In article <3hovu7$g1o at canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
Ken Wolfe <kenwolfe at access.mbnet.mb.ca> wrote:
>In <Pine.SOL.3.91.950212144723.16568A-100000 at corona> Patrick O'Neil <patrick at corona> writes:
>>natural resources, and our societies and economies cannot handle the
>>results of significant life extension.
If significant life-extension is available but is denied, is this really
different from mass-murder? Would it not be better, at least to offer
people the choice between reproduction and life-extension (note that 2 or
less children per couple does not create an exponential population problem).
>will get it curbed for us. If you take our current exponential
>population growth rate and project it a few thousand years in the future,
The current population growth is not exponential. The growth rate for the
last 400 years has been hyperbolic (much worse than exponential!) and the
growth rate for the last 20 years has slowed greatly. I am not sure if there
is any way to model population to predict the future.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Rauchfuss (Smokefoot) "I never knew I could change my life,
brauchfu at pcocd2.intel.com like the artist paints his dreams on
a canvas" - Minor Detail
