The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

page: 18
64
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
There is also the reality that teenage girls make the best babies. Biologically speaking, having a child in late teens or early twenties is probably the best time.

However, teenage sex has become taboo. To the point where it is becoming a legal farce on the scale of the Salem Witch trials.

We are supposed to study hard in school, and then follow that up with a very expensive college education that is mainly redundant to high school courses.

Basically people are being forced to fork over huge amounts of money so their children can have a chance at a decent paying job. Ensuring a life long tradition of conformity and paying into the system, taking on huge debt.

You are supposed to choose your life long vocation before you have ever had a chance to find out what you would like to do in the work force. This is completely backwards.

WHATEVER you do, DON'T do what you are biologically designed to do as a teenager, which is have children. No, you must explore life first, party like a rock star, as per the PTB programming.




posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Your article on Infertility Increasing Across the World didn't say the whole world-every country and culture. Third world countries that live closer to nature seem to not have the problem as they are the ones with the biggest population growth.



Infertility In Developing Countries

Between 8 and 12 percent of couples around the world have difficulty conceiving a child at some point in their lives, and in some areas that figure reaches one-third ormore of couples.1, 2 In some developing countries, for example Nigeria, infertility is theleading reason for gynecological consultations...

... the prevalence of infertility in sub-Saharan Africa ranges from 11 to 20 percent in the 27countries surveyed. ...Namibia’s national infertility rate of 19 percent...


Researchers have documented high levels of arsenic in the semen of infertile men who live in areas of Mexico where drinking water is contaminated.6 Similarly, the semen of some infertile Nigerian men contains high levels of aflatoxins, the metabolites offungi that infest staple foods in many tropical coun-tries.15 Infertility in Egypt and Singapore has been linked with workplace exposure to heat, pesticides,and other chemicals


Ethical issues of infertility treatment in developing countries

The provision of infertility treatment in developing countries is controversial. Reports over the last decades have inculcated in people from Western countries the belief that overpopulation is the major problem of developing countries. This paper will analyse the different arguments advanced for and against providing infertility treatmentto resource-poor countries. There are two arguments in favour: reproductive autonomy and the huge burden of infertility in these countries. Pronatalism, which reigns in almost all developing countries, is to a great extent responsiblefor the devastating effects of infertility. The five arguments against the application of infertility treatment are over-population, prioritization of limited resources, prevention rather than cure, justice and equal access and risk of abuse



Does that help?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Do the statistics state what age those couples are who are having infertility problems?

Chances are, they are older couples, in their thirties and forties.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

There is also the reality that teenage girls make the best babies. Biologically speaking, having a child in late teens or early twenties is probably the best time.



This is actually not true. Well, it is true that having a child in your twenties is the best time (22-27 is probably the most optimal time). But getting pregnant while a teenager is NOT an optimal time for pregnancy and does NOT make for the best babies... in fact, teen pregnancy is considered a "high-risk" pregnancy, just like being older.

Ignoring the sociology of it (which you really can't ignore, since no one lives in a vacuum), babies born to teen moms have a higher risk of being preemie and low birth-weight, and since a teenage girl's body is still developing the strain of pregnancy can lead to high blood pressure, bone formation problems and more.

Other than that, I agree with everything else you said. Just wanted to clear up this little bit of misinfo. Personally, I think the reason fertility starts in the teen years is not because it's an optimal time, but more of a "just in case the current human life expectancy isn't very high" kind of thing. Nature thinking ahead.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by soficrow
 


Do the statistics state what age those couples are who are having infertility problems?

Chances are, they are older couples, in their thirties and forties.



People in "developed" countries "delay" having families, then find out in their 30's and 40's that they are infertile - but the same phenomenon does NOT occur in "developing" nations.

Only 5% of couples everywhere suffer from infertility because of anatomical, genetic, endocrinological, or immunological problems.


Everywhere there is a core of about five percent of couples who suffer from anatomical, genetic, endocrinological, and immunological problems that cause infertility. The remainder are infertile largely because of preventable conditions, including:
• sexually transmitted, infectious, and parasitic diseases,
• health care practices and policies, and
• exposure to potentially toxic substances in the diet or the environment.


Source: Infertility In Developing Countries, cited above.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Perhaps the thread title should be renamed "Overpopulation a problem in most countries and Fertility rate a problem in a few".

Is encouraging population growth in countries where people are already struggling to self-sustain a good idea? No. Just because the fertility rate in developed countries is dropping does not mean there is an "Underpopulation Crisis" in the Worldwide Population...

[edit on 29/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Teenage girls do not make the "best babies." Teen girls are quite likely to die from having babies. They are quite likely to have babies who are undersized. Consistently throughout human endevours, it is women in their twenties who have provided the solid healthy backbone of human population replacement.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Here is a decent article on the subject. I should have been more specific. Girls should not be having babies under the age of 16, and even 16 and 17 is probably too young, but they certainly don't have the fertility problems.

www.womhealth.org.au...


Teenagers as a group have significantly higher complication rates both during pregnancy and delivery. In teenagers under 15 years of age, these complications can be caused by biological immaturity. In teenagers aged 15 or over the complications are generally associated with poor preconception health and poor antenatal care. For example, during pregnancy women are screened for a number of conditions such as high blood pressure. Screening for these conditions means they can be addressed, limiting their impact. If women are screened late in their pregnancy or not at all, it can lead to complications for both mother and baby.


I couldn't find any solid statistics on the issue, but the bigger problem with fertility rates is that women and men, are putting off having children until later and later in their lives, and I question if this is a good idea.

The larger problem is that this really fractures the family unit. With the generation age splits being 30 and 40 years, the family unit is scattered considerably. People who have children in their twenties, could be grandparents in their forties, and great grandparents in their sixties. With smaller family sizes, this would put in place a great deal more support for children.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You're still wrong; one article doesn't change the fact that the teen years -- even up to the age of 20 (which is how old I was when I was pregnant and classified high-risk by my doctor, despite being in perfect health before my pregnancy) -- just simply DO NOT make the best time to get pregnant.

Pregnancy puts a serious strain on the body, and having a body still growing in development is never going to be the best time for something like that, no matter how much you want it to be so. Which I won't even get into...

Weird, the rest got cut off... anyways, I intended to add that despite that, I agree with you that it's not good, this move to putting off having kids until you're much older. For the reasons you mentioned, for health reasons (mostly the child's) and more.



[edit on 8/30/2010 by Nameless Hussy]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Nice post, I was really amazed about the reference to Texas, and was surprised to find that it was actually true. Granted the patch of land each person would have is a little smaller than an average lot size in America, its still about a 100' x 100' plot of land.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Perhaps the thread title should be renamed "Overpopulation a problem in most countries and Fertility rate a problem in a few".

Is encouraging population growth in countries where people are already struggling to self-sustain a good idea? No. Just because the fertility rate in developed countries is dropping does not mean there is an "Underpopulation Crisis" in the Worldwide Population...

[edit on 29/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]


Quoted for truth. The thread title is a serious simplification. We have both an overpopulation and an underpopulation crisis. An underpopulation crisis is maybe even more serious than the other one, because with lifestyle change and population control I believe we could manage exploding populations in the third world.
But how do you force people who dont want to have babies to reproduce?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
This thread has inspired me to remember a Good Morning America special segment sometime in 2008 about prostitution in major cities throughout the United States.

Is anyone familiar with unorganized prostitution in the U.S.? This involves business men and other important people and young women, usually between the ages of 18-25?

These young women have sex with older men in exchange for jobs, money, and apartments and cars and status.

These young women or "sisterhood" are used to demoralize men of their age and promote this Communism or female empowerment.

Think Sex and the City, only with women looking for a husband in their late 30's and 40's, only they "prostituted" themselves for several years.

They date and party with these 35-55 year old men and then return to society and go out in their 30's.

They reject men of their age and never say a word about what they did or who they knew during those years.

This would be a conspiracy if there were not girls out there talking to young men and speaking and referring to Soviet-era Communsim and using Russian accents.

They also go from city to city to meet their daddy's, during their summer vacations from college and after graduation.

Be cautious or you might encounter a girl from your high school or college who has spent years traveling from city to city having sex with these "fat cat" men~you know the kind that wear black hats, dark blue button down shirts, and black pants and black shoes.






[edit on 4-9-2010 by striker11111]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

I believe we could manage exploding populations in the third world.



Your information is out-of-date, Maslo, and your preconceptions mask the impact of global environmental contamination.

Populations in the third world are NOT exploding any longer. ...The so-called "diseases of civilization" are now named "age-related chronic disease" - and they've spread to the developing world, carrying infertility in their wake.

Ie., from Preconceptions.com: Global Infertility: Experiences in Other Countries...

In Africa, for example, some of the fastest population growth in the world co-exists with an infertility rate that in some areas is more than 30 percent.



...One of the saddest realities of infertility in much of the developing world is that it is largely preventable. "Most of the infertility is due to preventable infections," says Inhorn. These infections can be due to sexually transmitted diseases, poor hygiene and harmful health care practices. In addition, secondary infertility can be caused by untreated or poorly treated postpartum complications.

Both men and women in developing countries are exposed to higher levels of environmental and dietary toxins than people in North America.





But how do you force people who dont want to have babies to reproduce?


You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't - and accept that maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




...maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.


I've enjoyed your posts, and perspective.

From what I have read, there is likely to be a whole lot to your comment above. It seems that the more we learn, the more we are likely to be humbled. Over and over, we find that Mother Nature is indeed way ahead of us.

In Tibet we find old monks who have spent years learning a form of "medicine", based on their sense of SMELL. It's perhaps repugnant to find out that they will sniff at a person's arm-pits, or urine, or worse, and yet, from what I have read, they seem to hit medical bull's-eyes. How do they know what "cancer" smells like?

Certainly, their tradition has equipped them well, but going a step further, has not Nature equipped each of us rather well? While we may not consciously "know" what cancer "smells like", perhaps at an unconscious level, we know far more than we think.

I've read that some theorize that the origins of "kissing" may have to do with attempts by Nature to chemically determine mating compatibility. Various forms of kissing are used around the world, it is fairly universal. Are there smells and tastes that we can pick up, that tell us about our environment? Obviously. Is this sense subtle enough to pick up more than the obvious, and tell us if this mate, is better than that one? To me, it's looking quite likely.

And the moral is, yet again, Mother Nature does seem to know what she is doing after all.

JR



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by soficrow
 




...maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.


I've enjoyed your posts, and perspective.


Thank you.


You might enjoy this thread as well: Worldwide Eugenics Operation: Professor Openly Calls For the Sterilization of the “Unfit”

...Eugenics is making a comeback. As "overpopulation" is cited most often as the excuse for Eugenics practices, it's quite important for people to recognize that 'overpopulation' is a myth, and in fact, the whole of humanity is facing an underpopulation crisis - not just the ruling class.





And the moral is, yet again, Mother Nature does seem to know what she is doing after all.

JR


Indeed.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





Your information is out-of-date, Maslo, and your preconceptions mask the impact of global environmental contamination. Populations in the third world are NOT exploding any longer. ...The so-called "diseases of civilization" are now named "age-related chronic disease" - and they've spread to the developing world, carrying infertility in their wake.


My info is up to date. Population growth is slowing down, thats why I said that it is not such a big problem. But it could slow down even quicker, it would be better for the people of these countries. Population explosion is slowing down, but it is not over yet.

Infertility is higher in poor countries due to their harsher living conditions.




You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't - and accept that maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.


People in developed countries dont reproduce because they dont want to, not because they cant, whats so hard in accepting this? It is a sociological fact. They are just as fertile as everyone else, with some minor variations. How many people have 4-5 children today? Not many, and it is not because they cant, it is because they chose not to.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't - and accept that maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.


That is totaly wrong. Prove it, you have not done so.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




You might enjoy this thread as well: Worldwide Eugenics Operation: Professor Openly Calls For the Sterilization of the “Unfit”




“Children are abused or grossly neglected by a very small minority of inadequate parents.” Such parents, he said, are not distinguished by “disadvantage, poverty or exploitation,” he said, but by “a number or moral and mental inadequacies” caused by “serious mental defect,” “chronic mental illness” and drug addiction and alcoholism. “Short of lifetime incarceration,” he said, the solution is “permanent sterilization.”


I agree with the professor.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

I agree with the professor.


Maslo, I am not surprised. Really, I am not.





Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow
 





Your information is out-of-date, Maslo, and your preconceptions mask the impact of global environmental contamination. Populations in the third world are NOT exploding any longer. ...The so-called "diseases of civilization" are now named "age-related chronic disease" - and they've spread to the developing world, carrying infertility in their wake.


My info is up to date. Population growth is slowing down, thats why I said that it is not such a big problem. But it could slow down even quicker, it would be better for the people of these countries. Population explosion is slowing down, but it is not over yet.

Infertility is higher in poor countries due to their harsher living conditions.


Erm, no. Yes, most infertility is preventable - and environmentally caused (including contaminated health and hygiene products, medications, etc., as well as arsenic in drinking water, etc)

We're ALL exposed to potentially toxic substances in the diet and the environment that threaten fertility, but yes, people in developing nations do have "harsher living conditions." ...We ALL are threatened by infertility due to "health care practices and policies" but true, modern invasive procedures without the availability of appropriate and modern hygiene does have a slightly more significant negative impact.


Everywhere there is a core of about five percent of couples who suffer from anatomical, genetic, endocrinological, and immunological problems that cause infertility. The remainder are infertile largely because of preventable conditions, including:
• sexually transmitted, infectious, and parasitic diseases,
• health care practices and policies, and
• exposure to potentially toxic substances in the diet or the environment.


Source: Infertility In Developing Countries, cited above.






You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't - and accept that maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.


People in developed countries dont reproduce because they dont want to, not because they cant, whats so hard in accepting this? It is a sociological fact.


It's sociological extrapolation. And the rapidly expanding infertility industry alone belies the assumptions upon which the extrapolations are based.


Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow
 




You ...accept that maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.


That is totaly wrong. Prove it, you have not done so.


Don't have to prove anything. Dear old Mom Nature is just doing it.

Or do you honestly think that if a tree falls in the forest and you're not around to record it then there isn't any noise?




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





We're ALL exposed to potentially toxic substances in the diet and the environment that threaten fertility, but yes, people in developing nations do have "harsher living conditions." ...We ALL are threatened by infertility due to "health care practices and policies" but true, modern invasive procedures without the availability of appropriate and modern hygiene does have a slightly more significant negative impact. Everywhere there is a core of about five percent of couples who suffer from anatomical, genetic, endocrinological, and immunological problems that cause infertility. The remainder are infertile largely because of preventable conditions, including: • sexually transmitted, infectious, and parasitic diseases, • health care practices and policies, and • exposure to potentially toxic substances in the diet or the environment.


So you are saying that toxic substaces and bad healthcare practice are largely responsible for population growth reduction? Not the fact that people in the past had 5-6 children and now they hav 2-3 at best because they chose to do so? And what about the fact that you quoted saying that infertility rate is higher in undeveloped countries, but population growth is higher, too?

Infertility rate is not the cause of population growth reduction, lifestyle change is.






It's sociological extrapolation. And the rapidly expanding infertility industry alone belies the assumptions upon which the extrapolations are based.


Rapidly expanding inferitlity industry is the result of rapidly expanding advanced healthcare industry due to modern medicine and higher living standards. Infertility rate is not the only thing responsible for this. It was simply not treated in the past.







You ...accept that maybe Mother Nature has a better eye for "quality genes" than Eugenicists.
That is totaly wrong. Prove it, you have not done so.


Thats not what I meant you to prove, I meant the first part of the sentence:




You recognize that often people don't reproduce because they can't


Prove this, using actual statistics, not random quotes.




Yes, most infertility is preventable - and environmentally caused (including contaminated health and hygiene products, medications, etc., as well as arsenic in drinking water, etc)


Then why do poorer people or people living in worse conditions generally have more children? Maybe it is because infertility rate, which is higher among these environmentaly challenged people, is not so important?



We're ALL exposed to potentially toxic substances in the diet and the environment that threaten fertility, but yes, people in developing nations do have "harsher living conditions." ...We ALL are threatened by infertility due to "health care practices and policies" but true, modern invasive procedures without the availability of appropriate and modern hygiene does have a slightly more significant negative impact.


So, if population growth reduction was caused by these environmental pollutants, poor people in developing countries would actually have LESS children than the rich, because they are living in harsher and more polluted conditions. Exactly inverse is what we observe. Therefore, population growth reduction is caused by other factors.

And this is the actual scientifically accepted cause - largely cultural phenomenon:

en.wikipedia.org...



-In stage one, pre-industrial society, death rates and birth rates are high and roughly in balance.
-In stage two, that of a developing country, the death rates drop rapidly due to improvements in food supply and sanitation, which increase life spans and reduce disease. These changes usually come about due to improvements in farming techniques, access to technology, basic healthcare, and education. Without a corresponding fall in birth rates this produces an imbalance, and the countries in this stage experience a large increase in population.
-In stage three, birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off.
-During stage four there are both low birth rates and low death rates. Birth rates may drop to well below replacement level as has happened in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan, leading to a shrinking population, a threat to many industries that rely on population growth. As the large group born during stage two ages, it creates an economic burden on the shrinking working population. Death rates may remain consistently low or increase slightly due to increases in lifestyle diseases due to low exercise levels and high obesity and an aging population in developed countries.





top topics
 
64
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join