Overpopulation: Fact or Myth?

[TheWarriorMonk]

Maximum life expectancy has increased; your assertion is false. For example, insurance carriers have purposefully increased their assumed maximum life expectancy.

Maximum life expectancy has not increased one bit. What you may be referring to is that the average/median (or whatever measure of central tendency you are using) maximum expectancy has increased. What has not increased is the biological age limit of the human body. That limit, was and is, based on our understanding of biology (natural chromosomal damage, etc.), in the 120+/- range. You can eat healthy, exercise, and eliminate ALL disease and the body will not live longer than that biological limit (possibly barring people with certain genetic mutations, of course). You can play with all the statistics you want, but you will note that all those statistics are less than that biological ceiling.

 

[SpiderByte]

It’s not so much population per-se as the amount of resources being used up.

 

[kbachler]

Maximum life expectancy has not increased one bit. What you may be referring to is that the average/median (or whatever measure of central tendency you are using) maximum expectancy has increased. What has not increased is the biological age limit of the human body. That limit, was and is, based on our understanding of biology (natural chromosomal damage, etc.), in the 120+/- range. You can eat healthy, exercise, and eliminate ALL disease and the body will not live longer than that biological limit (possibly barring people with certain genetic mutations, of course). You can play with all the statistics you want, but you will note that all those statistics are less than that biological ceiling.

I’m sorry, you’re simply incorrect. Maximum life expectancy has increased. This is a verifiable fact, and it can be verified by checking with actuaries at life insurance carriers for example. You seem to get lost in the words a lot. You seem to have notions that are not standard notions to which you are trying to apply standard “term of the art” phrases. This indicates to me that you aren’t actually educated on the topic.

The phrase includes the word “Expectancy” which indicates that the fact is statistical in its nature.

If you read my posts in this thread, really read them, you will note that I have pointed out that if what you mean to refer to is some theoretical maximum for the human body as it is currently known - which is not what is meant by the terms you are throwing around - then I would agree that there has been very limited increase in that theoretical maximum although there has been some, and we are at a point in history for the first time to reasonably expect a significant amount more.

 

[Rau]

Maximum life expectancy has not increased one bit.

No - Kbachler is correct on this point. He is talking about the observed statistical characteristics of sample sets (being the humans on earth) over time. As he says, it is not so much that we have built (or bred) better humans over time, but rather we have got better at combatting the factors that have historically limited longevity to less than its “natural potential”: war, mayhem, disease, bodily ‘breakdowns’, poor nutrition, etc.

As TheWarriorMonk says, this natural human potential has not changed, or has changed very little.

It is conceivable that this potential could be increased by genetic improvements or by therapies to continually repair the natural bodily degradations.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m sorry, you’re simply incorrect. Maximum life expectancy has increased. This is a verifiable fact, and it can be verified by checking with actuaries at life insurance carriers for example.

Insurance companies and actuarial tables are great for dealing with risk, but have nothing to do with biological research.

This indicates to me that you aren’t actually educated on the topic.

You’re not even discussing the topic. There is a biological limit to how long a human body is expected to live, and you’re discussing insurance companies, not biology. When you have evidence that people are living beyond the mid-120 year range, you will have evidence to prove your point that the maximum biological limit of man has changed. So far, you have provided not a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[kbachler]

Insurance companies and actuarial tables are great for dealing with risk, but have nothing to do with biological research.

There was not claim that they did. They do have something to do with actual occurrence, since that is what they are based upon.

You’re not even discussing the topic. There is a biological limit to how long a human body is expected to live, and you’re discussing insurance companies, not biology. When you have evidence that people are living beyond the mid-120 year range, you will have evidence to prove your point that the maximum biological limit of man has changed. So far, you have provided not a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise.

I most certainly have been discussing the topic. I’ve even enumerated the portions of the discussion in prior posts.

#1: People are living longer. This is factual information.
#2: The maximum life expectancy HAS changed.
#3: Due to increased health, the “maximum biological limit” has changed, but relatively minimally. Clearly we are seeing more people at super longevity status.
#4: We can expect additional changes in the future based on current age.

In addition - and I should have pointed this out before - the concept of a “set maximum biological limit” is a wrong-headed concept. Things don’t work like that.

“Old age” is not a point on a scale. “Oldest possible age” is not a point on a scale. It’s a conceptual place plus a variability. It’s a statistical concept on its face. There is always SOME probability of someone living older than any age you choose as the oldest age. That probability grows increasingly small as the ages we choose are older, based on current health care.

When you say “There is a biological limit to how long a human body is expected to live, and you’re discussing insurance companies, not biology.” you’re missing the point(s).

#1: EXPECTED to live. That’s a statistical concept.
#2: I’m not discussing insurance companies. I’m discussing the mortality data and the future mortality assumptions used by insurance companies BASED ON ACTUAL OBSERVED INFORMATION. Insurance companies don’t pull these numbers out of their ears. They collect factual statistics and base their projections on those. To discuss what is actually happening we don’t need to discuss biology. It doesn’t take a doctor to measure death rates - since doctors have ALREADY signed off on the death. An actuary will do just fine. They are measuring what is real.

 

[kbachler]

No - Kbachler is correct on this point. He is talking about the observed statistical characteristics of sample sets (being the humans on earth) over time. As he says, it is not so much that we have built (or bred) better humans over time, but rather we have got better at combatting the factors that have historically limited longevity to less than its “natural potential”: war, mayhem, disease, bodily ‘breakdowns’, poor nutrition, etc.

As TheWarriorMonk says, this natural human potential has not changed, or has changed very little.

It is conceivable that this potential could be increased by genetic improvements or by therapies to continually repair the natural bodily degradations.

And I would point out - because he doesn’t seem to be listening to me when I type it - that I have agreed several times with "this natural human potential has not changed, or has changed very little. " But I would also note a theoretical construct of how long we CAN live, when most people have not typically lived to the maximum, is less important than how much longer they DO live in terms of overpopulation. At some point, if “DO LIVE” approaches the theoretical “CAN LIVE” then further extending the “CAN LIVE” will become more important to the overpopulation problem.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

There was not claim that they did. They do have something to do with actual occurrence, since that is what they are based upon.

I most certainly have been discussing the topic. I’ve even enumerated the portions of the discussion in prior posts.

#1: People are living longer. This is factual information.

True. Has anyone lived beyond the expected biological limit? No.

#2: The maximum life expectancy HAS changed.

True. Has anyone lived beyond the expected biological limit? No.

#3: Due to increased health, the “maximum biological limit” has changed, but relatively minimally. Clearly we are seeing more people at super longevity status.

Has anyone lived beyond the expected biological limit? No. Therefore this has not changed.

Have the measures of central tendency changed? Sure. Does that mean that the human body has changed in a manner that will allow it to exceed it expected biological limit? No.

#4: We can expect additional changes in the future based on current age.

Sure. But we can’t expect one to live beyond the expected biological limit with structural changes to the human body. Health and exercise won’t do that. That, at minimum, requires genetic mutation.

In addition - and I should have pointed this out before - the concept of a “set maximum biological limit” is a wrong-headed concept. Things don’t work like that.

Since there is no evidence to the contrary, you don’t have a basis for that statement.

You’re arguing statistics, which ignore the limits set by biology. I’m arguing biology.

 

[Rau]

You’re arguing statistics, which ignore the limits set by biology. I’m arguing biology.

But what you are arguing has had nothing to do with population dynamics as they have been studied for many years! Current population studies are all about birth rates and death rates due to causes which on which well understood health and medicine improvements can and have had an impact.

In the future, there is the potential to bring about increases in observable longevity through new means, including therapies that repair natural biological degradation, or genetic therapies. Is that notion troublesome or offensive to anyone?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But what you are arguing has had nothing to do with population dynamics as they have been studied for many years! Current population studies are all about birth rates and death rates due to causes which on which well understood health and medicine improvements can and have had an impact.

Health and medicine have done nothing…zip, zero, zilch…to increase the ultimate lifespan of man. Much of it simply prolongs the agony of the person.

In the future, there is the potential to bring about increases in observable longevity through new means, including therapies that repair natural biological degradation, or genetic therapies. Is that notion troublesome or offensive to anyone?

It depends. Is tampering with God’s design offensive? If not, why is in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc. offensive? That is also tampering with God’s design. Tampering with God’s design means that God design is not perfect, and that man can do better.

 

[JennyAnne]

It is an issue, but not a very big issue. It’s not really about how many people can fit on the earth, it’s more about resources such as food. But there are much bigger issues in the world right now, overpopulation does not rank high.

 

[Rau]

Health and medicine have done nothing…zip, zero, zilch…to increase the **ultimate lifespan **of man. Much of it simply prolongs the agony of the person.

What is the “ultimate lifespan” ? Can it be measured?

We’re talking about observable lifespans. They are longer now than they used to be, and you know full well that improved healthcare, including vaccines, antibiotics and a host of medicines, surgeries and treatments have played a part in that.

In most cases, these measures ‘fight’ “externalities” that impinge on longevity. This is not surprising, because our bodies exist in a “real environment”, replete with threats and poor habits, and not in some perfect clean environment and culture.

It depends. Is tampering with God’s design offensive? If not, why is in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc. offensive? That is also tampering with God’s design. Tampering with God’s design means that God design is not perfect, and that man can do better.

OK - this explains the tone of some of your prior posts. I don’t have a fixed position on this point (ie. the morality of potential future treatments to lengthen potential lifespan). But the ethical debates should be fascinating!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

What is the “ultimate lifespan” ? Can it be measured?

To an extent, yes. It’s based on the chromosomal damage that naturally occurs during cell division, and how many times a cell can divide before it (or a particular body system) can longer longer function.

We’re talking about observable lifespans. They are longer now than they used to be, and you know full well that improved healthcare, including vaccines, antibiotics and a host of medicines, surgeries and treatments have played a part in that.

Once again, these, at best, can extend a person’s life under the maximum expected limit. That is why with all the improvements, you still don’t see 130 year old people. Body systems are naturally designed to fail before then. Improved healthcare, vaccines, antibiotics, etc. don’t change the body’s underlying structure, therefore the body will continue to fail by the time it hits the mid-120 range.

This argument is like saying that because we can make things go faster, the speed of light limit doesn’t exist.

OK - this explains the tone of some of your prior posts.

Actually, I get annoyed with “debates” like this. People attempt to make a point, yet ignore the natural parameters that set their discussion.

 

[Rau]

Actually, I get annoyed with “debates” like this. People attempt to make a point, yet ignore the natural parameters that set their discussion.

To be honest, I read the debate as being mostly about you ignoring factual statements from kbachler. (Sorry to be harsh.) I think that is resolved now in that your and his points are understood and not in conflict. As to the future science, and it’s ethics, we will see what happens over the next 50 years or so.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I think that is resolved now in that your and his points are understood and not in conflict.

The facts are factual, and those facts are working in the natural parameters I have noted. What is not factual is his speculation. It is not reasonable to assume that because something follows a trend, that trend will continue right past the natural boundaries, without structural changes in the biological system (i.e., genetic coding).

 

[kbachler]

To an extent, yes. It’s based on the chromosomal damage that naturally occurs during cell division, and how many times a cell can divide before it (or a particular body system) can longer longer function.

Once again, these, at best, can extend a person’s life under the maximum expected limit. That is why with all the improvements, you still don’t see 130 year old people. Body systems are naturally designed to fail before then. Improved healthcare, vaccines, antibiotics, etc. don’t change the body’s underlying structure, therefore the body will continue to fail by the time it hits the mid-120 range.

This argument is like saying that because we can make things go faster, the speed of light limit doesn’t exist.

Actually, I get annoyed with “debates” like this. People attempt to make a point, yet ignore the natural parameters that set their discussion.

It’s nothing like talking about the speed of light. The speed of light is a physical limit that has a mathematical foundation; it is theoretically possible to travel faster than the speed of light but that introduces all sorts of difficulties, many of which the meaning of which is unclear.

There is nothing like this for aging. There are issues - but the issues are more like the issues we had with the speed of sound - where better technology might well address the issue. The speed of light will not be addressed by better technology. It MIGHT be addressed by a fundamentally better understanding of the universe, but not by better technology.

There is growing agreement among specialists is aging that THERE IS NOT a natural limit to aging. In fact, many things live longer than humans, and humans live longer than many things. Many living things age at varying rates, and there are systems within the bodies of various living things that combat aging. The increasing thought process today is that aging should be thought of as a disease.

 

[kbachler]

The facts are factual, and those facts are working in the natural parameters I have noted. What is not factual is his speculation. It is not reasonable to assume that because something follows a trend, that trend will continue right past the natural boundaries, without structural changes in the biological system (i.e., genetic coding).

Of course not. But such an argument was never made, nor was it fundamental to the discussion.

 

[kbachler]

It depends. Is tampering with God’s design offensive? If not, why is in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, etc. offensive? That is also tampering with God’s design. Tampering with God’s design means that God design is not perfect, and that man can do better.

Did God design our mind? Did He tell us to use it? Are automobiles offensive? They make us travel faster than God’s design.

 

[CroCatholic]

I am of the opinion that overpopulation is a myth. Previous posters have more than adequately described the issues of distribution of wealth and resources, etc. so I won’t go there. I propose that the problem isn’t the quantity of people on earth but rather the quality. When people can put God first, their neighbour second and themselves last, we will solve the worlds issues…

 

[kbachler]

I am of the opinion that overpopulation is a myth. Previous posters have more than adequately described the issues of distribution of wealth and resources, etc. so I won’t go there. I propose that the problem isn’t the quantity of people on earth but rather the quality. When people can put God first, their neighbour second and themselves last, we will solve the worlds issues…

Have you ever studied exponential growth and decay?