|
i think the biggest problem in your argument is that you're comparing apples to oranges... you're comparing trying to extend the lives of those living with preventing new births. the two are unrelated. the WHO doesn't seem to be dictating how to live. but they are saying that ther'es a bunch of us who could be living longer if we weren't lifestlye fuck ups.
and your 100-80-60-40-20-birth thing doesn't really work either.
look back 2000 years. you'd find that most mothers were having their first kids by the time they were 15. back in the early 1900's, in the industrialized world, mothers were having their first kids after high school. now, the trend (outside of unwed teenage motherhood that's going on) is pointing towards later first births. there are plenty of women right now waiting to have their first kid until they're in their 30's so they can have a career. so people in the 1st world aren't replacing themselves as early or as often as in the 3rd world.
over population of the planet is more a problem because of places like china and india, third world nations that have rampant population growth. as they industrialize, those rates will drop off too.
__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer
|