Artificial insemination/fertility treatments, etc.

[BustyTheClown]

I've recently been posting in the thread, "We made our baby deaf on purpose" (http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76491). This is a fascinating debate, but it makes me think that I am more firm in my opinion that having children by means other than natural ones is just too much for society to deal with. We have enough of a problem with the children who exist out of the normal means of production.

Seriously, though, I wonder whether it wouldn't just be better to deny fertility treatments, artificial treatments, etc., to anyone who requests them? This would be unconstitutional or illegal if people had the right to have children (see my thread about entitlement and children: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76303), but they don't. Infertility, homosexuality, sterility -- these can all be translated as nature's way of making people unable to have children in order to manage the population. So why complicate matters by going "against nature"?

I'm not trying to say that the infertile, the sterile, the homosexual, etc., don't deserve to have your own children. I'm not attacking your abilities to be parents -- I'm attacking the idea that it's ok to create life where there "shouldn't" be any; a better way to word that might be "where there *wouldn't normally* be any." Why not just adopt? Why do people feel the need to have their genetic identity carried on in their children? Isn't being a parent all about the love you give, not just the genes?

Let me just say something that may not seem relevant at first, but actually is: I'm pro-choice, and think that abortions should *always* be allowed, no matter when in the pregnancy or what the circumstances. I think it is our duty to pregnant women to respect their autonomy, and therefore it is our duty to grant them "permission" to do whatever they want with their bodies, whenever they wish. They shouldn't even have to ask permission. This may seem strange, but I don't regard the fetus as a person in the moral sense, and I think that as long as it is in the mother's body, it's her choice to do with it what she will. Hopefully she will make an informed decision, but it is up to her.

Now, what does this have to do with what the thread is about? It seems to stand to reason that if I am all for protecting mothers' rights when it comes to abortion, I would naturally be all for protecting parents' rights when it comes to artificial insemination and the like. But I am not, and here's why: abortions deal with a form of life that is already in existence; artificial insemination deals with a form of life that isn't yet in existence. That is where the difference lies. If a woman needs an abortion, for health reasons, for autonomy reasons, for whatever, she should be able to get one; her rights outweigh those of the fetus inside her. However, I don't think that the rights of those who are not ABLE to conceive for whatever reason outweigh the rights of their potential offspring. There is nothing to weigh their rights against, and hence, I don't think there is any reason good enough to make it absolutely necessary for people to conceive through any way other than the one they teach in kids' books. An abortion may be necessary for the woman; becoming artificially pregnant, or having a surrogate mother bear your child, or whatever, is never *necessary*.

That's what I think, anyway. What do you think? Should artificial insemination, etc., be allowed? Do you think it's playing god? Do you think that having children is really is a right that people have, so they should be able to have children by any means necessary? Talk to me.

 

[Cheyenne]

I think you're about to be flamed by a few parents and people who want to be parents with all their hearts. (Not me, by the way.)

And no, I don't agree with you. I think you skipped a few of your bioethics classes, actually.

We manipulate nature all the time in our daily lives. There is no question of "going against nature" for me in this case, no such thing as there "shouldn't" be life.

 

[Rubyfruit]

First of all, why do you care?

Are you simply judging those who chose to use fertility treatments, or are you saying you think they should be outlawed?

 

[BustyTheClown]

I think you're about to be flamed by a few parents and people who want to be parents with all their hearts. (Not me, by the way.)

And no, I don't agree with you. I think you skipped a few of your bioethics classes, actually.

We manipulate nature all the time in our daily lives. There is no question of "going against nature" for me in this case, no such thing as there "shouldn't" be life.

I'm fully aware of and prepared for being flamed. I wouldn't post stuff like this if I didn't expect that. I did skip a few bioethics classes, yes, but not the ones that had to deal with what I'm talking about. Perhaps I translated the information wrong, but this is what I gleaned out of it.

I guess what I find a problem with is that life is SO valuable that it *should* exist, always. Humans are super creatures, but I don't think that we all need to do our part to contribute to the numbers of us on the planet. We are taught that parenthood is why we are here, and this makes us feel like we *need* to have children or else we won't be complete, we won't be doing our duty as people. I'm sure there are some instincts playing a part in people's procreation, but I don't think they play as strong a part as they would if we were still living like Neanderthals.

Cheyenne, I know what you say about our constantly manipulating nature in our daily lives is true, but I'm having a brainfart and can't think of anything that's pertinent or similar to this thread. Could you please go a bit further with that?

 

[BustyTheClown]

First of all, why do you care?

Are you simply judging those who chose to use fertility treatments, or are you saying you think they should be outlawed?

I'm not really sure why I care, actually. I think maybe I'm thinking about where my own life is going and how kids fit into it. Maybe I'm doing this by observing how kids fit into other peoples' lives.

I'm not judging the people who use the fertility treatments, I'm judging the treatments themselves. I don't know if I think they should be outlawed -- I think I do -- but no matter what I think about that, I doubt it would ever happen, so my opinion on what should be done about it really isn't relevant anyway.

 

[Rubyfruit]

Personally, I think that people carrying more than 3 babies should reduce, but I'd never, ever, want to take the decision away from them.

I can't stand the thought of the government making decisisions for our bodies. I'm surprised that you, as a woman, would want to open up our bodies to that.

 

[BustyTheClown]

Personally, I think that people carrying more than 3 babies should reduce, but I'd never, ever, want to take the decision away from them.

I can't stand the thought of the government making decisisions for our bodies. I'm surprised that you, as a woman, would want to open up our bodies to that.

I think it's totally different for the government to tell me what to do with my body, and what is present and here at the moment; if I was pregnant at this very moment, I would not want the government to interfere at ALL with my decision to carry the fetus to term or not. I think the situation changes completely when the government is given the power to make decisions about *bringing* a life into existence. If the creation of a human life is as precious as people claim it to be, it seems logical to me that the means of that creation could/should (?) be monitored, and possibly even limited to a few widely acceptable, "moral" means of procreating. Until we can all agree on how moral and acceptable fertility treatments and the like are, I say they shouldn't be allowed because there could be way too many issues involved and the possibility of wrongful life. I also say we will never agree on the morality of those procedures, and that's where the whole outlawing thing would come in.

 

[Ishmael]

You knew I'd be here, didn't you?

Nope, absolutely not.

It is not the governments charter to intrude upon what, when, or how parents procreate.

It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of the decision to live in a free society or not.

As you know, I have strong personal views regarding the misuse of the technology available. My views not withstanding, it is none of the governments business.

The more you justify allowing the government to manage your life for you, the more it will. And their are others that will justify different management schemes, many that you may find personally offensive. The only way to prevent that is to act as a society to prevent the government from intruding on ANY aspect of our lives so long as we have done no harm to others. All laws governing societal behavior, differentiated from true criminal behavior, should be abolished.

There are groups that could, and have in the past, made any sexual position other than the 'missionary' position illegal. Once you let the government in the procreation door, that could happen again. "Any conception outside of the "missionary position" (about a thousand words of legalese here describing said postition) shall be deemed illegal" (Add fines, sanctions, and jail terms here.) Outrageous? No, there really were laws of that nature on the books, well into the last century.

I will avoid the abortion issue here because it is off point. You really shouldn't have brought it up in this thread. But I truly can't see how you can argue for the option of ending a life via an arbitrary and autonomous decision, and then turn around and argue for statutes that would make illegal the beginning of a life.

Ishmael

 

[BustyTheClown]

Re: You knew I'd be here, didn't you?

Nope, absolutely not.

It is not the governments charter to intrude upon what, when, or how parents procreate.

It is not a matter of rights. It is a matter of the decision to live in a free society or not.

As you know, I have strong personal views regarding the misuse of the technology available. My views not withstanding, it is none of the governments business.

The more you justify allowing the government to manage your life for you, the more it will. And their are others that will justify different management schemes, many that you may find personally offensive. The only way to prevent that is to act as a society to prevent the government from intruding on ANY aspect of our lives so long as we have done no harm to others. All laws governing societal behavior, differentiated from true criminal behavior, should be abolished.

There are groups that could, and have in the past, made any sexual position other than the 'missionary' position illegal. Once you let the government in the procreation door, that could happen again. "Any conception outside of the "missionary position" (about a thousand words of legalese here describing said postition) shall be deemed illegal" (Add fines, sanctions, and jail terms here.) Outrageous? No, there really were laws of that nature on the books, well into the last century.

I will avoid the abortion issue here because it is off point. You really shouldn't have brought it up in this thread. But I truly can't see how you can argue for the option of ending a life via an arbitrary and autonomous decision, and then turn around and argue for statutes that would make illegal the beginning of a life.

Ishmael

Lol I guessed you might turn up here. And I'm not surprised you disagree. But I'm not concerned with government intervention -- it'll never happen, so it's not relevant. I respect what you say, and I realize that what you say is correct, which is why I don't care to focus on it in this thread.

I do care to focus on what others think about methods of getting pregnant that involve anything other than sexual intercourse. Is there anything that shouldn't be allowed, or is it a free-for-all? Whatever you can do, do it, because this is a free country?

Abortion is linked to this issue, Ishmael. It's not terribly important, but I wanted to touch on it a bit since the creation of life and the ending of life seem to be inherently linked. You can't have one without the other. You don't have to respond if you don't want to.

On a more personal note, I don't like the language you use when you disapprove of something: "You shouldn't have included it in this thread," "You are young, dear, [so you can't really know how you feel about Rose's point]," "You have a weak mind if you can't see something that is [p-word I forget] wrong and say 'THAT IS WRONG.'" Try judging less and debating more. Criticizing me as a person will not make me listen to you in the way that I want to listen to you. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but please try to keep that in mind when you're responding to me, or I'll just ignore you completely. I refuse to discuss things on an intellectual level with someone who feels the need to criticize me as a person rather than my ideas. Thank you.

 

[ag2507]

Busty

The ethics of this are very complex. In the real world, government interference nearly always makes a problem worse rather than better but a society needs a set of guidelines to help people make choices: but not enforce them.

Religeon, does to some extent, provide this framework, and the States should (it isn't really a federal issue) too. The current brouhaha over federal funding and abortions, or fetal research, is very close to breaching the church/state provisions in the constitution: however, a legal challenge would probably fail.

None the less, I have never been faced with some of the decisions and choices faced by young pregnant women nor the decision to seek fertility treatments. Both raise concerns - I certainly find it unconcionable that any organization opposed to abortion should also oppose birth control and equally oppose welfare support for young unmarried mothers - this really is social control by keeping the population poor.

For different reasons I worry about the long term consequences of infertility treatment. I am only just beginning to read the research on the long term studies of the children conceived by such techniques, and it will be some time before we see the research on the fertility of children conceived by artificial means.

While some infertility is purely a plumbing problem, in many cases it is not, and nature errs on the concervative side in rejecting unviable fetuses: also the tendency for fertility treatment to favor multiple births and consequently low birth weight babies who tend to have a history of problems into adulthood makes me very concerned that the business of fertility is not well regulated and couples are not properly councelled as to what they may well be facing.

The difficulty explaining to ordinary parents that life as they know ends with thay wonderful bundle of joy indicates just how difficult it is to explain just what life might be life nurturing a low birth weight child or one with some form of long term problem.

I know that some people relish the challenge and have done wonders with their children: but others don't; they wither away and I see wonderful positive people destroyed by the choice they made.

I know I equivocate here - but I do not know what choices I would or even will make if ever faced with these issues - but I also would like to see intellegent, caring and well thought out laws put in place to help guide us through this ethical jungle.

A

 

[WhiteRose]

I don't think Busty's trying to have fertility treatments outlawed in any way, shape, or form. It sounds like she's just trying to have an open discussion (and correct me if I'm wrong, Busty ) on whether the treatments should exist at all. Not debating this from a legal standpoint from where we are in today's society, but just in a more general way, not taking into account politics or the law or any of that, but more of a purely philosophical and moral approach.

Manipulating nature is what 99% of humans do every day. We don't live WITH nature, we try to force it to bend to our wants and needs. This is what our society teaches us to do (as opposed to nature-based societies). Sure, we can say get rid of fertility treatments and let just those women who are "meant" (by nature? by God? by some other divine intervention?) to bear children, be the ones to carry on our species. But then on the other hand, you have to consider what else medicine does for us...no more treatments for cancer? No more heart transplants? I know you made a distinction between humans who already exist and humans who don't exist yet, but aren't we keeping a lot of people alive through non-natural means who maybe "shouldn't be"?

I think it all comes down to the value of life and the concept of "who gets to play God" and why is it okay in some instances and not in others? Where do we draw the line?

 

[Calamity Jane]

I think it's totally different for the government to tell me what to do with my body, and what is present and here at the moment; if I was pregnant at this very moment, I would not want the government to interfere at ALL with my decision to carry the fetus to term or not. I think the situation changes completely when the government is given the power to make decisions about *bringing* a life into existence. If the creation of a human life is as precious as people claim it to be, it seems logical to me that the means of that creation could/should (?) be monitored, and possibly even limited to a few widely acceptable, "moral" means of procreating. Until we can all agree on how moral and acceptable fertility treatments and the like are, I say they shouldn't be allowed because there could be way too many issues involved and the possibility of wrongful life. I also say we will never agree on the morality of those procedures, and that's where the whole outlawing thing would come in.

I'm confused. You're ok with terminating a life whenever and however a person chooses to do so... but you're against extraordinary means to create that life to begin with.

If your argument for outlawing 'artificial means' is that some people just aren't genetically acceptable as parents (which is appalling in itself)... wouldn't the flipside of that argument be that if a fetus is created through your 'moral' means that it has the right to live no matter what?

*edited to ask... aren't you the same person who is against killing animals? who is a vegetarian now because slaughtering cattle just seems too cruel? If not, I apologize. If so, how does THAT fit in with your abortion views? It's ok to kill a fetus, but not a cow who was raised for the purpose of food?

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Why not just adopt?

Many couples would adopt, but until they stop letting women having abortions because the woman decided not follow through on accidently getting pregant with a healty baby, there are not enough babies to adopt.

I belive that people should be allowed to get pregnant by implanting eggs or sperm. But not by creating egg or sperm in a test tube first.

It tool my husband and I many years to have our first baby. I know the inner saddness that maybe you will not ever have a baby or them dieing while pregnant. We are now the lucky parents of two children that we produced ourselves....

 

[Private Vasquez]

Here's a little ditty that's not about Jack and Diane:

My friend's fiancé had a brain tumor, so they decided he should freeze some of his sperm just in case. Since he died before they got married, she used those sperm-sicles to make Mini Me. And now I have a niece who not only looks like me (it's quite odd, since we're not blood relatives...I refer to her as my niece anyway), but wants to be me. How much fun is that?

Not that any of this matters concerning the whole issue...I just thought I'd toss it in...for kicks, or somethin'.

 

[Ishmael]

The "Nail"

I don't think Busty's trying to have fertility treatments outlawed in any way, shape, or form. It sounds like she's just trying to have an open discussion (and correct me if I'm wrong, Busty ) on whether the treatments should exist at all. Not debating this from a legal standpoint from where we are in today's society, but just in a more general way, not taking into account politics or the law or any of that, but more of a purely philosophical and moral approach.

Manipulating nature is what 99% of humans do every day. We don't live WITH nature, we try to force it to bend to our wants and needs. This is what our society teaches us to do (as opposed to nature-based societies). Sure, we can say get rid of fertility treatments and let just those women who are "meant" (by nature? by God? by some other divine intervention?) to bear children, be the ones to carry on our species. But then on the other hand, you have to consider what else medicine does for us...no more treatments for cancer? No more heart transplants? I know you made a distinction between humans who already exist and humans who don't exist yet, but aren't we keeping a lot of people alive through non-natural means who maybe "shouldn't be"?

I think it all comes down to the value of life and the concept of "who gets to play God" and why is it okay in some instances and not in others? Where do we draw the line?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here WR. If you didn't, you came close enough to scare the crap out of it.

The inability to procreate is genetic. Doesn't matter if it's his or her's. By not allowing these people to reproduce, we have removed them from the gene pool. Via legislation we could similarly 'filter' the gene pool. Forced sterilization for anyone with a serious genetic defect. Hemophilia and other genetic disorders would be a thing of the past within three generations. There is a strong argument that the reason so many young people today require pharmeceutical support is that their parents were so supported and allowed to enter the gene pool when in past ages they would be far to debilitated, or would have died too young, to reproduce. Consequently, the gene pool is 'polluted' with 'breeders' that should not be allowed to procreate.

Another concept that has to be considered here is the concept of forced abortion. Once abortion has become nominally accepted, it's not a huge leap to make it mandantory. Such is the case in China for the purposes of population control. If one can support the issue of population as a reason for forced termination of pregnancy, wouldn't a genetically disadvantaged child be an even stronger argument?

The problem with all of these valid arguments is that the heavy hand of government is used to enforce some groups sense of the right of things.

The problem with the concept of not using any of the technologies involved is simple. "Knowlege, once gained, cannot be unlearned." The technologies will be employed, because they can be employed. Look at what is happening with the debate over cloning and the fact that it has already been done with a human embryo. Inspite of the various laws passed 'abolishing' same cloning.

As with any technology, there will be abuses. We've seen that already with regard to the subject of this thread. But until such abuses begin to have a direct, and deleterious, effect on others, is it our province to make that technology illegal or unavailable?

Are we seriously entertaining the thought that the 'collective' is better suited to determine the suitability of parents to procreate, or the continued viability of the fetus once they do?

Ishmael

 

[BustyTheClown]

You are all bringing up excellent points, and I'm really happy to see where this thread is going. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

Rose, you make an excellent argument. Your last point about it all coming down to the value of life and who gets to play god -- and where we draw the line -- is the clincher. It makes me realize just how far into all these new technologies we are, and I have to admit, it's pretty scary. I'm not sure why these issues are so worrisome to me, but they are. I think a large reason is the whole population thing, which Ishmael brought up a bit in his post. As soon as I heard that the population of earth had hit 6 billion -- that's a whole lot of people, folks -- I freaked. Not running around and screaming like a chicken with my head cut off, but I started thinking different ways about human life and just how valuable it is.

If we look at human life from just the perspective of our species' survival, then it seems to be valuable indeed. I mean, the point of procreation is to keep the species going, and I'd say we're doing a damn good job of it. Where my problem comes in is how humans and the earth interact. At the rate at which we're barreling down the road of life and technology, we will without doubt exhaust many of the earth's resources within a relatively horrifyingly short amount of time. I mean think about it, your kids' kids' kids may not have fresh water, the forests may be almost completely wiped out, the ozone layer might be ten or twenty or thirty times worse than it is now. I'm not familiar with the timeline, but it will get BAD. In this respect, human life may not be as valuable as we think it is. In fact, it may be our duty as the "most intelligent" species on the planet to monitor our own population. I'm not saying that we should disregard human life completely, because that is ludicrous. I'm just saying that if we can avoid bringing lives into this world that don't necessarily need to be here, we should avoid it.

Now comes the big question of "Who?" Who doesn't have kids? Who decides? I hardly have the answers to those questions, and I won't claim to. As far as this thread goes, with artificial reproduction, I'd say that we return to more natural ways of child-bearing: if you are infertile, homosexual, or for any other reason are prevented from having children, then you won't have children. You should be able to adopt, of course, but I just can't make myself accept artificial reproduction as a viable means of having children. Some people may say that to act this way would be discrimination -- especially maybe against homosexuals. I think what we're ignoring here is the natural function of all these conditions or lifestyles. Most homosexuals adamantly hold that they did not make a *choice* to be gay, they just are. My theory is that homosexuality sprung out of a need to control the human population, just as with infertility and other conditions. Our society has just made it seem like everyone's entitled to their own flesh-and-blood kid, and ignored the repercussions of that, on both humanity and the environment.

I'm confused. You're ok with terminating a life whenever and however a person chooses to do so... but you're against extraordinary means to create that life to begin with.

If your argument for outlawing 'artificial means' is that some people just aren't genetically acceptable as parents (which is appalling in itself)... wouldn't the flipside of that argument be that if a fetus is created through your 'moral' means that it has the right to live no matter what?

*edited to ask... aren't you the same person who is against killing animals? who is a vegetarian now because slaughtering cattle just seems too cruel? If not, I apologize. If so, how does THAT fit in with your abortion views? It's ok to kill a fetus, but not a cow who was raised for the purpose of food?

Finally, I just want to respond to pagancowgirl. You're right, it does seem hypocritical for me to say that any woman who wants an abortion should have one, and then turn around and reject artificial means of creating them, as well as being "against killing animals." No need to apologize, lol, everything you said was true. The difference between a fetus, a potential child, and a cow is this: the fetus, to me, is not a life in the sense that another person or another animal is. I don't think that fetuses are conscious, think, have emotions, or are in any sense alive like you and I are. I'm not sure when they gain those qualities, but we don't have to argue that here unless you want to. However, I'm assuming that people who become artificially pregnant are not going to abort, unless they have to. If they wanted to, then I'd say go right ahead, but it would seem pretty stupid to spend all that money on what essentially would be an abortion; therefore, since we are dealing with at least a potential life in this scenario -- which may not be the case when women get pregnant by regular means -- and that life is not a part of the woman (until she is pregnant with it), I'd say that... Crap, I lost sight of what I'd say. But it's complicated, isn't it? Too complicated, I think, for us to mess around with. There's a huge difference between forcing nature to fit our lifestyle with, say, chemicals and buildings and other non-living objects and forcing nature to fit our lifestyle with children, and even the environment. We are too focused on ourselves and our future as the Human Race, and have lost sight of the life around us and how we as humans are destroying it to further our own selfish agenda.

I sound like a tree-hugger, so I'm going to stop now. Sorry if this got out of focus.

 

[Ishmael]

Putting the "Population Problem" into perspective.

A little mathmatical exercise here.

If every person on the face of the earth today were to be allocated 4 square feet of space, that is a square, 2 feet by 2 feet. More space than you would have at, oh say, a rock concert.

The entire worlds population will fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.

Doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

And just to tease all those "Nature is better off without man" folks, just think, one hydrogen bomb and 'poof' no more humans.

Ishmael

 

[Freestyla]

Re: Putting the "Population Problem" into perspective.

A little mathmatical exercise here.

If every person on the face of the earth today were to be allocated 4 square feet of space, that is a square, 2 feet by 2 feet. More space than you would have at, oh say, a rock concert.

The entire worlds population will fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.

Doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

And just to tease all those "Nature is better off without man" folks, just think, one hydrogen bomb and 'poof' no more humans.


I was very suprised reading that you thought the world's population will fit "within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida". So, I did the little mathmatical exercise you mentioned. (I'm no genius I'll warn you) However, the U.S Bureau of Census estimates the world population as currently around 6.2 billion people. (6,217,109,931 to be exact). Now if those 6.2 billion are each getting 4 square feet of land, that's 4,709,931 square miles (24,868,435,896 sq feet).
Here I must apologise, because I'm not aware of the area of Jacksonville, Florida, but in order for your statement to be true, the city must take up around half the square area of the entire United States (9,358,340 square miles). I've never been to Jacksonville, but it's not that big is it?

 

[BustyTheClown]

Re: Re: Putting the "Population Problem" into perspective.

A little mathmatical exercise here.

If every person on the face of the earth today were to be allocated 4 square feet of space, that is a square, 2 feet by 2 feet. More space than you would have at, oh say, a rock concert.

The entire worlds population will fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.

Doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

And just to tease all those "Nature is better off without man" folks, just think, one hydrogen bomb and 'poof' no more humans.


I was very suprised reading that you thought the world's population will fit "within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida". So, I did the little mathmatical exercise you mentioned. (I'm no genius I'll warn you) However, the U.S Bureau of Census estimates the world population as currently around 6.2 billion people. (6,217,109,931 to be exact). Now if those 6.2 billion are each getting 4 square feet of land, that's 4,709,931 square miles (24,868,435,896 sq feet).
Here I must apologise, because I'm not aware of the area of Jacksonville, Florida, but in order for your statement to be true, the city must take up around half the square area of the entire United States (9,358,340 square miles). I've never been to Jacksonville, but it's not that big is it?

Lol excellent math there, freestyla. Where did you get your information from, Ishmael? Also, what the hell does a hydrogen bomb have to do with "Nature is better off without man," and how is that teasing those who think that way? I think you've been posting too much, Ishmael -- maybe you need to have a lie down.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Putting the "Population Problem" into perspective.

A little mathmatical exercise here.

If every person on the face of the earth today were to be allocated 4 square feet of space, that is a square, 2 feet by 2 feet. More space than you would have at, oh say, a rock concert.

The entire worlds population will fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.

Doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

And just to tease all those "Nature is better off without man" folks, just think, one hydrogen bomb and 'poof' no more humans.


I was very suprised reading that you thought the world's population will fit "within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida". So, I did the little mathmatical exercise you mentioned. (I'm no genius I'll warn you) However, the U.S Bureau of Census estimates the world population as currently around 6.2 billion people. (6,217,109,931 to be exact). Now if those 6.2 billion are each getting 4 square feet of land, that's 4,709,931 square miles (24,868,435,896 sq feet).
Here I must apologise, because I'm not aware of the area of Jacksonville, Florida, but in order for your statement to be true, the city must take up around half the square area of the entire United States (9,358,340 square miles). I've never been to Jacksonville, but it's not that big is it?

Math just ain't yer' strong point, is it?

5280 X 5280 = 27,878,400 = sq. ft. / sq. mile

divide by 4 = the number of people per sq. mile = 6,969,600

6.2 billion divided by the above number is!!!!!!!!

TA DA 889.758 square miles

The area of Jacksonville Florida is

TA DA is somewhat over 1000 square miles

New math?

Ishmael

 

[Freestyla]

Re: Re: Re: Putting the "Population Problem" into perspective.

Math just ain't yer' strong point, is it?

5280 X 5280 = 27,878,400 = sq. ft. / sq. mile

divide by 4 = the number of people per sq. mile = 6,969,600

6.2 billion divided by the above number is!!!!!!!!

TA DA 889.758 square miles

The area of Jacksonville Florida is

TA DA is somewhat over 1000 square miles

New math?

Ishmael

No, math's isn't my strong point, I'd already said that. But I can't understand how you've come up with the answer you give. If you're giving 6.2 billion people 4 square feet of land that is 24800000000 square feet. To translate that into miles you simply divide by 5280 (the number of feet in a mile). Which gives 4696969 square miles. There's no further maths required though is there? How big is Jacksonville please Ishmael?

 

[ag2507]

There's thread drift and thread drift: this is definately a drifted thread; and all that math makes my head hurt.

A

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Putting the "Population Problem" into perspective.

No, math's isn't my strong point, I'd already said that. But I can't understand how you've come up with the answer you give. If you're giving 6.2 billion people 4 square feet of land that is 24800000000 square feet. To translate that into miles you simply divide by 5280 (the number of feet in a mile). Which gives 4696969 square miles. There's no further maths required though is there? How big is Jacksonville please Ishmael?

LOL You are soooooooooooo funny. This is a joke, right?

In order for you're theory to work, try dividing your first number by the number of square feet in a square mile, not the number linear feet in a mile.

Dividing your starting number, 24.8 billion by the number of square feet per mile, which is 27,878,400 yeilds you what answer?

889.758 square miles of course.

You are comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid.

Ishmael

 

[alexandraaah]

I'll admit to being more confused than the average bear....

but after reading your thoughts on both threads (not entirely), I am unsure of your position. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking that many of your statements are contradictory.

Did I understand you when you stated something about "perhaps this is nature's way of controlling the population and a child wasn't supposed to happen.....(horribly paraphrased).

Anyways, for the simpleton that I am, do you think you could dumb down your stance in a short paragraph?

Large letters and pictures unecessary this time, thanks.

 

[Freestyla]

I'm glad I amuse you so much. All I've asked for is an explanation. At no point have I tried to insult you, I'm sorry to have even dared question your greatness. I hope at a ripe old age such as yours I'm such a pleasant person to talk with. Do you even know the area of Jacksonville though?