Saw the the paper today a topic about how many people have lived. I guess if you start at about 5,000 BC that's quite a lot. Someone estimated 'more than 100 billion'.

Wow hey. 100 billion lives lived.


 

I bet the insects have us beat

@ 2002 = 106,456,367,669  according to one estimate [a curiously precise number given error bars that would appear to encompass the range of  from a low of 45 billion to high of 125 billion - so the guy that gave it must be an accountant ] If the number is remotely accurate, then about 6% of the people who ever lived are alive as we discuss this.

The estimates vary greatly and most of the parameters used in the formulas are SWAG but of interest to me particularly is the "fuzziness" of the life-expectancy at birth estimates.... some of these put the average life expectancy at birth for much of human history at 10 years!  This comes from estimates of findings re the  Iron Age At in France - at  this level  a birth rate of about 80 per 1,000 people would be required just for the species to survive. (while today a "high" birth rate would be about 45 to 50 per 1,000 population and this is seen in only a few countries in Africa and Middle Eastern states with young [overall] populations).

And Dekrazee1.... and just think, global warming could trigger an Insect population explosion!

And then we will buy more cans of pesticide, and then that will release more dastardly gas into the atmosphere, and then it'll warm up somemore and then and then and then

Do you think it's irresponsible to have than 1 child?

Big question....

I think it depends which way you look at it
 

Are human beings having an irrepairable impact on the world? Yes.

Is over population one of the key factors? Yes.

If you can do something to reduce size or at least slow growth should you do it? Yes
 

Well the thing that gets me is the people who spend thousands of dollars on invitro fertilization and whatnot, when they could adopt a child with family for less money.  This will help a little with population growth and give a home to a struggling child.

But I honestly think that when you decided to have children you should have no more then 2.  You should not have more then to replace you and your partner,it is the the worldly responsable thing to do.
 

Are human beings having an irrepairable impact on the world? Yes.

Is over population one of the key factors? Yes.

If you can do something to reduce size or at least slow growth should you do it? Yes

Then why procreate at all?

I think the familial and social aspects are too easily overlooked.

When parents have one child, the carer ratio is 2:1

When the child grows up, swap that around, and the ratio becomes 1:2

ONE carer for two elderly parents. And if that child has children of its own, ratio gets worse. Is this sustainable?

Social and economical aspects - There are enough 1st world countries with an ageing population and an inadequate 'new generation' workforce.
 

It's all too easy to say, yeah, lets reduce the number of kids, but what exactly is that attempting to solve?

Hmmm, good points Dek.

never thought of it that way dek.......

I suppose because I sort of went thru it.

When my sis and I were born, my dad had to 'pay' the govt to have us (Don't quite know the specifics) This was in the 70s when the govt had a one child policy in order to control resources etc.

When my bro was born 10 yrs later, the govt paid my dad a hefty amount, cos they were at the state where they had an ageing population, and declining pool of upcoming workforce.

10 years is all it took.

First world countries in Europe are feeling the effects too, and if I'm not wrong, so is Australia. China's population and male-to-female ratio woes are well documented. India has a 2 child policy, but they're beginning to feel the effects too.

Child restriction policies were hailed as excellent  measures when they were introduced, but somehow it seems that the policy makers didn't really use much foresight.

Maybe instead of restricting procreation, we should be looking at other measures. Encouraging stronger community bonds in urban areas and maybe even a form of communal living might help. As Kaz mentioned, adoption is a great way to go. I don't know.

It isn't an easy thing to tackle, that's for sure.
 

Are human beings having an irrepairable impact on the world? Yes.

Is over population one of the key factors? Yes.

If you can do something to reduce size or at least slow growth should you do it? Yes

my two bits worth: (geez what an english saying, how outdated . . .but i digress): Humans always have made an impact on the earth. By manipulating the environments around us we made it more hospitable to allow us to advance and grow - but that part of our makeup is now back firing. Maybe it is a part of a natural balance process - such as prey and predators. A population explosion in one creates an explosion in the other and eventually it will balance out to a more sustainable level - we may be creating our own disasters to bring us down to a more sustainable level - what is left after that? may not be much looking at the evidence.

Over population is definitely a problem - look at the african continent with plagues, famine etc. Yet Australia doesn't seem to be over populated (yet - but too many more years of drought and another couple of disasters thrown in and that sustainability may change) but we are contributing in a worse way of green house gases, global warming - i heard australia contributes 2% of the worlds carbon polution. Doesn't sound like much until you calculate that australia's population compared to the rest of the world is approx 0.005% - that is massive and i don't even know if that includes our selling of coal and uranium to the rest of the world to burn.

We are fairly well educated and seem to have a social conscience, so we think to ourselves that to have any more than 2 babies is irresponsible. Maybe. But when you come right down to the basics (excluding religion, lust, whatever) we are here to pass our genes onto a successive generation - that is why adoption doesn't seem to appeal to some people. If you can have a chance, however slim, of producing something that has your genes, you are responding to a basic desire that every living thing on this planet does.

A bit harsh when you consider how many children could be helped in this world - and i'm not saying that you can't give as much love to an adopted child as you can to one that you gave life to yourself. It's a very intellectual question but to put into practice would take a lot of will power and dedication that would go in the face of everything we believe in - socially, spiritually, subconsciously.

whoa - that's the longest diatribe i've written for a while and may be filled with holes - please feel free to pick at it like a healing scab (just don't rip it off all in one go)

But when you come right down to the basics (excluding religion, lust, whatever) we are here to pass our genes onto a successive generation - that is why adoption doesn't seem to appeal to some people. If you can have a chance, however slim, of producing something that has your genes, you are responding to a basic desire that every living thing on this planet does.

Possibly... that's what everyone keeps telling me at any rate - that there's a biological reason/push for having kids.

I'm not sure how much of that is cultural. Or a way of dealing with mortality.

There is no rational explanation for viewing adoption differently from having a biological child. And in my opinion, there isn't an emotional one either.

We fall in love with (genetically) unrelated people all the time. If not, we'd be dealing with a lot of inbreeding issues.

Personally, I've never met a child I haven't fallen in love with or felt for. Whether they're unrelated to me or not has never mattered, and I don't see why it should.

As with most things, it's only an issue of making it 'normal'. Of opening people's hearts to the possibilities that lie in front of them. 
 

The issue of adoption really comes down to personal choice . . .

Don't get me wrong - i completely believe in adoption if that is a choice people want to make, i'd also do it myself - but only if i couldn't have children myself or adopt in addition to biological ones. In my case biological kids would be a first choice with adoption as an addition if i could provide a good life for them. I know that i could provide enough love for them - enough for 12 . . . but i couldn't support them.

Having children is a completely biological urge in its basest sense - plants, animals, vertebrates, invertebrates every living thing passes its genes on for survival. Whether that is conscious thought or not you couldn't deny that that is what life boils down to and included in that is our way of dealing with mortality. If we didn't have a finite lifespan there would be no need to procreate - barring accidents or disease.

If everyone felt that adopting was just the same as having biological children i think the species as a whole would be in trouble (excepting the fact that sex is so enjoyable  ). There wouldn't be a drive to have your own children - thereby solving an over population issue - but it would also come with its own issues of non diversification.

Ah heck - apart from being a parent i'm not qualified to really talk on any this. I haven't had much exposure as a sociologist/psychiatrist/biologist. It is all coming out of my butt.

Anybody want to bring up the subject of religion?

I'm not even a parent <-- in case I need to qualify my statements

I have thought about this, and if I were to have a child, I'd go for adoption over having a biological child. It's the only thing that makes sense in my head.
 

. . . .and really despite my personal beliefs i can only say, good on you. It shows that you are a caring individual with more than self interest at heart   <insert canned sitcom "ahhhhhhhh">

hahahahaha

did you notice the 'if i were to have a child'?

read that as 'IF i were to have a child'