a planet from geologic catastrophe and the human inhabitants on the planet were genetically perfect, each genetically engineered for particular jobs and expertise. One way they perfected their genetics was not allowing any fetus with deformities born. Geordi born blind, had not existed, no need for that special Visor and unavailable to them to save the planet. Cool smile

Ingenious inventions come about because of our defective nature.
To say that someone should not reproduce and to kill a life already conceived are 2 separate notions that are not even in the same book, let alone on the same page.

I am saying, that with the over abundance of children without parents in this world, why would you want to have a child on purpose that you know you are passing down a possibly life debilitating gene to? Adopt! The other life is not here, not even an embryo, there is no love yet, so it is not the same thing. I hope you can separate the two.

I know that we, as animals, have an innate need to reproduce in our likeness. But we also have the intelligence to see get past that and if we didn't then there are a whole bunch of things that we do for the sake of society that are against our nature that we need to rethink.

Consider 2 people wanting a child, who both carry the sickle cell gene. I am not 100% sure of the facts, others can input here, but I believe that it is almost certain that the child will develop the disease. Who would want to give their child a painful disease like that? That is why people now get tested for this, maybe even before getting married. Do you consider this the same thing? Should they not care and just have the child anyway... cause after all, sickle cell needs to live too?

Enough people wish they were not born because of the painful diseases they live with, but all life is precious, once it exists. Do not confuse my words.

La Femme Nkechi
Be the change in the world you want to see

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.