We all die - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 10-04-2005, 07:48 PM

I read this and am amazed at the hypocrasy. 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?

I mean we all are going to die, and yes, death isn't always painless and sudden, it sometimes lingers and is painful, but we ALL will die.

So if we all change to healthier lifestyles, we'll all live longer? What exactly does that mean since the world is getting older anyway? There will be more elderly to take care of, i.e. retirement funds to pay into, more medicaid and medicare expenses, more elderly poverty..... and so on.

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).

And so we all have healthier lifestyles and live longer..... well then we have overpopulation, pollution, poverty and people dying from cancers (becauuse of pollutants), disease and starvation the overpopulation has caused......

This just amazes me, the hypocrasy of wanting people to live longer but telling us we're headed for overpopulation.

Quote:

WHO: Chronic Disease May Kill 400M by 2015 By UTA HARNISCHFEGER, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago

Heart disease, diabetes and other chronic ailments will kill nearly 400 million people over the next 10 years, but many of those deaths can be prevented by healthier lifestyles and inexpensive medication, the World Health Organization said Wednesday.

The financial burden from an increasing death toll from such non-communicable diseases will also be enormous, costing countries such as China and India billions of dollars, WHO said in a report.

"The lives of far too many people in the world are being blighted and cut short by chronic diseases," said Lee Jong-Woo, WHO director-general.

He was citing the latest WHO report to draw attention to the increasing threat from diseases that can be prevented in part by healthier diets and giving up smoking.

Until recent years, these chronic conditions were overshadowed by infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, though they cause far more deaths. Chronic, or noncommunicable diseases, account for three out of five deaths worldwide, the WHO says.

The 128-page WHO report estimated that 39 million deaths from chronic diseases in the next 10 years can be prevented through healthier lifestyles and relatively cheap medication, including 28 million in developing countries.

The projections were based on surveys conducted in countries that have already implemented measures to encourage healthier habits. Exercise and better diets can help prevent 80 percent of premature cases of heart disease, strokes and diabetes, the report said.

Although other studies have predicted the number of deaths from individual diseases, the WHO report was the first to project the toll from all major chronic conditions.

It was also the first to quantify the economic burden of treating such conditions in individual countries. China could spend $558 billion treating heart disease, strokes and diabetes over the next decade, the study said. Russia could spend $303 billion and India $236 billion.

"This is a preventable epidemic," said Robert Beaglehole, co-author of the study. "We know what to do, we know how to do it, preventions are very cheap."

The study urged developing countries to adopt prevention policies that have helped cut death rates in industrialized countries. Heart disease-related deaths have fallen up to 70 percent in Canada, Australia, England and the United States in the last three decades, the report said.

It also cited Poland, which reduced deaths among young adults by 10 percent in the 1990s, in part by making fruit and vegetables more available and removing subsidies on dairy products like butter.

"There is no question that low-income countries can follow the example of industrialized countries," Beaglehole said. "Most of their success stems from population-wide campaigns. For example, to reduce the intake of saturated fats, sugar and salt and to encourage activity."

The reported also pointed to cheaper treatments. Medication to prevent complications from heart disease, for example, is no longer subject to patent restrictions and is cheaper to make.

Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051005/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

djtestudo · 10-04-2005, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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).

Actually, unless I'm looking at the wrong thing, it says:

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
--Genesis 6:3, KJV (Same in RSV and NRSV)

pan6467 · 10-04-2005, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Actually, unless I'm looking at the wrong thing, it says:

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
--Genesis 6:3, KJV (Same in RSV and NRSV)

So then we are dying earlier than the Bible says.....

and by the way you calling my Grams a liar.... shame on you ..... lol J/K

mrklixx · 10-04-2005, 08:19 PM

Psalm 90:10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

Not that the bible is contradictory or anything.

Cynthetiq · 10-04-2005, 11:50 PM

After taking a 4 hour drive from Delhi to Agra and seeing a person standing on the roadside every few meters, I can attest to the contrast of people that I've seen in the USA on similar journeys....nothing like it at all.

While people don't live on top of each other here like they do in NYC I'm amazed to see people just everywhere... I've not found much solitude on this portion of the trip.

I've seen starving people here and in the Philippines...even starving animals...

lurkette · 10-05-2005, 08:33 AM

When you raise the standard of living, which includes general health measures as well as education, the population rate generally decreases on its own. That alone should take care of at least some of the overpopulation. Keep in mind that in many of the countries they mention - India, China, "premature death" doesn't mean living till you're 75 when you COULD have lived to 90; it means dying at 41 of things that generally are preventable and that don't happen till much later in more developed nations with better public health.

Ustwo · 10-05-2005, 08:38 AM

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. That alone should take care of at least some of the overpopulation. Keep in mind that in many of the countries they mention - India, China, "premature death" doesn't mean living till you're 75 when you COULD have lived to 90; it means dying at 41 of things that generally are preventable and that don't happen till much later in more developed nations with better public health.

Exactly. Most developed nations are SHRINKING in population if you take out immigration.

The crapy conditions are what lead to the overpopulation. Its a survival strategy.

WillyPete · 10-05-2005, 08:42 AM

Bit of a thread jack, but you'll notice that after the Gen6:3 quote people kicking around for several hundred years like Methuselah is no longer the norm.

Noah is the last of these.

Back to topic, dont' confuse the idea of rasing the average lifespan with western lifespans.
Think global and not fox news.

Pensions only really apply to capitalist societies. 2nd and 3rd world communities rely on offspring for comfortable old age.

Jinn · 10-05-2005, 09:01 AM

It IS a little contrary to your initial inspection, but overpopulation goes DOWN as quality of life goes up. There is no hypocrisy here.

Destrox · 10-05-2005, 11:21 AM

Not sure how religion came into play on this thread, but I'll just refrain from touching it anymore.

I dont know about any of you, but I eat pretty damn well. I exercise enough and am in very good shape. You wont see me dying because of being fat or obese related illnesses, I'll surely go out in some other out of my control way.

To die from your own ignorance is just sad and by all means if you really dont care about your self that much you wont see me caring.

pan6467 · 10-05-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

It IS a little contrary to your initial inspection, but overpopulation goes DOWN as quality of life goes up. There is no hypocrisy here.

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....

An example:

You have 100 in country A. Life expectency is 70. You have 50 (30 couples of 18 - 35) that can have children, and on average each will have 2. You have 30 that are say 18 and younger and will have kids, you have 10 that are 35-60 and you have 10 that are 60 years or older.

But you get these people to live healthier and fewer die from car accidents and so on..... and it adds another 20 years to life.

So eventually you are adding another generation before death and instead of say seeing 80-60-40-20-birth we see 100-80-60-40-20-birth, so it is basic math that we are adding and therefore the overpopulationists that are the same proponents for living better healthier lives are add to overpopulation and are hypocrits.

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.

So how can a net increase in world poulation not be considered overpopulation when we have (according to the UN.... almost reached maximum capacity now)?

So for the UN to promote better health and living conditions so that people may live longer is also adding to the overpopulation problem they keep preaching about in the next breath.

Adding 10 - 20 years to everyone's life and even if we maintain a 2 child family rule world wide (which is almost impossible), those children are living 10 - 20 years longer and thus their children have had children and so on.

I cannot feasibly see how anyone can argue that by adding years to life you are somehow decreasing or keeping population numbers the same.

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?

rsl12 · 10-05-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Again, not arguing over the overpopulation theories, arghuing over the hypocrasy I see there.

There is no hypocrisy, though I can see why you might think so. The same organization that is combating overpopulation is also trying to make people live longer.

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.

Taking some passages literally from the Bible gives the impression that Christian God is more worried about numbers. "Go forth and multiply" and all that. At one point, that was the focus of the medical establishment as well. Nowdays, the new prevailing feeling (in the United States, as well as many other countries) is that prolonging a patient's life is only part of the treatment--making sure that the patient can enjoy the extra time is just as important.

So overpopulation is a problem in terms of the quality of life--the more people there are on earth, sharing a finite quantity of resources (water, land, etc.), the more you have problems such as hunger, disease, environmental degradation, etc. Of course, trying to solve the issue of overpopulation by *shortening* people's lives would not be improving the *quality* of those lives, so some other method of curbing overpopulation has to be used!!

The health of the existing population is also an issue for quality of life: heart disease and chronic ailments not only cause suffering for the afflicted, but put burden on the medical establishment, as well as on depedents of patients.

You're wondering how the world can be overpopulated when life expectancy is going up--it's almost like asking why are people worried about the dam breaking when the water is so deep. If that's *really* the question you meant to ask (i.e., is the world really overpopulated?), let me know. I hate to threadjack.

ps. The psalms verse that's being cited is a terrible reason for thinking that God wanted us to live only 70 years. Have you read all of psalms? It's David praying to God--in this particular passage, he's comparing the everlasting presence of God to the very short life that each person spends on earth. No need to take it literally, particularly since it's not God's word--it's David's words to God.

BigBen · 10-05-2005, 01:55 PM

Financial Burden of the sick

Expected Rates of disease

Cost of prevention is small

Blah Blah Blah

Sorry, but this sounds like someone works for an underfunded public health department somewhere in this small place we call earth, and then did two things:

1. They talked to an Economist who specializes in population and statistics;
2. They smoked a big fatty and wondered out loud what it would be like if only people would "Listen to them, man... just listen."

Only this time when they sobered up from this omniscient adventure, they published it in a paper so that others in their field would stand up and take notice.

No, I am sorry, I will not take the bait on that one.

Projected rates of disease and their burden on society is the oldest fiddle in the band.

Now, don't get me started on the efficacy of public health initiatives. Should I spend 50,000 dollars and tell 50,000 people to not smoke, therefore reducing the incidence of lung cancer 20 years from now, or should I spend that money and perform lobectomies on 10 patients WITH LUNG CANCER RIGHT NOW? I know what I should do, but that is not necessarily the same as what I have to do...

Cynthetiq · 10-05-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillyPete

Back to topic, dont' confuse the idea of rasing the average lifespan with western lifespans.
Think global and not fox news.

Pensions only really apply to capitalist societies. 2nd and 3rd world communities rely on offspring for comfortable old age.

right... you cannot ask a Filipino to rely on the state or even saved earnings for their golden years. Even to this day they still have 4-5 kids some spanning 20 years difference to make sure that they can have someone to look after them.

pan6467 · 10-05-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

There is no hypocrisy, though I can see why you might think so. The same organization that is combating overpopulation is also trying to make people live longer.

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.

Taking some passages literally from the Bible gives the impression that Christian God is more worried about numbers. "Go forth and multiply" and all that. At one point, that was the focus of the medical establishment as well. Nowdays, the new prevailing feeling (in the United States, as well as many other countries) is that prolonging a patient's life is only part of the treatment--making sure that the patient can enjoy the extra time is just as important.

So overpopulation is a problem in terms of the quality of life--the more people there are on earth, sharing a finite quantity of resources (water, land, etc.), the more you have problems such as hunger, disease, environmental degradation, etc. Of course, trying to solve the issue of overpopulation by *shortening* people's lives would not be improving the *quality* of those lives, so some other method of curbing overpopulation has to be used!!

The health of the existing population is also an issue for quality of life: heart disease and chronic ailments not only cause suffering for the afflicted, but put burden on the medical establishment, as well as on depedents of patients.

You're wondering how the world can be overpopulated when life expectancy is going up--it's almost like asking why are people worried about the dam breaking when the water is so deep. If that's *really* the question you meant to ask (i.e., is the world really overpopulated?), let me know. I hate to threadjack.

ps. The psalms verse that's being cited is a terrible reason for thinking that God wanted us to live only 70 years. Have you read all of psalms? It's David praying to God--in this particular passage, he's comparing the everlasting presence of God to the very short life that each person spends on earth. No need to take it literally, particularly since it's not God's word--it's David's words to God.

Not thread jacking at all. I enjoyed your reply.

I understand that the UN and WHO are trying to better the quality of life and that this report is also telling us how to eliminate major expenses to the medical field.

I just find it ironic that in one breath they talk about how we can add years to life and in the next talk about overpopulation.... it truly seems a conflict there. But I also don't think WHO or the UN want to go about telling people to become fat sloths so that they die 20 years sooner either.

But this does allow for the question at the growing age increase and with birth rates how do we stop overpopulation?

analog · 10-05-2005, 08:20 PM

So.. are you trying to say that everyone in the medical professions are hypocrites because they're fighting death, which is always a no-win, after a long enough time period?

Sweetpea · 10-05-2005, 08:31 PM

eh, changed my mind about my long response...

We live, we die... some try to live longer, where's the problem in that?

Sweetpea

pan6467 · 10-05-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

eh, changed my mind about my long response...

We live, we die... some try to live longer, where's the problem in that?

Sweetpea

I think most of you miss my point. I am not advocating a shorter lifespan, nor am I wanting to die anytime soon. Actually, I want to live as long as possible, but with dignity and doing what I enjoy. If it takes a few years off my life or I have a painful last few years.... well so be it. I enjoyed my life and did the best I could.

I am pointing out that WHO and the UN are trying to dictate how we live so that we may live longer, while in their very next breath talking about how we are overpopulating the Earth and thus poverty, diseases and starvation are in our future.

So on 1 hand they are saying, "Do this live longer" and on the other they are saying, "We have oversaturated the Earth and soon the population will be starving and going through Hell as our resources will not be able to handle the overpopulation."

So that leaves me scratching my head saying, "so we increase our life spans by living the way you tell us to, but the resources then become more limited and we have all these nasties to look forward to."

To me there is a silly hypocrasy there. As in 2 agencies/ departments wanting more money for more research or to see who can make the most news.

Perhaps noone truly sees the idiocy and irony that I do in all this.

Suave · 10-05-2005, 11:13 PM

I think the ideal solution (once the overpopulation problem solves itself through disease and whatnot) is to keep the world population at safe levels through contraceptive measures, while increasing the quality and length of life of the average person.

I see exactly what you're talking about, but what they're stating are very idealistic, and naive, requests.

hannukah harry · 10-06-2005, 12:52 AM

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.

rsl12 · 10-06-2005, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I just find it ironic that in one breath they talk about how we can add years to life and in the next talk about overpopulation.... it truly seems a conflict there. But I also don't think WHO or the UN want to go about telling people to become fat sloths so that they die 20 years sooner either.

I addressed this already, but as another analogy, does it make sense to do surgery on a painful abdomen, when the surgery is just going to be even more painful than what the patient is already experiencing? Are doctors hypocrites for making the patient feel worse?

pan6467 · 10-06-2005, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

I addressed this already, but as another analogy, does it make sense to do surgery on a painful abdomen, when the surgery is just going to be even more painful than what the patient is already experiencing? Are doctors hypocrites for making the patient feel worse?

Yes, if they know and are running things like WHO and the UN. If the sit there and say, "you need this abdomen surgery it will help the pain, but of course you will have excruciating backpain now."

If they perform the surgery knowing they take one pain away but add another that is as bad or worse then they truly haven't done anything, have they? Even if the surgery gave you a longer life, what good was it because it is more painful than before the surgery.

rsl12 · 10-06-2005, 05:33 AM

Ok, I'm convinced you're just arguing for arguing's sake.

Suave · 10-06-2005, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

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.

World population should stabilize relatively soon. We've almost reached the limit as it is. Unfortunately, it's no good having the population stabilize at such an enormous number. We'd be much better off with half or a quarter of the current world population. The only problem with that is, it would require either an incredibly long time or a lot of early deaths.

Blaise · 10-07-2005, 03:55 AM

I wonder if in terms of resources it would cost less to have a larger elderly population than to take care of the people who are currently giving themselves higher rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. Especially including their medical care (medication, surgeries), time off work, payouts to their family if they're left without a provider, etc. Just speculating here- I have no idea which is more of a problem.

Quote:

To die from your own ignorance is just sad and by all means if you really dont care about your self that much you wont see me caring.

You know, I agree with that even though my stepfather is killing himself through his lifestyle.

People who cause their own diseases do frustrate me. Not so much people who are a few pounds overweight but healthy, or people who perhaps eat too much fat or drink a bit much, but people who KNOW their health has been severely damaged and carry on. Right now, my stepfather is literally killing himself. His arteries have closed right up because of cholestrol. His blood glucose levels were so high the doctor couldn't test him for diabetes! He's obese. His heart is enlarged. His blood pressure is so high he should be dead.

And yet he won't make lifestyle changes when he has three children and a wife relying on him and could enjoy another 20+ years with them. I love him and think of him as my father, but I can't believe he's still in denial and putting the pleasure of drinking three pints of milk in the night and eating giant chocolate bars and entire cakes in front of his family. I don't yell at him or hate him for it, I just think it's a really stupid thing to throw your life away like that. My diet is one of the lowest at-risks for heart disease, cancer, diabetes etc just by coincidence (I don't eat any animal produce, eat 7+ portions of fruit/veg a day and like cooking from scratch rather than using processed stuff), but even if I ate some of the risky things I would never put self-indulgence as such a priority it would ruin the rest of my life. I don't hate people who do- I just think there are other, more rewarding things they're really missing out on.

pan6467 · 10-07-2005, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsl12

Ok, I'm convinced you're just arguing for arguing's sake.

Why because I answered your question with how I felt, and that in my opinion had nothing to do with my original intent of this thread?

Jinn · 10-07-2005, 06:43 AM

^^ No, because your flawed premise has been pointed out and your
argument has been summarily dismissed by nearly everyone on this thread.

pan6467 · 10-07-2005, 07:48 AM

What argument?

That this is not hypocrasy?

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.

I was simply saying that I find it hypocritical for an agency that tells us to live healthier is in the next breath saying we're headed for overpopulation and that with that comes disease, starvation and so on.

I find it quite amusing. I am sorry if everyone had to get all riled up and start looking for flaws in something that I wasn't even arguing.

You can see it in above posts.

When I was asked questions I would answer them with MY OPINION, and they were just that and really had nothing to do with my original intent of the thread which, I stated and restated.

rsl12 · 10-07-2005, 08:15 AM

Ummm..I don't think anyone has anything against you stating your opinion.

What they're against is you not reading or responding to anyone else's posts on any substantial points--you're basically rehashing the same argument over and over again.

Jinn · 10-07-2005, 08:16 AM

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.

el_soulman · 10-07-2005, 08:56 AM

Having traveled, lived and worked abroad, most people in under-developed have many children as their health and life insurance policy - the more children you have, the more people you will have to take care of you when you get older and/or health fails.

As wealth increases in a country, the need for this type of "insurance policy" goes away, as it gets replaced by the monitary insurance policies and retirement plans most of us here in the States have become accustomed to. So, by increasing wealth and living conditions will only (and this has been proven time and again) decrease the birth rates in countries, thereby decreasing increasing population trends in most of these countries.

Stompy · 10-07-2005, 09:37 AM

Eh, I wouldn't exactly rely upon the bible for anything meaningful to our reality. Especially in lifespan (how would they know?).

I don't think there was a big health/fitness craze until the past few decades. I don't think they recommended 30 minutes of cardio a day back in 1970 as opposed to the aerobics and whatever fads of the 80's and 90's.

People are more aware now, and those that actually spend 30 minutes a day exercising, eating good, etc... will probably live to be much older. Advances in medicine, or, for example, the higher survival rate of heart attacks.. also helps with a lot.

I have a hard time believing in overpopulation. There's just too much space on this planet to worry about such a thing. You could have homes underwater, for example. Oribiting homes as space technology advances.

I don't see it happening. Plus there are natural fixes, such as plague and other various diseases that are pretty inevitable.

10-04-2005, 08:19 PM	#4 (permalink)
mrklixx President Rick Location: location location	Psalm 90:10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Not that the bible is contradictory or anything. __________________ This post is content. If you don't like it then you are not content. Or perhaps just incontinent. This is not a link - Do not click here I hate animated avatars.

10-04-2005, 11:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	After taking a 4 hour drive from Delhi to Agra and seeing a person standing on the roadside every few meters, I can attest to the contrast of people that I've seen in the USA on similar journeys....nothing like it at all. While people don't live on top of each other here like they do in NYC I'm amazed to see people just everywhere... I've not found much solitude on this portion of the trip. I've seen starving people here and in the Philippines...even starving animals... __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

10-05-2005, 08:33 AM	#6 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	When you raise the standard of living, which includes general health measures as well as education, the population rate generally decreases on its own. That alone should take care of at least some of the overpopulation. Keep in mind that in many of the countries they mention - India, China, "premature death" doesn't mean living till you're 75 when you COULD have lived to 90; it means dying at 41 of things that generally are preventable and that don't happen till much later in more developed nations with better public health. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-05-2005, 09:01 AM	#9 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	It IS a little contrary to your initial inspection, but overpopulation goes DOWN as quality of life goes up. There is no hypocrisy here. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-05-2005, 11:21 AM	#10 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	Not sure how religion came into play on this thread, but I'll just refrain from touching it anymore. I dont know about any of you, but I eat pretty damn well. I exercise enough and am in very good shape. You wont see me dying because of being fat or obese related illnesses, I'll surely go out in some other out of my control way. To die from your own ignorance is just sad and by all means if you really dont care about your self that much you wont see me caring. __________________ You bore me.... next.

10-05-2005, 08:42 AM	#8 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	Bit of a thread jack, but you'll notice that after the Gen6:3 quote people kicking around for several hundred years like Methuselah is no longer the norm. Noah is the last of these. Back to topic, dont' confuse the idea of rasing the average lifespan with western lifespans. Think global and not fox news. Pensions only really apply to capitalist societies. 2nd and 3rd world communities rely on offspring for comfortable old age.

10-05-2005, 01:55 PM	#13 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Financial Burden of the sick Expected Rates of disease Cost of prevention is small Blah Blah Blah Sorry, but this sounds like someone works for an underfunded public health department somewhere in this small place we call earth, and then did two things: 1. They talked to an Economist who specializes in population and statistics; 2. They smoked a big fatty and wondered out loud what it would be like if only people would "Listen to them, man... just listen." Only this time when they sobered up from this omniscient adventure, they published it in a paper so that others in their field would stand up and take notice. No, I am sorry, I will not take the bait on that one. Projected rates of disease and their burden on society is the oldest fiddle in the band. Now, don't get me started on the efficacy of public health initiatives. Should I spend 50,000 dollars and tell 50,000 people to not smoke, therefore reducing the incidence of lung cancer 20 years from now, or should I spend that money and perform lobectomies on 10 patients WITH LUNG CANCER RIGHT NOW? I know what I should do, but that is not necessarily the same as what I have to do... __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

10-05-2005, 08:20 PM	#16 (permalink)
analog Banned	So.. are you trying to say that everyone in the medical professions are hypocrites because they're fighting death, which is always a no-win, after a long enough time period?

10-05-2005, 08:31 PM	#17 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	eh, changed my mind about my long response... We live, we die... some try to live longer, where's the problem in that? Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself" Last edited by sweetpea; 10-05-2005 at 08:34 PM.. Reason: changed mind.

10-05-2005, 11:13 PM	#19 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	I think the ideal solution (once the overpopulation problem solves itself through disease and whatnot) is to keep the world population at safe levels through contraceptive measures, while increasing the quality and length of life of the average person. I see exactly what you're talking about, but what they're stating are very idealistic, and naive, requests. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

10-06-2005, 12:52 AM	#20 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	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

10-06-2005, 05:33 AM	#23 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	Ok, I'm convinced you're just arguing for arguing's sake. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

10-07-2005, 06:43 AM	#27 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	^^ No, because your flawed premise has been pointed out and your argument has been summarily dismissed by nearly everyone on this thread. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

10-07-2005, 07:48 AM	#28 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	What argument? That this is not hypocrasy? 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. I was simply saying that I find it hypocritical for an agency that tells us to live healthier is in the next breath saying we're headed for overpopulation and that with that comes disease, starvation and so on. I find it quite amusing. I am sorry if everyone had to get all riled up and start looking for flaws in something that I wasn't even arguing. You can see it in above posts. When I was asked questions I would answer them with MY OPINION, and they were just that and really had nothing to do with my original intent of the thread which, I stated and restated. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-07-2005, 08:15 AM	#29 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	Ummm..I don't think anyone has anything against you stating your opinion. What they're against is you not reading or responding to anyone else's posts on any substantial points--you're basically rehashing the same argument over and over again. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

10-07-2005, 08:56 AM	#31 (permalink)
el_soulman Upright	Having traveled, lived and worked abroad, most people in under-developed have many children as their health and life insurance policy - the more children you have, the more people you will have to take care of you when you get older and/or health fails. As wealth increases in a country, the need for this type of "insurance policy" goes away, as it gets replaced by the monitary insurance policies and retirement plans most of us here in the States have become accustomed to. So, by increasing wealth and living conditions will only (and this has been proven time and again) decrease the birth rates in countries, thereby decreasing increasing population trends in most of these countries.

10-07-2005, 09:37 AM	#32 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Eh, I wouldn't exactly rely upon the bible for anything meaningful to our reality. Especially in lifespan (how would they know?). I don't think there was a big health/fitness craze until the past few decades. I don't think they recommended 30 minutes of cardio a day back in 1970 as opposed to the aerobics and whatever fads of the 80's and 90's. People are more aware now, and those that actually spend 30 minutes a day exercising, eating good, etc... will probably live to be much older. Advances in medicine, or, for example, the higher survival rate of heart attacks.. also helps with a lot. I have a hard time believing in overpopulation. There's just too much space on this planet to worry about such a thing. You could have homes underwater, for example. Oribiting homes as space technology advances. I don't see it happening. Plus there are natural fixes, such as plague and other various diseases that are pretty inevitable. __________________ I love lamp.