Party Vibe

@The Psyentist 560939 wrote:

Well this is kind of what Chrispy was getting at I think, or at least one of his points. Nature and evolution provide us with all we need. If you don’t make it, sounds harsh, but nature never intended for so many of us to be successfully born into this world. We should have a much higher infancy mortality rate. But humans persist in overcoming the natural world’s obstacles. Hence here we are; massively over populated and too few resources for the current rate of population growth. We will likely be our own demise forging such a forceful path ‘forwards’.

The population in the first world is actually very steady, with an average of 1.7 children per house hold.
The UK has (reasonably) good health care and a very low infant mortality rate.

You go to somewhere like India with shit/no health care and the population has the second highest density in the world.

Contraception is the best means to lower our population, not a ‘much higher infant mortality rate’

@Izbeckistan 560952 wrote:

The population in the first world is actually very steady, with an average of 1.7 children per house hold.
The UK has (reasonably) good health care and a very low infant mortality rate.

You go to somewhere like India with shit/no health care and the population has the second highest density in the world.

Contraception is the best means to lower our population, not a ‘much higher infant mortality rate’

Please don’t misconstrue what I was saying. I meant nature intended for us to have a higher infant mortality rate, like in India, not we should employ some method to increase the natural mortality rates. Can’t disregard your point about contraception though; although that kind of supports what I’m saying about reducing at least the rate of population growth, if not the population itself. 😉