A healthy lifestyle means a good life?

[Jonourd]

We are consistently reminded that if we live our lives according to the advice of medical practitioners, dietitians and health specialists that the quality of our lives will make for greater life satisfaction. Science develops products and processes to give us longevity. Is this approach good or are we defying natural law? Have we created a dilemma in temrs of health? It reminds me of the star trek episode where an alien planet was so packed the aliens were jammed up against their spaceship when it landed!

[iNow]

What is "natural law?" I'd say that, since EVERYTHING we do is a part of nature, it's all "natural."

 

Your question seems to be about population issues, and how fewer people dying early in life results in more people putting a strain on limited resources? That despite the inherent "goodness" of medical advances, there are certain negative aspects that come along with that progress?

[Reaper]

Well, I'll break this into parts.

 

We are consistently reminded that if we live our lives according to the advice of medical practitioners, dietitians and health specialists that the quality of our lives will make for greater life satisfaction. Science develops products and processes to give us longevity.

 

Good physical health is very strongly correlated with better psychological health. As an example, studies done with athletes (except for maybe professional superstars) or people who exercise daily are shown to have lower cases of depression and much higher self-esteem, and tend to be more successful in social, academic, and work related environments. Their immune systems are also much better too and they live longer.

 

And of course, people who tend to be much healthier will have better chances of passing off their genes to their offspring. But this is also true with any species you look at, not just humans.

 

As for modern medicine, well, I'm sure you agree that it has saved countless lives. For example, take vaccinations; because of them we are now immune to a wide variety of diseases that would have killed us otherwise earlier.

 

Is this approach good or are we defying natural law?

 

I take it you've been reading too much Ishmael? For those of you who don't know, that book is one big strawman, and uses a whole range of other logical fallacies and misunderstandings. I don't recommend taking advice from there.

 

 

Have we created a dilemma in temrs of health? It reminds me of the star trek episode where an alien planet was so packed the aliens were jammed up against their spaceship when it landed!

 

Well, every species has the capability of reproducing to the point where they outstrip the available resources. It happens all the time too. For example, predator populations fall when there isn't enough prey animals around and they therefore must compete (and thus natural selection will select for those better able to get their food). The same goes with prey animals too if they end up using up everything in their ecological niche.

 

The reason that we have a huge population is because we can better control those factors, and as we have progressed in technology and scientific knowledge, the easier it has become to maintain larger populations. Of course, population growth will always outstrip even that if it grows too large; for example, even with 1800's technology our population of 6 billion just isn't sustainable. It isn't even sustainable with today's technology and science either....yet.

 

However, large populations do have a distinct advantage over small populations. For one, they are far less likely to go extinct, are far less vulnerable, and tend to have a much wider range of genetic diversity than smaller populations do (and therefore evolve faster and are more adaptable).

 

Whether any of this is a good thing or a bad thing is purely arbitrary and entirely subjective.

[Jonourd]

OK. Firstly I have not read the author you have not recommended and now I feel an urge to but right now I won't because I know it will confuse the badly proposed questions as I am obviously trying to get to grips with something here.

 

I agree we are nature therefore we are part of natural law and our nature is to be inquisitive or enquire and as a result we have science and philosophy etc. For the record I believe in these processes of thinking.

 

However at the risk of sounding and appearing thick, if the population increases, if life is sustained, if population growth increases, if a scientific/health goal is longevity, if large populations to do not acknowledge scientific discoveries where we are asking the population of the planet to use and consume foods that are good for our health that use packaging or that require pesticides to produce which in turn pollute, increase global warming etc, if we continue to use up our energy resources........I can go on......we are basically imploding. Now this sounds incredibly pessimistic I am the first to hold my hand up here, but is this not blatently obvious or am I bringing everyone down around party time.

[ecoli]

What is "natural law?" I'd say that, since EVERYTHING we do is a part of nature, it's all "natural."

 

Your question seems to be about population issues, and how fewer people dying early in life results in more people putting a strain on limited resources? That despite the inherent "goodness" of medical advances, there are certain negative aspects that come along with that progress?

 

Except that high birth rate has a greater affect on population growth than longevity, at least in human populations.

[iNow]

Well, maybe until Viagra came along...

 

 

I actually quite agree with your correction, and thank you for it.

[Jonourd]

How do you figure that? Surely more money is being spent on keeping people alive rather than on actually making people?

[Reaper]

How do you figure that? Surely more money is being spent on keeping people alive rather than on actually making people?

 

Because much more people are being born than people are dying off. And it doesn't take that much to actually give birth either; for example the average age of the population in Africa (where they have some of the highest birthrates) is much lower than industrialized nations, but the reason they are increasing in population is because of high birthrates. While in industrialized nations (well, mostly the western ones), population growth is either stagnant or falling, but the average age of it is getting higher.

 

OK. Firstly I have not read the author you have not recommended and now I feel an urge to but right now I won't because I know it will confuse the badly proposed questions as I am obviously trying to get to grips with something here.

 

Oh, ok then. The reason I mentioned it is because it sounded a little like what I read in that book. But thanks for making your questions clearer.

 

 

However at the risk of sounding and appearing thick, if the population increases, if life is sustained, if population growth increases, if a scientific/health goal is longevity, if large populations to do not acknowledge scientific discoveries where we are asking the population of the planet to use and consume foods that are good for our health that use packaging or that require pesticides to produce which in turn pollute, increase global warming etc, if we continue to use up our energy resources........I can go on......we are basically imploding. Now this sounds incredibly pessimistic I am the first to hold my hand up here, but is this not blatently obvious or am I bringing everyone down around party time.

 

Well, yes, our society today does face a huge amount of problems regarding those specific areas. Most of it though is due to human irresponsibility though. As for what will ultimately happen, I have absolutely no idea. But, there is some evidence that we are beginning to adress those problem. For example, in western Europe they are implementing high taxes on fossil fuels to encourage people to buy energy efficient technology and to make the switch to more sustainable methods. In Iceland, they are experimenting with hydrogen power, coming right from their many geysers. China I know recently developed quite a few programs that are aimed at maintaining their ever growing needs. As for the U.S., well, at least more people are aware of these problems.

 

How this will play out, we don't know. But, I do know this, if we as a whole survive this century, then we probably will be ok for many hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of years to come;) .

[SkepticLance]

For those concerned about population growth, I suggest you research the relevent United Nations web site. http://www.un.org/popin

 

In brief, 50 years ago the average fertility (number of children per woman) in third world countries was 5.5. Today, it is 2.5 and falling. The world is NOT going to implode. The best estimate of the United Nations demographers is that it will grow to 9 billion within 50 years and then start to fall.

 

In developed nations, the fertility rate is already below 2. Which means that the population, excluding immigration, is already falling.

[iNow]

A declining birth rate does not necessitate a declining population.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Over the short term you are correct. Over the long term, a declining birth rate, if it goes below fertility of 2, always results in a declining population, except for the United States which has massive immigration.

[Jonourd]

If its correct over the short-term there won't be longterm.

[insane_alien]

jonourd, declining birth rate does not equal no birth rate.

 

as long as there are some births there will be a long term.

[SkepticLance]

I have a theory about the long term world population. It may be wrong, and someone may point out a flaw.

 

It is based on the assumptions that the process below will not be interfered with by people tinkering with human genes, and that the female desire for children is at least partly genetic.

 

In the short term (next 100 years) world population according to the United Nations will peak at about 9 billion, and then start to decline. The reduction in population will be slow - hundreds of years. I asked myself, in this world of declining population, who will be the mothers?

 

It seems to me that simple evolution will kick in. Over time, a higher and higher proportion of the population will be descendents of women who want more than 2 children. If the desire to have children is at all genetic, then the desire will increase every generation, till eventually, most women will choose to have more than 2 children, and the population will start to rise again.

 

If all this is true, then in the long term (maybe 1000 years plus) there will again be a population problem with too many people.

[Mr Skeptic]

Won't the population start growing again when we start to colonize new planets?

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic.

 

Interesting point. Personally I am a bit of a romantic about that. I love the idea of a new wave of pioneers setting forth to conquer the galaxy.

 

However, getting away from romanticism, and down to hard reality, it seems unlikely that will happen any time soon. When we think of the time gap between the last man on the moon, and the next moon landing .....

 

I think we will need a space elevator to permit any meaningful colonisation of other planets. And a second elevator down to the planet being colonised (Mars??). When do you think this might happen?

[Mr Skeptic]

A space elevator? It might be possible within a couple decades, but I doubt one will be built anytime soon (can you say "terrorist target"?). I think that to do proper space travel we will need nuclear powered rockets, be they big or little.

 

Also, we would need a huge amount of engineering per person, so I'm not sure how much population could actually be sustained off earth.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

The team working on the idea of a space levator for NASA say they will be able to get it done by 2020. However, I am sceptical ....

 

Your point about terrorist targets is a good one. I hope it will not stop the development, but I suspect the necessary security measures if you were going to be a passenger would be horrendous.

 

You would need some way of keeping any aircraft well distant. Maybe you could hang anti-aircraft missiles off the elevator structure, and have them set up to automatically destroy any target within a set distance.