24 Feb 06
Get the snip yourself you wimp.[/b]You are changing the scope of this thread. My wife would have written it differently. I assume you are a women, and you think you are sticking up for other women, right? Well, our best frinds had the same dilemma after 4 kids, and he got the operation. A few months later, they were pregnant again, since his operation wasnt successful. Turns out that vasectomies need an undetermined amount of time before they kick in. Well, my wife is the one that is afraid of ovarian cancer and other stuff, so she wants everything removed.
My whole point here is about a diminishing flexibility, as we become overly successful. Will this diminished flexibility eventually lead to complete inflexibilty for our species, which, if we are not evolving, then we will logicaly become extinct. Right?
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by jkentttI know better than to change the subject and to mention this but would a DNA test be in order?
You are changing the scope of this thread. My wife would have written it differently. I assume you are a women, and you think you are sticking up for other women, right? Well, our best frinds had the same dilemma after 4 kids, and he got the operation. A few months later, they were pregnant again, since his operation wasnt successful. Turns out that vasectom ...[text shortened]... lty for our species, which, if we are not evolving, then we will logicaly become extinct. Right?
24 Feb 06
[would a DNA test be in order?I thought the same thing, of course. But the doctor explained how it was possible. Vasectomies are not 100%, especially within the first few months. Why didn't you comment back about it being my wife's choice, since cancer runs in her family?
What about the original thread? As we are overly successful at reproducing, we become less and less flexible to change. Inflexibility to change means we eventually can not evolve sufficiently to adapt and survive, thus extinction.
I feel like taking a shot at you, but I won't since I value your opinion.
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by jkentttI don't think we have become more successful at reproduction. I believe that longer lives (due to a number of reasons) are to blame for the population explosion as opposed to reproducing better.
As we are overly successful at reproducing, we become less and less flexible to change.
D
24 Feb 06
Please tell me what other species do all of the following: hoard up more food than we need, wipe out competitors to our food, wipe out competitors to food for our food, wipe out any species which denies our continuing expansion.in the beginning of Earth's biological history, there was an algae/bacteria that consumed nitrogen from the atmosphere. Its by product was oxygen, and it lived on the surface of the ocean. It soon took over most of the earth!
24 Feb 06
Originally posted by jkentttAnd what competitors did it wipe out?
in the beginning of Earth's biological history, there was an algae/bacteria that consumed nitrogen from the atmosphere. Its by product was oxygen, and it lived on the surface of the ocean. It soon took over most of the earth!
D
24 Feb 06
the point of the thread is extinction, and only indirectly competition. The bacteria I was talking about still survives in an anerobic environment (without oxygen). It was discovered in England at the bottom of a 30 foot horse dung pile that had accumulated over the centuries in a stable. The bacteria did not need oxygen to survive, as all other life does. It lives on nitrogen, and was a clue to the evolutionary past of life on this planet. Once this species of bacteria had eliminated the nitrogen available in the ocean, it began to decline and dissappear. Also, the bi product, or waste product was oxygen, which was poisen to the bacteria. Fortunately, the bacteria was able to adapt to oxygen and all other life was able to evolve as we know it today.
Humans are using up resourses and polluting. Will we be flexible enough to evolve? I'm not sure, since evolution usually takes a long time, and we are growiing/polluting very rapidly. Maybe catastrophically.
So whiping out the competition in a premeditated way means that humans are extra evolutionary? Not bound by the rules of evolution and scarcity?
25 Feb 06
Originally posted by jkentttMy grandparents had 13 kids, each of them had an average of 7 kids, (with 9 in my family, that makes around 80 cousins for me just on my moms side) and let me tell you, our family reunions and family campouts are a blast. it may put a little strain on overpopulation, but it is so worth it. I would be bored if I only had a couple brothers and sisters. I mean, any night we wanted to, we could just set up the volleyball net, and we had a team.
I am a 40 year old male. My wife and I are expecting baby #4. We have been married 6 years, and gotten pregnant with minimal effort (haha). We could probably have 4 more kids, over the next 6 years, unless one of us has a surgical procedure. My wife is willing to have the procedure. In fact, she is insisting on the procedure for herself. Having children is l ...[text shortened]... I fear the former. Posterity will have to be the judge, but for now, let me know your thoughts.
27 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by jkentttA bigger population, consuming more and more resources, might make the planet poorer in the long run.
You are changing the scope of this thread. My wife would have written it differently. I assume you are a women, and you think you are sticking up for other women, right? Well, our best frinds had the same dilemma after 4 kids, and he got the operation. A few months later, they were pregnant again, since his operation wasnt successful. Turns out that vasectom ...[text shortened]... lty for our species, which, if we are not evolving, then we will logicaly become extinct. Right?
But I believe generally adults become more responsible when they have children. The act of having chhildren improves the planets survival chances due to the social responsibilty adopted by the new parent.
If this social responsibility gets passed on to the children we all benefit.
27 Feb 06
Originally posted by invigorateso the antithesis of this is that not having children causes a smaller population, which is less responsible, ind takes away from the planets survival chances. Why not promote adoption to single adults? That would make both of our statements true!
A bigger population, consuming more and more resources, might make the planet poorer in the long run.
But I believe generally adults become more responsible when they have children. The act of having chhildren improves the planets survival chances due to the social responsibilty adopted by the new parent.
If this social responsibility gets passed on to the children we all benefit.