The Evolution of the Doubling of Life Expectancy

[catherine]

"How the Human Lifespan Doubled in 100 Years." A long article and hopefully no paywall, but very interesting account of all the factors--scientific, promotional, activist, and serendipitous--that led to eliminating all the major illnesses that occurred prior to the last century. We so take for granted that our children aren't routinely killed by smallpox, cholera, TB, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and so many others. We can thank the innovators, the curious, the zealous, and the persistent of the 19th and 20th centuries for our reasonable expectations that most of us will have 70-80+ years of life.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/27/m...gtype=Homepage

[razz]

Impressive article. The biggest surprise to me was:
The truth is the spike in global population has not been caused by some worldwide surge in fertility. What changed is people stopped dying.

[catherine]

Impressive article. The biggest surprise to me was:
The truth is the spike in global population has not been caused by some worldwide surge in fertility. What changed is people stopped dying.

Yes, that is the other side of the population argument. The newly published Census data in the US backs that up-- the US, like many countries in Europe, faces a declining birth rate as well as an expansion of the aging population. And despite all the immigration fear-mongers railing about outsiders "stealing" our stuff, immigration has actually stabilized and is NOT contributing to a growth in population

[JaneV2.0]

And despite all the immigration fear-mongers railing about outsiders "stealing" our stuff, immigration has actually stabilized and is NOT contributing to a growth in population

That can't be said often enough. Immigration is our inoculation against stagnation. And do we really want a nation made up of Identity Evropa types? Shudder.

[catherine]

[B][I]

Immigration is our inoculation against stagnation.

That can't be said enough either.

[LDAHL]

Yes, that is the other side of the population argument. The newly published Census data in the US backs that up-- the US, like many countries in Europe, faces a declining birth rate as well as an expansion of the aging population. And despite all the immigration fear-mongers railing about outsiders "stealing" our stuff, immigration has actually stabilized and is NOT contributing to a growth in population

So open borders are a means of out-sourcing childbearing?

[catherine]

So open borders are a means of out-sourcing childbearing?

Maybe! Good idea.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I'd have no problem if immigration was managed to keep the current population of the U.S. the same.

But saying the population hasn't grown in the U.S. seems simply flatout wrong:
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/peo...ta/population/

I'd glad for all the medical advances.

It depends on how one wants to manage population, via killing off old people (old starting at over 40 or 50 perhaps? one could certainly make the case) or via having less kids. Most people would think the latter was much preferable and frankly much more humane (although there does seem one cheerleader for old people dying on this board). Of course since global population keeps growing, I think mother nature is going to answer the question for us, and it's going to be through mass death instead, and not just of old people either. Of course it NEVER WAS just of old people, women dying in childbirth is not old.

And why is outsourcing childbearing a good idea? I mean I could see the moral argument I suppose: don't have kids in order so we can save immigrants from their often miserable lives. It's humanitarian not to have kids. I'm not sure how persuasive it's going to be though, when back in reality people will go on having kids anyway, OR a lot of people will not have kids because they simply can't afford them in this very expensive society, and I'm not sure I'd want to celebrate daycare etc. being so expensive as some sort of great success. Even in places where it's affordable there is population decrease, sure that's a choice.

[catherine]

I'd have no problem if immigration was managed to keep the current population of the U.S. the same.

But saying the population hasn't grown in the U.S. seems simply flatout wrong:
https://usafacts.org/data/topics/peo...ta/population/

I'd glad for all the medical advances.

It depends on how one wants to manage population, via killing off old people (old starting at over 40 or 50 perhaps, realistically at some point that is old) or via having less kids. Most people would think the latter was much preferable. Of course I think mother nature is going to answer the question for us, and it's going to be through mass death instead.

And why is outsourcing childbearing a good idea? I mean I could see the moral argument I suppose: don't have kids in order so we can save immigrants from their often miserable lives. It's humanitarian not to have kids. I'm not sure how persuasive it's going to be though, when back in reality people will go on having kids anyway, OR a lot of people will not have kids because they simply can't afford them in this very expensive society, and I'm not sure I'd want to celebrate daycare etc. being so expensive as some sort of great success or something.

On the population issue, the trends are based on dicennial data, recently released from the Census Bureau. I believe they report 7% increase in population.

As far as the bar for killing off old people, when I have asked doctors in market research what they consider "elderly" the answer is always "65 because that's when everything seems to start falling apart." So you 40-65 year olds would probably be safe if that ever became a strategy for controlling the population. I'd be out of here, despite the fact that I feel like a wiser 30-year old most days.

I'm just kidding about outsourcing childbirth. I agree with Jane that the same old same old becomes stagnant, in fact it's a law of Newtonian physics that an object at rest will stay at rest. Change is not only inevitable, it is necessary. So if we have to "import" fresh blood, so be it.

[JaneV2.0]

I've mentioned before my personal observation is that there has been a drastic drop in childbearing during my lifetime--and I can't see that changing. Most of us don't need a family of farmhands, or insurance against offspring dying in droves from communicable diseases, or proof of virility, or whatever reasons for fecundity existed in the past. Call me an optimist, but I think world population growth will soon be moot.