observer Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 - with all the time, money and effort in trying to prevent pre-mature deaths IF the world is over-populated? A US research team has estimated that 83 million Chinese will die from lung disease due to smoking and the use of open wood and coal fires - errm, thought China was over-populated? So why not forget this obsession with immortality and just let nature and politically incorrect lifestyles just take their course, thus acting to cull human population growth - and save a load of money at the same time?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgwoodruff Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Part of the issue is that China burns 'dirty' coal, rather than the cleaner, greener type. Unfortunately this has far reaching implications... the pollution from this 'dirty' coal apparently is already detectable on the west coast of the USA. Persoanlly, I think the pollution on the western US coast is the accumulation of all the hot air that George W Bush has produced! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 So I guess the US should be objecting to being passive smokers?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 It always annoys me when I read that such and such health initiative has "saved" x million lives when really what is meant is that so many lives have been possibly extended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2008 With other species, we cull them when their population levels exceed the capacity of their enviroment to support their numbers; we also put them down when in terminal pain - strange world ain't it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Interesting theory from a geneticist (Prof Jones); who believes that human evolution has now peaked due to our abiltity to overcome the effects of natural selection - so this is as good as it gets (according to him)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 I'd say the human race is in danger of going downhill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Asperity. I think we can use that post as the understatement of the year. I thought that it had gone, NOT going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Planet of the Apes?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Don't let Bob Geldoff hear you saying this Obs, natural selection isn't allowed according to him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 Natural selection (survival of the fitest), is nature's way of culling species and eradicating inferior genes from the gene pool - which could take us onto eugenics! My own theory is that we'll eventually transfer ourselves into robotic bodies with computerised minds, thus being capable of immortatily and survival in any atmosphere (thus capable of long distance space travel), with no need to eat for energy - folk could find it quite boring! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzodog Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 It always annoys me when I read that such and such health initiative has "saved" x million lives when really what is meant is that so many lives have been possibly extended. But surely that's not the case. If we're looking at the anti-smoking drive, the anti-obesity drive & (a few years ago) AIDS prevention, then these are trying to change behaviour that is not natural (AIDS ) & which is reducing normal life expectancy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 Think one's opinion is predicated on whether one believes the world is over-populated or not; despite all the natural and man-made disasters that have killed millions over history; humanity continues to grow in numbers, consuming the finite resources of the earth, which in itself is a cause of natural genocide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 9, 2008 Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 It always annoys me when I read that such and such health initiative has "saved" x million lives when really what is meant is that so many lives have been possibly extended. But surely that's not the case. If we're looking at the anti-smoking drive, the anti-obesity drive & (a few years ago) AIDS prevention, then these are trying to change behaviour that is not natural (AIDS ) & which is reducing normal life expectancy. Which is exactly what I said if you read it!! These initiatives extend lives, they don't "save" them. You can save someone's life by giving them CPR for example, but persuading the same person to pack in smoking isn't going to stop them dying eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 9, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2008 Plus, you can tax smokers to the hilt while they're alive, and they die early so don't cost a lot in pensions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.