Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 02 Aug 2018, 03:41:55

Now who can't read? :lol:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 05 Aug 2018, 14:12:09

If this finding could be widely enough circulated, it could go some way toward addressing population growth issues.

According To Science, The Best Age To Have Kids Is After 35

According to a recent study by the University of Southern California, scientists now believe that best age to have a baby and give birth is after the age of 35, as it improves the mental abilities of the mother.

User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Aug 2018, 11:11:35

That is not such a good idea dohboi. Giving birth after the age of 35 greatly increases the risk that your baby will have Down syndrome and many other health risks for both mother and child.

There is one key risk factor for Down syndrome: maternal age. A 25-year-old woman has a 1 in 1,200 chance of having a baby with Down syndrome; by 35, the risk has increased to 1 in 350; by age 40, to 1 in 100; and by 49, it's 1 in 10, according to the National Down Syndrome Society.
Are You at Risk of Having a Baby With Down Syndrome?

Women who are at least 35 years old when they give birth are much more likely than younger mothers to experience a variety of major pregnancy complications. Research has linked what’s known as advanced maternal age to problems like high blood pressure and diabetes during pregnancy and a higher risk of death and severe complications for babies.

Women 35 and older were also eight times more likely to have amniotic fluid enter their bloodstream, a complication that can cause a life-threatening allergic reaction. Mothers 40 and older were almost 16 times more likely to have kidney failure and almost three times more likely to have obstetric shock, when organs don’t get enough blood and oxygen. These women were also almost five times more likely to either have complications from interventions done to help deliver the baby or be admitted to intensive care units. The findings add to evidence linking advanced maternal age to a higher risk of problems for mothers and babies.
Severe birth complications more common with older mothers
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 06 Aug 2018, 12:57:39

No problem. Make abortions of defective kids the norm, and that problem goes away.

I come from a family of doctors many generations back, so I know that it was common practice for doctors to quietly dispose of malformed or defective newborns and just tell the mother that it 'died at birth.' These kinds of 'kind cruelty' are of course not allowed any more. But we now can detect most of these conditions quite early and abort accordingly.

Here, as with much else, rights to abortion and other women's rights are key to reducing and reversing population growth.

Anyone who is deeply concerned about population is either also a radical feminist, or an idiot (or worse).
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Aug 2018, 13:39:49

False positives also increase considerably with age:

At 15 years of age the detection rate was 77% at a 1.9% false positive rate, 84% at a 4% false positive rate at age 30, rising to 100% at a 67% false positive rate at age 49.
Age related detection and false positive rates when screening for Down's syndrome

And you are ignoring the plethora of health risks for the mother.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 07 Aug 2018, 06:59:10

Having a baby is always a risky thing to do.

Give women educations and rights and most will not want to have kids at 15 and would far prefer to put off child bearing till into their late twenties or thirties, regardless of your claimed risks. In any case, at least one study seems to have concluded that advantages of late birth outweigh risks, and that's without considering the (ultimately much more important) benefits of controlling and reversing population growth.

In general, the health of the mother and reliable access to good care are far more determinative of successful birth than age of the mother.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 07 Aug 2018, 07:49:09

It's pretty irrelevent in any case. Waiting until later to have kids has minimal benefit if you still have more kids than are needed for replacements. The fact that you and your kids live fewer years together also would have cultural impacts.

We can only fix this problem by ending births in the Third World in any case. Many First World populations - such as for example the USA with a population of 340 million - are already at or below replacement rates, and would have a falling population sans immigrants.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Cog » Tue 07 Aug 2018, 08:35:44

dohboi wrote:No problem. Make abortions of defective kids the norm, and that problem goes away.

I come from a family of doctors many generations back, so I know that it was common practice for doctors to quietly dispose of malformed or defective newborns and just tell the mother that it 'died at birth.' These kinds of 'kind cruelty' are of course not allowed any more. But we now can detect most of these conditions quite early and abort accordingly.

Here, as with much else, rights to abortion and other women's rights are key to reducing and reversing population growth.

Anyone who is deeply concerned about population is either also a radical feminist, or an idiot (or worse).


Bragging that your family murdered newborns doesn't do you much credit. You do realize that there is no statute of limitations on murder? The death cult rolls on.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10873
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 07 Aug 2018, 13:21:24

dohboi wrote:Give women educations and rights and most will not want to have kids at 15 and would far prefer to put off child bearing till into their late twenties or thirties, regardless of your claimed risks.
My claimed risks? You think I am making this up doiboi? I thought you came from a family of doctors? Do you really not know about the health risks of older mothers? If that is the case, I recommend you do some reading on this topic. Here are a few links to get you started:

Severe birth complications more common with older mothers

Are You at Risk of Having a Baby With Down Syndrome?

* The risk of pregnancy loss is higher.
* The risk of chromosome abnormalities is higher.
* You might need a C-section.
* You're more likely to develop gestational diabetes.
* You're more likely to develop high blood pressure during pregnancy.
* You're more likely to have a low birth weight baby and a premature birth.
The Mayo Clinic: Pregnancy after 35: Healthy moms, healthy babies

March Of Dimes: PREGNANCY AFTER AGE 35
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 07 Aug 2018, 15:13:00

I didn't say that they were false claims :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 09:43:09

Current population estimate is we have 7,643,000,000+ people alive right now and a population annual growth over 70,000,000 per annum.

While we are unlikely to 'achieve' 7.7 Billion by Christmas we will only be a couple months into 2019 when we get there. By the time the next US Presidential election rolls around in November 2020 we will be at or near 7.9 Billion and by the time we hit the next 'midterm' election after that in 2022 we will have noticeably more than 8 Billion humans on this dusty orb we call Earth.
10 Billion (2055)

The United Nations projects world population to reach 10 billion in the year 2056.
8 Billion (2023)

World population is expected to reach 8 billion people in 2023 according to the United Nations (in 2026 according to the U.S. Census Bureau).


Not to put too fine a point on the obvious, but all these new young people are going to want an American lifestyle a couple decades after they are born. They are not going to give up that idea easily. The only thing that is going to stop this growth is a hard limit to the food supply by whatever means comes about. That could be climate disruption in the unsettled period before our world adapts to the next step on the climate staircase, energy supply shortfalls causing less farming to take place, or a really devastating plant disease like the potato Blight of the 1840's or a wheat rust that wipes out one of the major caloric sources for the world human population.

Barring a truly stupendous disaster of epic proportions however these numbers are on the optimistic side with world population doubling from 5 Billion in 1987 to 10 Billion in 2055. Odds are pretty good that the kids which were born in 1987 will still be alive in 2055. They will have seen the world change massively in one human lifespan, even if that means the collapse of technological civilization back to an earlier form.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14956
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dissident » Sat 18 Aug 2018, 10:04:11

They may want, but they will not get. By 2055 the state of global agriculture will be that of collapse. All the people talking about adaptation to climate change are detached from reality. Saying that we will move farms to more viable zones is ludicrous. The soil will not come with you. I guess there will be a program to transport billions of tons of soil to dump over sand and rock. The problem with this techno-fix is that those soils will be heavily degraded and oxidized by 2055.

Literally nothing is being done about global warming. Nothing. So the nightmare in the coming decades is guaranteed. Reacting to crisis conditions in the 2050s will be pointless. The reaction should be now.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5316
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 05:56:17

Tanada,
I suspect that a global financial meltdown, loss of faith in trade and monetary exchange, may do us in first. Surely if not, your list will be sufficient back up should my mechanism fail.

And a cheery Sunday morning to all.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 11090
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 13:34:56

dohboi wrote:If this finding could be widely enough circulated, it could go some way toward addressing population growth issues.

According To Science, The Best Age To Have Kids Is After 35

According to a recent study by the University of Southern California, scientists now believe that best age to have a baby and give birth is after the age of 35, as it improves the mental abilities of the mother.


That is according to "science", whatever it is, if anyone still cares.
According to Nature it is between 22 and 30.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 20:25:55

Sooooo, EU prefers whatever WAG he pulls out of his WA to actual science.

Greeeeeeeat....

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/wom ... d=52971244
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 23:31:19

dohboi wrote:Sooooo, EU prefers whatever WAG he pulls out of his WA to actual science.

Greeeeeeeat....

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/wom ... d=52971244

Science is not to be confused with politics related nonsense, what it recently became on many fronts.
Your thesis about "scientifically preferable age of 35+ to give birth" are example of such a nonsense, comparable to discovery of 50-something "new sexes" in last decade, also apparently "scientific" or a multiverse theory in physics which would qualify as a sort of religion but not a science because it cannot be falsified even in theory.

Regarding older mothers, major obstacles to healthy pregnancies or babies in older age is DNA deterioration in aging eggs due to accumulation of mutations, decay of body functions of aging mothers etc.
Example of relevant reading:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881604/
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby nocar » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 09:04:28

There is, of course, one advantage of women bearing their children at a later age. It will slow population increase.

In fact, IIRC, one of Malthus's suggestions to deal with the threatening overpopulation was later marriages for women.
nocar
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Fri 05 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 10:59:54

Nice points, nocar.

Of course, there is nothing that has only advantages and no disadvantages--anyone who says there is is probably trying to sell you something.

But the advantages for population control and for having more mature people carrying out the most important function of society--raising kids--far outweighs some risks. Having a kid is risky, of course, at any age.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17652
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby kublikhan » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 15:34:33

Malthus advocated a "later" age of 27 or 28 for marriage and then to start popping out babies soon after. Not waiting until after 35 to have children.

Malthus advocated a later age at marriage as a check to the growth of population. Malthus suggested the ages of 27 or 28 as desirable for marriage. Limitation of births within marriage was regarded by him as immoral.
MALTHUS, MARRIAGE AND MULTIPLICATION
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4267
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Global Population Thread Pt. 4

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 25 Aug 2018, 15:47:31

Malthus was living in good old time, when having babies out of marriages was unheard of and in US resticted mainly to female plantation slaves.
Because of collapse of institution of marriage his ideas are irrelevant from perspective of modern Western societies.
Our discussion about having babies at 35 or or later is already becoming obsolete because in Western civilization many if not most of women are electing just that - to deterioration of health and general genetic quality of their offspring, but who cares?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5212
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests