Arkansas mom has 16th child

very well said..

It just amazes me how people want to get involved in other people's lifes and tell them how to live it and tell then how many children they should have and so forth.. It's ridiculous...
And I still think population is what I'm least worried about and what I'm least concerned about in the world and no book in the world or class can convince me otherwise...
If someone wants kids, let them have kids...I dont think it should be anyone elses concern..
People who concentrate fully on how others live and try to inforce their beliefs or their views are whats wrong with the world..imo...(not the top thing, but play a major part in it...)

 

Here's how it's gonna happen...

IF reproduction trends and resource trends keep going the way they are, the population should double somewhere between 2035 and 2050. Food production, however, will double far later, probably near 2100. The experts who have studied overpopulation estimate the stable capacity of the earth to be 10-12 billion people. What that means is then when there are that many people on this planet, the number of people being born (and surviving) will be the same as the number dying, so the population will be in equilibrium.

However, since resources will be twice as scarce as they are now, competition will be more intense. It will be harder for the poor to be among those surviving, and developing countries will have a hard time advancing, and may regress. Starvation and problems associated with overcrowding (disease, murder, violent crimes in general) will be much more prevalent. And as the world is polluted at higher and higher levels, food production will yield less, and food will be less nutritious, furthering the plight of the poor.

So, something's gonna have to be done. I doubt the government is going to solve anything here, so it's up to the people. IF we can create an artificial equilibrium, not forced by lack of resources, our quality of life will be much better. And for that to happen, for every couple that has 16 kids, 7 couples have to have none. That, personally, is my plan. If I want kids, I'll adopt. I'm not too big a stickler for genes.

 

She's going to be the evil one.

 

Don't say that about yourself until you have tried, my lady.....haven't those doctors been wrong about enough things for you to know that they don't know everything..

 

Malthus said this years ago.

 

thanks sweetie and you are right...
can you imagine though giving birth to 16 kids my who-who hurts just thinking about it

 

Well, I'm sure the last few would just fall out... Have you seen Monty Python's Meaning of Life? "Every sperm is sacred....." Her babies just fell out...

 

haha
Do you think when she was just walking down the street, babies just started to drop...

 

She must have worn a safety net when she went out......

 

"who-who"?

Oh dear Lord...

 

Freaker has a reasonable description of a possible outcome. He does quote numbers on the carrying capacity that i think are exaggerated, but the scenario works out much the same, only the time frame changes.
We are not islands. Our actions and choices affect those around us. Culture must evolve or face the consequences. Many children was once a cultural imperative, but the world has changed while most cultures have not.
My goal is to help our culture evolve into sustainability. If i can get people to question their selfish motivations then perhaps that is one way in which i can help. Another way is to live and advocate for alternative concepts of family, which can endure without sole dependence on procreation. We must form larger social units and build our families by choice rather than by birth!

I do not care what one's motivations for making selfish choices based on a long-past paradigm are. Those choices are antithetical to a positively evolving worldview in which we can all have hope.

Shroom, just to set the record straight, your assumption that i was the student is an erroneous assumption. I said my class!


Jim

 

Well ring-a-ding-ding.....so you taught a class, good for you champ...talking about how important you are in an internet forum does not impress me.

Why are you acting as though mystical shroom is the one who can stop it all? Argue your point all you like....making it personal just makes you look stupid. She may or may not even be able to conceive....so talk to the fertile gumball machines who pop out 16 kids....
I believe all she said was she didn't care how many kids people have. So what? Not everyone is a crazy activist....are you gonna start burning down the houses full of kids next?

 

Would you like me to draw you a picture, Goth?

 

Population grows exponentially, and food production grows linearly if at all. Land area is constant! Malthus was correct.

Uhhhhh that is just a little out of date - I have not heard anyone quote Malthus in a respectable publication in some time. Population growth has a lot to do with wealth. The unequal distribution of resources lies at the root of much of the world’s problems. Food production grows in an irregular manner depending on technology (green revolution). Land area is not a constant (usable land that is) it also depends on technology. Of course, my opinions should be dismissed at once seeing as how I am from Arkansas (grin)

 

Malthus's conclusions have never been disproven. many have argued the details, but the conclusions are the same whether it is 50 years or 500. The point is how many generations ahead should we think.

Actually most technology only results in a short-term increase in production followed by catastrophic crop failures and eventually establishing a new equilibrium of yield/loss that was not much better than pre-technology levels. Study south asia for a perfect example. The food production figures often quoted are based on the falacious assumption that the short-term increased production trends continue indefinitely. they do not. these numbers were produced to help sell insectacides and herbacides. we now know that it was just sales bullshit.

the more "usable" land that is converted to food production, the less natural areas. Current agricultural practices around the world, create desolate land shortly after a short period of food production. The natural environment is destroyedd only for a short-term gain.

And, yes, wealthy populations tend to procreate less, but not enough to effect a stable ecosystem yet. That is why i am advocating that people realize the consequences of their choices. Children are a wonderful blessing to their parents, not to the global ecosystem. There are already way too many humans. For a stable ecosystem that honors the right of survival of more creatures than just humans, we are already well beyond maximum sustainable population levels. Equal distribution of wealth is neither possible or effective as a means of environmental/population policy. Culture evolves slower than commerce

In the next few decades, nanotechnology will change the whole picture in unpredictable ways. However, given the culture in which it will be born, it is hard to imagine that it will be used in an enlightened manner. This is a whole other area of discussion that i would be glad to get into on another thread, but it is definitely my belief that cultural evolution, not technology holds the only hope for a beautiful future.

 

We are all the ones who can stop it all. By understanding what our decisions cost, perhaps we can build a better world for our progeny than just a slash and burn nightmare.

 

I suggest that anyone in our culture who chooses to have 16 children is inexcusably selfish and immoral. This kind of thing should definitely not be encouraged. Ms. Mushroom was just spouting the standard propaganda/ party line! Nothing personal, but ignorance can be dangerous when it is repeated in a public forum. I do not expect to change her mind, but others who read this may think twice before having that third child thinking they are doing the world some kind of favor.

In this country, we give tax breaks for having more kids. This is insane policy rooted in the insane monetary policy of deficit financing. We borrow from the future to pay for the present. All of our social engineering is designed to increase production and consumption. economic growth is not necessarily a good thing, especially if you care about more than just humanity. Modern monetary policy is absolutely dependent on the growth of the world economy or the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Population growth has not been enough to keep production and consumption increasing at the levels required, so society is splintered into smaller and smaller units such that we all consume more. It is up to us all to see beyond the propaganda of the new world order and put a stop to the madness of endless growth on finite resources.

Think of all beings! Humans have no more right to this planet than any other life form!

Jim

 

How do they find the time and privacy to make more babies with 16 kids milling around the house?

 

A note to the Luddites, (maybe, just maybe), technology may have gotten us into this mess, but technology can get us out of it.

Do not know the source of the above quote but it is the situation that we are stuck with. Without wrenching social change, I do not see a simple answer to the resource problem. If we are indeed outgrowing the planet (which is arguable) then maybe we need to find a few more to use.

As far as the news story that started the thread - population rise in the developed world is not a problem. The unequal distribution of goods is the problem. Most of the misdistribution of goods is a social, political problem. Not a result of technology run rampant.

 

No, seriously, when do they have the time to make more babies?