Wtf?!

[az]

Well, we'll get those telomer repair thingys back through technology - but tell me, how could the world not be overpopulated with people becoming THAT old? I don't think we were ever designed to be that old (In fact, we weren't designed at all, of course. We just happened.). I agree with Brian - we live too long. But this is not even the primary problem. The part at the end of our lives where we're too weak to really contribute to society is too long (though I of course am already looking forward to hopefully being able to say "I have earned a few years of time for ME before I die"). There really is no point in prolonging mere existance beyond a point where it can even be called life anymore, let alone be enjoyable. Rather than prolong the agony, help people die quickly, pain-free, and in peace. Let them have a good time before that (yes, even at the cost of a few months), so they can tie lose ends and do what they want to do before they have to go.

I just realize that this is a whole different argument.

AZ

[DukeP]

It is.


Actually the point of having a longer life - is to be more productive!!!

Im blessed with a grandfather that has a whole lot of life in him. He retired at the age of 75 (from his own little TV-repair shop). He COULD have retired at 65 - but he felt that he was simply too well to retire that early!


He's 93 btw - and feeling a little stiff atm. (He fell down from a ladder while fixing the roof on his summerhouse). That aside, he's fit as a fiddle.

If growing old can be for me, as it has been for my grandfather - I will look forward to it. I dont think He's ready to miss a second.
Neither would I.

~~DukeP~~

[Sasq]

aye know the strength thing.
My grandfather at 88, 4 years after being diagnosed with terminal cancer that was ment to kill him within 6 months, could still whip my butt in an arm wrestle, I was 15 and a big lad.

[Brian Ellis]

Sasq

Your family must be slow on the uptake with a generation average of 36.5 years

[Sasq]

hehe, Mom was the surprise last of 4. her neice was the same age as her.

And I was one of those late/impossible children meself.

[agallag]

To put the population problem in perspective, here's an interesting tidbit. Did you know that if every single person on the planet moved to Texas, the population density would still be less than 1/3 the density of Manhattan?

The population density of Manhattan in 2000 was 69,873 people/sq. mile. If you include the burroughs, it's 26,517 people/sq. mile.

Now if you put 6 billion people in Texas (267277 sq. miles), that works out to 22,448.6 people/sq. mile.

References:

http://www.demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm

http://www.texasalmanac.com/texasenviro_2000.htm

[DukeP]

Interesting experiment.

Put up a fence, a wall, a forceshield around Manhatten.
Check how they progres every odd year.

I wonder how the population wil develop??

I guess Canibalism will be high on the social agenda - at least the first couple of months...



~~DukeP~~

[RedRed]

To imagine that the planet is overpopulated is dreaming. We could sustain 4 or 5 times the population WITHOUT difficulty, IF we managed resources effectively. at the moment we dont.

To answer KVs point about 2-3 children per family, for a stable population.....

The number is something like 2.15 children per family. a percentage will be unable to breed. They will die before they can or be genetically or physiologically damaged and be unable to procreate.

To say'how manay mexicany teenagers have you heard bragging about getting girls pregnant'
it isthe same with youth culture over the planet. Not always pregnant, sure, but certainly sh*gged....

There were 10 in my farthers side of the family.... but I only have 2 siblings. And I have 2 children.

RedRed

[The Rock]

/me sits quietly eating popcorn while reading this fascinating discussion.

[Greebe]

To imagine that the planet is overpopulated is dreaming. We could sustain 4 or 5 times the population WITHOUT difficulty, IF we managed resources effectively. at the moment we dont.

Dreaming.. heh... by the time we humans can control the situation there will be little left to manage properly. Mankind needs to pull his head out of his pervebial butt and start respecting nature and grow up socially first.

My home town hasn't grown for squat in the last 20 years in an effort to keep a quality standard of living and they plan on keeping it that way for as long as possible... flip side of that coin is that in the 1960 US Census that little town was the most industrialized city in the US.

I do alot of fishing, but gave up on eating anything I caught 12 years ago because of polution and even in the waters were you can eat most species you can only do so in limited quantities, let alone the massive decline in all native species.

Then you have the space factor... most people are not able to deal with close in living arrangements... to remember what it use to be like to take a Sunday drive in the country and there wasn't much traffic... twas very nice... peaceful... today you're bereft with either speeders or clogged up congestion that completely takes away the mood.
What it's like to step out into the yard in the morning without having 20 eyes from adjacient building watching your every move... or space to plant a garden or the peace of quiet without the thumping of car stereos or obnoxious neighbours throwing parties til 4:30am

Yeah sure we can support the mess that will encourage in abundance.

[DukeP]

Originally posted by RedRed
To imagine that the planet is overpopulated is dreaming. We could sustain 4 or 5 times the population WITHOUT difficulty, IF we managed resources effectively. at the moment we dont.
...
RedRed

Yes, but at what cost?

Im certain that if we all went on a tube diet (only eating Soya paste, f.ex.) theres room for even more people!!

The Ecosystem as is, is dying right now.
More strain, and its gone.

We CAN live without it, im sure.

Technology knows few limits.

I just doesnt want to live and die in and underground bunker, eating recycled people and doing what??? for a living...

I say the maksimum healthy population of this plannet was passed when we reached 1 billion.

But why not only 200 million people?
Thats more than enough to preserve the genetic diversity of the species. And you will never, ever have to dine with the same person more than once, if yu dont want to.

The less people, the more resources to go around.

~~DukeP~~

Edit: Greebe beat me to it by 30 seconds.