The Overpopulation Myth, The Underpopulation Crisis

page: 19
64
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
... 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.

You mean all these stories about women who waited too long to start families, all the stories of families desperate to adopt because they cannot have their own children, all the stories of people trying artificial insemination, ivf, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, egg donors, etc. are all just propaganda from our controlled media?

Let me ask you a historical question. Why do you think the famous King Henry VIII of England had to found the Church of England? Because the Roman Catholic Pope wouldn't give permission for him to remarry, even if he killed the old wife. Why did Henry keep wanting new wives, because he loved novelty in bed? No, it was because he kept having no sons. Granted he did have some daughters, but if he had been able to have as many children as he wanted, he would have had at least one son, and that wife would have lived a long and happy life rather than ending up in the Tower of London. All the money in the world, and the guy had some problem that limited his fertility.




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by oniongrass
 





You mean all these stories about women who waited too long to start families, all the stories of families desperate to adopt because they cannot have their own children, all the stories of people trying artificial insemination, ivf, surrogate mothers, sperm donors, egg donors, etc. are all just propaganda from our controlled media?


How do these stories prove that infertility rate is substantialy higher today than in the past? Do you base your opinion on hearsay and media gossip? What about actual statistics?




Let me ask you a historical question. Why do you think the famous King Henry VIII of England had to found the Church of England? Because the Roman Catholic Pope wouldn't give permission for him to remarry, even if he killed the old wife. Why did Henry keep wanting new wives, because he loved novelty in bed? No, it was because he kept having no sons. Granted he did have some daughters, but if he had been able to have as many children as he wanted, he would have had at least one son, and that wife would have lived a long and happy life rather than ending up in the Tower of London. All the money in the world, and the guy had some problem that limited his fertility.


This proves nothing, whats your point? Henry VIII had 10 children, that is extremely rare today. Why? Because we have different culture and society, not because we are significantly less fertile.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Look up total fertility rate, how it is distributed by countries and in time. It is clearly heavily influenced by culture and society, not by infertility rate or pollutants.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


imho - it's corporate industrial behavior that's "impacting environmental health" - while Eugenicists argue that human overpopulation is causing environmental crises and extinctions, not corporate industrial behavior.

As a Eugenics apologist, you obviously can't afford to acknowledge the truth.


As your link shows, the global fertility rate fell from 4.92 to 2.67 in 50 years (1955-2005), and is extrapolated to fall to 2.02 by 2050, assuming that the situation does not worsen.

From your link:

Fertility Rates
The TFR is a synthetic rate, not based on the fertility of any real group of women, since this would involve waiting until they had completed childbearing...
Years TFR Years TFR
1950–1955 4.92 2000–2005 2.67
1955–1960 4.81 2005–2010 2.56
1960–1965 4.91 2010–2015 2.49
1965–1970 4.78 2015–2020 2.40
1970–1975 4.32 2020–2025 2.30
1975–1980 3.83 2025–2030 2.21
1980–1985 3.61 2030–2035 2.15
1985–1990 3.43 2035–2040 2.1
1990–1995 3.08 2040–2045 2.15
1995–2000 2.82 2045–2050 2.02


You keep insisting that no one is less fertile, that falling rates are a matter of "choice" - that neither micro- nor macro-environmental contaminants have any impact on fertility - and apparently are NOT reading the many references provided to you that show otherwise. Again, a brief sample:


...the fastest-growing segment of U.S. women with impaired fecundity (the capacity to conceive and carry a child to term) is those under 25. ...exposure to low-level environmental contaminants such as phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, pesticides, and other chemicals may be subtly undermining our ability to reproduce.
Fertile Grounds of Inquiry: Environmental Effects on Human Reproduction


Based on this report, approximately 12% of American couples experienced impaired fecundity in 2002. This is a 20% increase from the 6.1 million couples that reported an inability to have children in 1995.


Is human fecundity declining?

The decreasing trends in fertility rates in many industrialized countries are now so dramatic that they deserve much more scientific attention. Although social and behavioural factors undoubtedly play a major role for these trends, it seems premature, and not based on solid information, to conclude that these trends can be ascribed to social and behavioural changes alone. There is evidence to suspect that changing lifestyle and increasing environmental exposures, e.g. to endocrine disrupters, are behind the trends in occurrence of male reproductive health problems, including testis cancer, undescended testis and poor semen quality. These biological factors may also contribute to the extremely low fertility rates.



Italian Male Fertility Plummets, Population to Drop

Geography and environmental factors figured largely in the study. Men who reside in bigger cities or agricultural locations where the use of pesticides is common had 20 percent less mobile sperm than smaller town and village dwellers, with “15 percent more defective spermatozoa,” according to an article in Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera.

Some experts attribute the diminishing sperm count to pollution and environmental factors such as “illegal dumps, pesticide use and smog,”


Scientific literature also indicates increased time to pregnancy and declines in fertility rates in women occupationally exposed to higher levels of endocrine toxicants.

Environmental Causes of Infertility

Avoiding these circumstances should significantly improve the likelihood of conception by decreasing attrition to the active genes controlling reproductive processes.

Evidence also included demonstrates the same chemicals responsible for infertility
and miscarriage are being identified as increasing the risk for having a child with
mental retardation, learning disabilities or behavior problems (such as A.D.D.).


Populations are aging rapidly in both industrial and developing countries, reflecting falling fertility rates and rising life expectancies.


2000:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that worldwide 80 million people are affected by infertility [1]. In Europe, fertility rates have been below replacement levels for several decades [2].

Chemicals Health Monitor Project



2009: Declining Male Fertility Linked To Water Pollution


Tuesday, 2 July, 2002, 11:16 GMT 12:16 UK
Environmental 'hormones' wreck sperm

Environmental oestrogens can affect sperm
Chemicals found in the environment pose a threat to human fertility, scientists say.
Men and women may have been exposed to these chemicals from paints, pesticides and cleaning products, as well as beer, vegetables and soya.


Sex reversal in fish linked to chemical cocktail.

Male fish living in water contaminated with female hormones (or estrogen mimics) can become feminized, developing female sex characteristics and behaviors. Only compounds acting like the natural estrogen hormone estradiol were thought to cause this type of sex reversal in male fish.

This study shows that is not the case and affirms that male fish are also feminized by compounds that disrupt -- or possibly block -- the male sex hormones. These compounds are described as antiandrogens.


Normally, testosterone and other androgens jump start and then guide the reproductive tract development that gives rise to the male sex organs. Antiandrogens can derail this process, preventing male attributes from developing and allowing the female versions to develop instead.
Antiandrogens are widespread in the environment and their effects on wildlife, and perhaps people, are possibly underestimated.


Also see:

The Collaborative on Health and the Environment: Fertility/Reproductive Health Online Abstracts Library
... falling fertility rates in virtually every region of the world.




For "balance," here's a 2005 Eugenics perspective:

Whether one chooses to attribute impacts to human numbers or human behavior, the fact remains that the world’s population—its numbers, its movement, its actions—is having a profound impact on human and environmental health.




Policy-makers generally misunderstand the link between environmental sustainability (MDG #7) and health. Many health workers also fail to realize that social cohesion and sustainability—maintenance of the Earth's ecological and geophysical systems—is a necessary basis for health.

Emerging health issues: the widening challenge for population health promotion



[edit on 6-9-2010 by soficrow]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Didn't we already admit there is a falling fertility rate among developed countries? You keep providing links which confirm this fact over and over again. You are good at finding different sources to back up your claims, congratulations.

Can you now do the same for people living in underdeveloped/3rd world countries?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


All right, you buried me with links once again. I would like to discuss less information, but more thoroughly. For example, this study:

humrep.oxfordjournals.org...




RESULTS: Estimates on the prevalence of infertility came from 25 population surveys sampling 172 413 women. The 12-month prevalence rate ranged from 3.5% to 16.7% in more developed nations and from 6.9% to 9.3% in less-developed nations, with an estimated overall median prevalence of 9%.


First we have to realise what impact would this infertility rate have on population. This impact surely CANNOT account for huge dip in total fertility rate, from about 6 children to about 2, in just a few generations. That is mathematically impossible.
Another factor has to be in play here. And this factor is lifestyle, which has changed dramaticaly in last century.







You keep insisting that no one is less fertile, that falling rates are a matter of "choice" - that neither micro- nor macro-environmental contaminants have any impact on fertility - and apparently are NOT reading the many references provided to you that show otherwise. Again, a brief sample:


Pick the best one, and we will discuss it. Because I do not see any evidence supporting your stance in those links. All they say is that infertility rate is rising, but can this account for dramatic changes and differences in fertility rates? Surely it cannot, we would need infertility rate of, lets say, 50 % to even begin to account for what we observe.

Some more information, and a graph. Notice those huge diferences in total fertility rates among different countries and cultures. It can be clearly seen that lifestyle is major factor here:

en.wikipedia.org... (graph)

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Maslo]

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Dark Ghost and Maslo -

The information - references, sources, links - has been posted and re-posted.

The evidence clearly implicates environmental contamination as a cause of infertility in people as well as animals; the impacts are clear in both developed and developing nations.

Go back, read, enjoy.




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 





The evidence clearly implicates environmental contamination as a cause of infertility in people as well as animals; the impacts are clear in both developed and developing nations.


But I agree with this. I just disagree with the idea that infertility is responsible for sharp decline in total fertility rates around the world. This link is what I asked you to prove:




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


I propose that infertility has only little impact on fertility rates (=average number of children), and by far the biggest contribution is cultural and social.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by soficrow
 





The evidence clearly implicates environmental contamination as a cause of infertility in people as well as animals; the impacts are clear in both developed and developing nations.


But I agree with this.


My mistake. Thought you were questioning the data.




I just disagree with the idea that infertility is responsible for sharp decline in total fertility rates around the world. This link is what I asked you to prove:


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


I propose that infertility has only little impact on fertility rates (=average number of children), and by far the biggest contribution is cultural and social.



Now that we're into weaselling mode
, I said "OFTEN people don't reproduce because they can't."

...The first concern here is that infertility is being caused more frequently by preventable environmental factors - but that such impacts are missed due to traditional assumptions.

The second concern is that environmental factors that are preventable today might not be tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by soficrow
 


Didn't we already admit there is a falling fertility rate among developed countries? You keep providing links which confirm this fact over and over again. You are good at finding different sources to back up your claims, congratulations.

Can you now do the same for people living in underdeveloped/3rd world countries?

Some of us are more interested in the domestic fertility rate than that of foreign countries. I see our children as being the future residents here, and foreign children as being the future residents of other places not here.

What we're doing these days is compensating for a lower-than-replacement domestic fertility rate by attracting foreign children, some of whom have legal status (largely anchor babies) and some who don't, and they'll all be counted together, impossible to separate, in this years census.

I don't want us to have less kids so some foreigners can come and take those slots instead. But that's what is happening. Some of it is cultural -- our stupid willingness to abort our children. But some is environmental -- vaccines, GM food, etc. and while I cannot prove that with a published study, neither can you disprove it. Each will have to believe what they believe in this matter.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by aliengenes
you could put every man woman and child from every country in the world in Texas, and give them all one acre of land,and they still wouldn't overpopulate the state.


There are about... 6,884,682,515 people on Earth.

The state of Texas is about 268,581 sq mi, which is about 171,891,840 acres.

However, you appear to claim that the state of Texas is 7 billion acres? I'd like to see your figures.

Even if you look at family units rather than individuals: If we assume an average family size of 4, there are about 1,721,170,630 family units in the world.

The entire United States is about 2,428,224,640 acres. It would take 70% of the area of the United States to give every family on earth an acre. And that's not even considering that a percent of that is water and much of it is unable to grow much if anything in the way of food.

So again, I'd like to see your figures... but I don't buy your "facts."



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


Its the choices and consumerism of the people that makes those things happen. Not the sheer number of people themselves.
If we didnt live in a culture of consumption and greed i can assure you that these problems would not exist. Poverty is not just because in one country there is too many people to sustain. Poverty is here because of GREED. All third world countries are left out of the global trading scheme (something similar to that name) and are left to perish AND companies like coca cola buy their wells for their own companies satisfaction.
The world is out of balance. NOT overpopulated



posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Truly, I enjoyed and appreciated the OP's post. Very well done.

However, you did not address the following:

People make waste and that waste contributes to the death of many species in the ocean and on land.

Humans take medications to live longer, however, those med's end up in the in the aforementioned sentence.

Water is heavily polluted by us. Fluoride for example and many other chemicals.

Deforestation.

Encroachment on the animals. They are in such small numbers now. My most egregious outcry.

We are in fact over populated. Not by the fact of our numbers. Only in the fact that we release formidable chemicals from manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and general garbage waste. We have a pollution problem that is EPIC.

In the Pacific ocean, we have garbage the size of Texas floating about. How horrid for our ocean dwellers. Food will become scarce.

It's postulated we have the same thing going on in the Atlantic Ocean.

Come on, the only way we can peacefully cohabitate with mother earth is to reduce our numbers and remove ourselves from greed.

Yes, the world can accommodate more people. However, unless we become far more responsible earth inhabitants, Mother Earth will squash us.

OP, I think you did a great job on your post. There just seems to be a "slight" on your part in not looking at the whole picture.

No offense to you and no, I am not an elitist population reductionist.

Edited to add S&F. This issue needs more debate.

edit on 22-4-2011 by brilab45 because: see above



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by brilab45
 


if they're slobs, even 100.000 people can poison the planet with heavy metals given current technology. if pollution is the problem, maybe producing less would beat genocide? in my book it certainly would. if you believe genocide is the answer, though, you'll have to understand that it will include lots of nuclear detonations... oh no, imagine how many species will be rendered extinct along with man...


i suggest trace the sources of the garbage patch and address them, to be blunt i don't understand random people must die (because that's apparently the logic, as long as *** is tossed irresponsibly, there are too many ppl - but you can't just put the heat on them, because that would be politically incorrect, ergo, only tidy people are surplus, it seems, correct me if i'm wrong and why?!) just because people living thousands of miles away wallow in their own trash. let me give you an example:

en.gogoahead.com...

interesting, don't you think? where do you think traysh on rivers will end up? next Q: what's everyone talking about? CO2 this CO" that, while real issues will yield a blank stare.

be careful what you wish for, once the killing becomes apparent to enough people (biofuels are already genocidal instruments, mind you) there will be no stopping until this nightmare has been terminated.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 



You really did not answer my question. We are producing such toxic waste as a huge population. No need for me to mention Japan. I am definitely against your thesis. We are not living in harmony with the Earth. Hopefully you see my point. Peace to you and I do understand your view point. I simply don't agree. Does not mean I dislike you or your brilliant points.

Brian
edit on 26-4-2011 by brilab45 because: bad spelling



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
It is ironic that we see an increase in the number of children being born to white career women who turn to sperm donors rather than marry, and we also see more lesbians going the donor route as well. One wonders if the children of these women will excel past the average kid since sperm donation clinics in the USA only accept donors who have great health and intelligence.





top topics
 
64
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join