Since you've obviously not re-read or understood the above posts, I'll give you a summary:
First, let's start with hypocrisy. It's HYPOCRISY, not HYPOCRASY. I wouldn't ordinarily attack grammar, but you've done it five or more times in this thread and its indicative of more than a misundersatnding of its spelling.
Quote:
|
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.
|
^^ That is hypocrisy. How is the WHO being hypocritical in this situation? Which belief are they pretending to have, while holding another one, secretly?
Quote:
|
The World Health Organization is the United Nations specialized agency for health. It was established on 7 April 1948. WHO's objective, as set out in its Constitution, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
|
Their objective is to improve the quality of life -- and them recognizing TWO things that do decrease the quality of life does not make them critical. In analysing what makes our lives "good," they acknowledge that early death AND overpopulation are bad. Appropriately, they've offered solutions to increase our life spans. Becuase these two issues are completely unrelated, its not an opposing viewpoint OR hypocritical behavior.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
Aren't WHO and the UN among others bitching about overpopulation? And yet they want 400 million to change their lifestyles so that they may live longer.... Does this make sense?
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
I'm not trying to be pessimistic just realistic..... the Bible states 3 score and 10 (70 years) and any more is borrowed time (or so my 94 yr. old 7Th Day Adventist grandma says).
|
Relevance? You're going to argue that we should die sooner in order to stay in line with the Bible?
Furthermore, MANY posters have elaborated on this differentiation for you:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
This just amazes me, the hypocrasy of wanting people to live longer but telling us we're headed for overpopulation.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lurkette
...When you raise the standard of living, which includes general health measures as well as education, the population rate generally decreases on its own...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Exactly. Most developed nations are SHRINKING in population if you take out immigration. The crappy conditions are what lead to the overpopulation. Its a survival strategy.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me
It IS a little contrary to your initial inspection, but overpopulation goes DOWN as quality of life goes up. There is no hypocrisy here.
|
You went on to misunderstand the issue:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
Ok so, people add say 30 years to their lives. We're still having children at rates more than just replacement (maybe not in industrialized countries but we are.)
So my question is, how is it not overpopulation when you have people living 30 years longer and are still having children at the same rate. And even if families are not having as many kids there is still addition there. Then you add on people's lifespans being longer..... you have overpopulation....
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
Now even in the most backward countries where life expectency is 40, if we have them go by WHO and UN and we add life to them..... we are still talking about a net increase in world population.
|
If you extended the life expectancy of every 60 year old 30 years -- how much have you increased the population? 0. By increasing the life span of EXISTING MEMBERS of the population you do not increase the population. Simply increasing the quality of the lives of existing members, the population remains constant. The only time this axiom fails is when the population is not living through the age of reproductive viability. If everyone were dying off before they were 30, then I could see an argument that extending life increases the chances of further reproduction.
Finally,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
It was my opinion and I was simply pointing out something I found odd, I made it, I thought quite clear, I was not arguing overpopulation, I was not arguing healthier lifestyles.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan
I am not arguing whether WHO is right or wrong in saying people can live longer and we need to be healthier... not arguing that......
I am arguing that the same people who are so gung-ho to add years to life are the exact same people who argue that we are overpopulated or closing in on more population that raw materials can allow for.
Again, not arguing over the overpopulation theories, arguing over the hypocrasy I see there. Does noone else truly see this?
|
Quote:
|
If you were to think of the UN/WHO's mission as something to do with the number of people on earth, you'd be right that these are contradictory goals. But actually, the goal of both organizations (and the medical field in general) is to improve the quality of life. That is to say, to ensure that inhabitants on earth, as well as future inhabitants, live as good quality lives as is possible.
|
I do not mean to denigrate you but whether you were "arguing" or not this position has no substance. Overpopulation is not caused by extending life expectancies, and improving quality of life actually DECREASES population growth because reproduction for survival is no longer necessary. Finally, the WHO is not hyprocritical in offering a method of increasing the quality of life while still recognizing that overpopulation is another SEPERATE problem.