Suppression of childhood diseases has unintended consequences!

[dav...@agent.com]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesity-genes-variants/54082720/1?csp=34news

Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
according to a large genetic study released Sunday. The discovery
could eventually lead to treatments and specific lifestyle advice
for heavy children. Although previous research isolated gene
variants that impact extremely obese children and obese adults,
this is the most extensive effort yet to pinpoint those involved
in more typical childhood obesity. The latest findings are part
of a large analysis of genetic studies conducted on thousands of
children from the USA/Europe/Australia. Experts have long known
that both genetics & enviro factors play a role in development of
obesity. This research "robustly" shows these 2 gene variants
predispose some children to obesity more than others, said Struan
Grant, associate director of the Center for Applied Genomics at
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "Childhood obesity is
partly in your genes. It's partly your lifestyle."

The gene variants appear to increase the risk of obesity in the
first few years of life — even in children as young as 2, said
Grant, the lead author of the study, published online in Nature
Genetics. "We don't know how many gene variants are involved in
childhood obesity, but we've identified the variants with the
largest effect," he said. Exactly how these gene variants work
isnt known, but "when we look at the scientific literature, they
may be operating in the intestine," Grant said. "It may have
something to do with the bacteria in the gut." "Obesity is the
result of a complex interplay among biological/behavioral/cultural/
enviro/econo factors," said Karen Winer, a program director at
the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Nat'l Inst of Child Health & Human
Development, part of the N.I.H., which helped fund the new study.
"Obesity is recognized as a highly heritable condition, but the
underlying genetic factors associated with common obesity, until
today, have remained a mystery," she said.

Currently, about 1/3 of kids are obese/overweight. Roughly 17% of
children & adolescents ages 2-19 are obese. Kids are considered
obese if they're in 95th percentile or above, based on standard
national pediatric growth charts. Grant & colleagues analyzed
genes contained in the world's largest collection of DNA from
obese children & slim children, found in nearly 2 dozen studies
covering more than 20,000 children of European ancestry. "We're
going to continue to look for more genes, & the more info we get,
the more accurately we will eventually make lifestyle decisions
for children based on their genetic makeup," Grant said. "This is
giving us new insights to the biology of obesity, which could
potentially one day lead to both more efficient medicines & more
specific diet/exercise advice for kids who are genetically pre-
disposed to obesity."

Ruth Loos, dir. of the Genetics of Obesity & Related Metabolic
Traits Program at Mt Sinai School of Medicine in New York, wasnt
involved in this study but says this research, like previous work,
"shows that genetic susceptibility to obesity begins at an early
age. However, this doesnt mean that those who are genetically
susceptible are destined to become obese adults, because healthy
lifestyle remains an important factor that can reduce one's
genetic susceptibility." This study suggests "that trying to fight
this genetic susceptibility should start early in life," Loos said.
She said gene research may provide insight into the biological
pathways that contribute to obesity. "If some of these genes turn
out to be drug-able targets, then maybe this could lead to new
medication. But that is indeed years away, it will require much
more detailed physiological research," Loos said.

[Boikat]

On Apr 9, 12:16 pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...

So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?

Boikat

[Ron O]

Jonathan Swift would prefer the obese children be served up to
decrease the surplus population.

Ron Okimoto

[dav...@agent.com]

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>
>> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
>> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>

>So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

Health Effects of Childhood Obesity

Childhood obesity has both immediate & long-term effects on
health & well-being.

Immediate health effects:

* Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardio-
vascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood
pressure. In a population-based sample of 5 to 17-year-olds,
70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardio-
vascular disease.
* Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a
condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk
for development of diabetes.
* Children & adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for
bone & joint problems, sleep apnea, & social & psychological
problems such as stigmatization & poor self-esteem.

Long-term health effects:

* Children & adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as
adults & are therefore more at risk for adult health problems
such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types
of cancer, & osteoarthritis. One study showed that children
who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be
obese as adults.
* Overweight & obesity are associated with increased risk for
many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon,
endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder,
thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple
myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

[Boikat]

You didn't answer my question: You'd rather have dead skinny children

than slightly
overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?

Boikat

[David Canzi]

<dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesity-genes-variants/54082720/1?csp=34news
>
>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
anywhere in the article.

--
David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It

[dav...@agent.com]

"David Canzi" <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesity-genes-variants/54082720/1?csp=34news
>>
>>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>
>I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>anywhere in the article.

The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
& others has allowed obesity gene variants
to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.

[dav...@agent.com]

What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?

[dav...@agent.com]

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>

>> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>
>> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
>> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>

>So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?

You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
controlled way beginning during your lifetime?

[Arkalen]

Because those obesity gene variants are linked to special vulnerability
to childhood diseases ?

[Kermit]

It won't reach nine billion.

My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 10, 7:31 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...

>
> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>
> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >anywhere in the article.
>
> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.

I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.

And why would they be linked to communicable diseases? If anything.
obesity genes are linked to recent famines, which select for folks who
can efficiently store food energy.

The current obesity epidemic is a result of lifestyle: unhealthy foods
(calorie-dense, high glycemic index, low fiber, etc.) and vastly
reduced exercise.

Kermit

[chris thompson]

On Apr 10, 10:31 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...
>

> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>
> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >anywhere in the article.
>
> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.

I fail to see how you established that cause and effect relationship.

Chris

[dav...@agent.com]

Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...
>>
>> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>
>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>> >anywhere in the article.
>>
>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>
>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
Childhood Obesity Facts

* Childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years.
* The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
* In 2008, more than 1/3 of children & adolescents were overweight
or obese.
* Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a
particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a
combination of these factors. Obesity is defined as having
excess body fat.
* Overweight & obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too
few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—
and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, & environ-
mental factors.

>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?

Why not?

[jillery]

To answer your question directly, it will certainly have more people.
Beyond that, nothing is certain. I agree that more people multiply
the existing challenges, and is likely unsustainable. OTOH only one
billion people all trying to live a "western" lifestyle is likely
equally unsustainable. Contary to the implication of your question,
the issue isn't just the number of people.

[jillery]

Most likely :(

[dav...@agent.com]

I'm just speculating. It might be coincidental.
==========
Autism may be linked to obesity during pregnancy
Apr 08 2012 - Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer

CHICAGO — New research says obesity during pregnancy might
increase chances for having a child with autism. It's among the
first studies linking the two. It doesn't prove obesity causes
autism, but the authors say their results raise public health
concerns because of the high level of obesity in the U.S.
The study involved about 1,000 California children, ages 2 to 5.
Results are being released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics.
Previous research has linked obesity during pregnancy with still-
births, preterm births & some birth defects.

[dav...@agent.com]

>control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, &

>some new ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.

Those are death control methods, too, not just birth control.

[dav...@agent.com]

Yeah, when our cities sprawl out, we have to drive more, so
need more oil. With population under control, we can shrink
back to a more manageable size, where we can walk or bike
to more of the places we need to go. Then fewer of the
economies of scale will kick in, and globalization & the widening
income gap will subside. One example....with lower life expectancy,
more of family estates will go to children, instead of doctors &
caregivers.

[Boikat]

You still have not answered my question.

Boikat

[David Canzi]

<dav...@agent.com> wrote:
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...
>>>
>>> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>>> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>>
>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>>> >anywhere in the article.
>>>
>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>>
>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>
>http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
>Childhood Obesity Facts

[...]

>
>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>
>Why not?

It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
your job, not anybody else's.

[dav...@agent.com]

* The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.

We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.

[dav...@agent.com]

Someone said you stopped beating your wife. Is that true?

[Boikat]

> Someone said you stopped beating your wife.  Is that true?-

You still have not answered my question.

Boikat

[Boikat]

If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to solve future
problems. But to you, that's too much like work, and work is a dirty
word, so it's easier to let children and elderly die of curable
diseases, right?

Boikat

[David Canzi]

None of the evidence you're quoting here supports the idea that
suppressing childhood diseases leads to a higher prevalence of
childhood obesity. None of it even suggests it as a possibility
to consider.

If we're proposing an experiment to investigate a hypothesis
for no more reason than that somebody was able to conceive of
it, then let's also propose a study of the risks of injury and
property damage from falling rainbows.

>We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.

In other words you invented a premise, without evidence supporting
it, because you could use it to argue for an opinion you already
held for some other reason.

[dav...@agent.com]

Don't hold your breath....you'll asphyxiate.

[dav...@agent.com]

The fact that the incidence of obesity rose so much, shortly
after the beginning of the suppression of those diseases,
is most certainly an indicator.

[dav...@agent.com]

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>
>> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
>> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>>
>> >So what?  You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>>
>> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
>> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
>> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
>
>If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
>solve future problems.

Like what, fracking? Highly controversial.
Nuclear? Again, controversial.
Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.

[jillery]

Would that meet your requirements?

[Boikat]

On Apr 10, 9:48 pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
>
> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>
> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>
> >> >So what?  You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>
> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
>
> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
> >solve future problems.
>
> Like what, fracking?  Highly controversial.
> Nuclear?  Again, controversial.

But letting people die of curable diseases in mainstream?

> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.

Why should that be a concern of yours? After all, some of the
terrerist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less
mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist
attack

Boikat

[Boikat]

I'm not holding my breath. Why don't you answer my question?

Boikat

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/10/2012 10:44 PM, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> The fact that the incidence of obesity rose so much, shortly
> after the beginning of the suppression of those diseases,
> is most certainly an indicator.

I'll bet that people in countries that suppress childhood diseases are
much more likely to get in automobile accidents as well.

[dav...@agent.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Auto_fatalities.svg

[dav...@agent.com]

I'd rather see future population have the same
opportunities that we enjoy. Why are you
dumping debt & overcrowding on them?

[dav...@agent.com]

[dav...@agent.com]

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:

>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...

>>
>> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>
>> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
>> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,

>> according to a large genetic study released Sunday. The discovery
>> could eventually lead to treatments and specific lifestyle advice
>> for heavy children.  Although previous research isolated gene
>> variants that impact extremely obese children and obese adults,
>> this is the most extensive effort yet to pinpoint those involved
>> in more typical childhood obesity.  The latest findings are part
>> of a large analysis of genetic studies conducted on thousands of
>> children from the USA/Europe/Australia.  Experts have long known
>> that both genetics & enviro factors play a role in development of
>> obesity. This research "robustly" shows these 2 gene variants
>> predispose some children to obesity more than others, said Struan
>> Grant, associate director of the Center for Applied Genomics at
>> The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "Childhood obesity is
>> partly in your genes. It's partly your lifestyle."
>>
>> The gene variants appear to increase the risk of obesity in the
>> first few years of life — even in children as young as 2, said
>> Grant, the lead author of the study, published online in Nature
>> Genetics. "We don't know how many gene variants are involved in
>> childhood obesity, but we've identified the variants with the
>> largest effect," he said.  Exactly how these gene variants work
>> isnt known, but "when we look at the scientific literature, they
>> may be operating in the intestine," Grant said. "It may have
>> something to do with the bacteria in the gut."  "Obesity is the
>> result of a complex interplay among biological/behavioral/cultural/
>> enviro/econo factors," said Karen Winer, a program director at
>> the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Nat'l Inst of Child Health & Human
>> Development, part of the N.I.H., which helped fund the new study.
>> "Obesity is recognized as a highly heritable condition, but the
>> underlying genetic factors associated with common obesity, until
>> today, have remained a mystery," she said.
>>
>> Currently, about 1/3 of kids are obese/overweight. Roughly 17% of
>> children & adolescents ages 2-19 are obese. Kids are considered
>> obese if they're in 95th percentile or above, based on standard
>> national pediatric growth charts.  Grant & colleagues analyzed
>> genes contained in the world's largest collection of DNA from
>> obese children & slim children, found in nearly 2 dozen studies
>> covering more than 20,000 children of European ancestry.  "We're
>> going to continue to look for more genes, & the more info we get,
>> the more accurately we will eventually make lifestyle decisions
>> for children based on their genetic makeup," Grant said. "This is
>> giving us new insights to the biology of obesity, which could
>> potentially one day lead to both more efficient medicines & more
>> specific diet/exercise advice for kids who are genetically pre-
>> disposed to obesity."
>>
>> Ruth Loos, dir. of the Genetics of Obesity & Related Metabolic
>> Traits Program at Mt Sinai School of Medicine in New York, wasnt
>> involved in this study but says this research, like previous work,
>> "shows that genetic susceptibility to obesity begins at an early
>> age. However, this doesnt mean that those who are genetically
>> susceptible are destined to become obese adults, because healthy
>> lifestyle remains an important factor that can reduce one's
>> genetic susceptibility."  This study suggests "that trying to fight
>> this genetic susceptibility should start early in life," Loos said.
>> She said gene research may provide insight into the biological
>> pathways that contribute to obesity. "If some of these genes turn
>> out to be drug-able targets, then maybe this could lead to new
>> medication. But that is indeed years away, it will require much
>> more detailed physiological research," Loos said.

>
>So what? You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?

[dav...@agent.com]

[dav...@agent.com]

[dav...@agent.com]

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>
>> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
>> >> >> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
>> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>>
>> >> >So what?  You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly
>> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>>
>> >> You'd rather reach an equilibrium any kind of way after your
>> >> lifetime than reach an equilibrium in a more planned &
>> >> controlled way beginning during your lifetime?
>>
>> >If I had investment income, I'd rather invest in R&D to
>> >solve future problems.
>>
>> Like what, fracking?  Highly controversial.
>> Nuclear?  Again, controversial.
>

>But letting people die of curable diseases is mainstream?

It doesn't destroy the environment; it preserves it!

>> Better do something quick...water tables are falling.
>> How will you democratize the Muslim countries?
>> If you don't get that done, you'll have to continue
>> wasting resources on counterterrorism, indefinitely.
>
>Why should that be a concern of yours?

I want to have consistently successful diplomacy, instead of
the usual breakdowns. In order to do that, we need a
foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.
The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.
But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
would be more believable. Besides that, YOU said the problems
were a concern of YOURS.

>After all, some of the

>terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children. One less

[Greg Guarino]

What, my comment went over your head?

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/11/2012 12:41 PM, dav...@agent.com wrote:

[chris thompson]

On Apr 10, 1:49 pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:

> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >dav...@agent.com wrote:

> >>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> >> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...
>

> >> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>

> >> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >> >anywhere in the article.
>
> >> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>

> >I fail to see how you established that cause and effect relationship.
>
> I'm just speculating.  It might be coincidental.
> ==========
> Autism may be linked to obesity during pregnancy
> Apr 08 2012 - Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer
>
> CHICAGO — New research says obesity during pregnancy might
> increase chances for having a child with autism.  It's among the
> first studies linking the two. It doesn't prove obesity causes
> autism, but the authors say their results raise public health
> concerns because of the high level of obesity in the U.S.
> The study involved about 1,000 California children, ages 2 to 5.
> Results are being released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics.
> Previous research has linked obesity during pregnancy with still-
> births, preterm births & some birth defects.

Which raises the question- what do you mean by a childhood disease? In
recent history, most children died of things like pertussis,
diphtheria, and scarlet fever. Further back you get smallpox, yellow
fever and measles (and the latter still holds true in some parts of
the world today). Are those the childhood diseases you're referring
to?

Chris

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <jug8o75mialmoh3ul...@4ax.com>, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> "David Canzi" <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesity-genes-variants/54082720/1?csp=34news

>>>
>>>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
>>>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>>
>>I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
>>anywhere in the article.
>
> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.

So far, you're the only person who said it. It isn't
anywhere in the article you quoted.


--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <976deadd-3634-42e5...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, Kermit wrote:

> On Apr 10, 7:32 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[trim]

>> >You didn't answer my question:  You'd rather have dead skinny

>> >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
>> >surplus population?
>>

>> What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>

> It won't reach nine billion.

It's already 7, so 9 is not a reach.

> My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
> control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
> ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.

Heat, flood, and drought are traditional ones. All 3 invoke
the traditional 4 horsemen.

Mass extinction is perhaps a new one. Arguably not, given the
extinction of (at least) new world megafauna. But, again,
as predator species are extinguished, prey species can have
population explosions leading to famine, pestilence, and plague.
Or, as pollinator species go extinct, crop species may become
unreliable or unavailable, leading to famine. Or ...

[Kermit]

On Apr 10, 10:51 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:

> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >> >> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >> >> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

> >> >> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
> >> >> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >> >> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>

> >> >> >So what?  You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly

> >> >> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>

> >> >You didn't answer my question:  You'd rather have dead skinny
> >> >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
> >> >surplus population?
>
> >> What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>
> >It won't reach nine billion.
>

> >My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth

> >control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, &

> >some new ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.
>

> Those are death control methods, too, not just birth control.

Yes, voluntary birth control would be best.

Involuntary would still be better than the Four Horsemen.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 11, 12:27 pm, Robert Grumbine <b...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:

> In article <976deadd-3634-42e5-b67a-9f2913900...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, Kermit wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 7:32 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> [trim]
>
> >> >You didn't answer my question:  You'd rather have dead skinny
> >> >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
> >> >surplus population?
>
> >> What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>
> > It won't reach nine billion.
>
>   It's already 7, so 9 is not a reach.

I won't be astonished if we succeed in this, true. But every step of
the way will put more demands on resources. Food production is already
down, water is pushed to the limit and will be harder to control
because of the effects of global warming.

My money says that the death rate will overcome the birth rate within
20 years, and it won't be pleasant.

>
> > My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
> > control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
> > ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.
>
>   Heat, flood, and drought are traditional ones.  All 3 invoke
> the traditional 4 horsemen.
>
>   Mass extinction is perhaps a new one.  Arguably not, given the
> extinction of (at least) new world megafauna.  But, again,
> as predator species are extinguished, prey species can have
> population explosions leading to famine, pestilence, and plague.
> Or, as pollinator species go extinct, crop species may become
> unreliable or unavailable, leading to famine.  Or ...

We have over-fished several of our favorite ocean food sources. There
are a few prey species left, but we are not managing well them on a
global scale. We are collectively losing the prisoner's dilemma.

There are alternatives, however:
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-photos/jellyfish-sandwiches

>
> --
> Robert Grumbinehttp://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/Science blog

> Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
> evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
> would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 10, 10:27 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:32:59 -0400, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> >>> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
>
> >>> >> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >>> >> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> >>> >> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play
> >>> >> a critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,
> >>> >> according to a large genetic study released Sunday.
>

> >>> >So what?  You'd rather have dead skinny children than slightly

> >>> >overweight live children to decrease the surplus population?
>

> >>You didn't answer my question:  You'd rather have dead skinny
> >>children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
> >>surplus population?
>
> >What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>

> To answer your question directly, it will certainly have more people.
> Beyond that, nothing is certain.  I agree that more people multiply
> the existing challenges, and is likely unsustainable.  OTOH only one
> billion people all trying to live a "western" lifestyle is likely
> equally unsustainable.  Contary to the implication of your question,
> the issue isn't just the number of people.

Correct. But a large population makes everything harder. Simpler
lifestyles would then be easier:
Living close to sources of food and work.
Bicycling and public transport.
Sustainable power production.
Recycle *everything.

More walking and cotton clothing, but keep the internet and debit
cards.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 10, 12:47 pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

> > <dav...@agent.com> wrote:
> >> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>dav...@agent.com wrote:

> >>>>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >>>> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...
>

> >>>> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >>>> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>

> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>
> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>

> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>
> >>http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
> >>Childhood Obesity Facts
> >[...]
>
> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>
> >>Why not?
>
> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases.  It takes effort to
> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true.  That effort is
> >your job, not anybody else's.
>
> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>      increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>      the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>      increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>
> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.

> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.

What? Why?

This is a radical idea, I know, but how about we give and kids flu
vaccines and use birth control?

I guarantee that no matter how politically difficult it would be to
persuade people to use birth control, it will be harder to talk them
into letting their kids die unnecessarily after giving birth to them.

Especially when there is no link between communicable diseases like
the flu and obesity.

Kermit

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:16:51 -0400, dav...@agent.com wrote:

>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesity-genes-variants/54082720/1?csp=34news

>
> Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>

> Scientists have discovered 2 gene variants that appear to play a
> critical role in the development of common childhood obesity,

1) McDonald's

2) Kentucky Fried Chicken


--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie

[dav...@agent.com]

And we can add autism, bipolar & ADHD to the list, right?

[dav...@agent.com]

>This is a radical idea, I know, but how about we give kids flu

>vaccines and use birth control?

Then you'd have fewer young workers to support
a growing number of elderly/retired. And population
would still rise. How about we shorten lifespans a bit?
Do we need to rock & spit for 15 years?

[jillery]

Nobody needs to wait to change their lifestyle. The benefits of the
things you suggest can be had right now. OTOH it's isn't possible for
everybody to live close to food and work. Many foods grow better in
specific locations. Many jobs are better suited in other locations.
There will always be a need for specialization and to trade for goods
and services made available elsewhere.

[Steven L.]

"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:976deadd-3634-42e5...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> It won't reach nine billion.
>

> My prediction. We'll stop growing that much using traditional birth
> control methods: war, famine, pestilence, and plague. Oh, and some new
> ones: flood, drought, mass extinctions, and heat.

The track record of such predictions has been remarkably poor.

You should have learned your lesson from the failures of "The Population
Bomb" and the Club of Rome.

But there is a distinct tendency among intellectuals to engage in this
kind of doom-and-gloom mental masturbation. It hasn't stopped since
Spengler a century ago.

And prophets of doom usually got that way out of disgust with the way
things are.




-- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

"dav...@agent.com" <dav...@agent.com> wrote in message
news:cg39o7lt0t839jt6n...@4ax.com:

> "David Canzi" <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> > <dav...@agent.com> wrote:

> >> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >>>>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >>>> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
> >>>>

> >>>> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...

> >>>>
> >>>> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >>>> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
> >>>>

> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
> >>>>
> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
> >>>
> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
> >>
> >>http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
> >>Childhood Obesity Facts
> >[...]
> >>
> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
> >>
> >>Why not?
> >
> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases. It takes effort to
> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true. That effort is
> >your job, not anybody else's.
>
> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
> increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
> the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
> increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>
> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.

> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.

There's another phenomenon in recent decades: The huge increase in
obesity among pet dogs and pet cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and
they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to
different infectious diseases.)

The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their
pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.




-- Steven L.

[Boikat]

You also want dead children and elderly.

> In order to do that, we need a
> foundation of general interest that everyone can buy into.

So, you propose murdering children by withholding medicine? That's
novel.

> The principle of reciprocity, or Golden Rule, is that foundation.

I doubt that you will find many sane people interested in enacting
your form of Do unt others..."

> But if we promote that, while making deals with dictators to
> get their oil, as in Saudi & Nigeria, who's gonna believe it?
> OTOH, if we say the principle must also apply across
> generations, so we need to stop immunization, then it
> would be more believable.  Besides that, YOU said the problems
> were a concern of YOURS.

And mass murder is not the solution. That is your solution.

> >after all, some of the

> >terrorist suicide bombers in the past have been children.  One less
> >mouth to feed now, and potentially dozens or more less to feed in your
> >future utopia, and that's not counting those killed in any terrorist

> >attack.

Well, I guess that bit shut you up.

Boikat

[dav...@agent.com]

You didn't answer my question.

[dav...@agent.com]

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>obesity among pet dogs & cats. Yet they don't have our genes, and

>they don't catch most of our infectious diseases. (They fall victim to
>different infectious diseases.)
>
>The fact that human children are getting fat at the same time as their
>pets are getting fat, suggests there's an environmental link at work.
>Especially since I've never seen any fat feral cats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline_vaccination

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_of_dogs

[jillery]

You have a point. I have agreed with you about it before. But you
sound way too similar to that guy who fell off a skyscraper. As he
passed each floor, he was heard to say "no problem so far". One of
the reasons we're around to laugh at earlier doom-and-gloom
predictions is because some people recognized them as legitimate
warnings, instead of assuming they were irrelevant ramblings of
cynical naysayers.

[Boikat]

Neither did you, actually.

Boikat

[Kermit]

Yes.

>  OTOH it's isn't possible for
> everybody to live close to food and work.

Sadly, true.

> Many foods grow better in
> specific locations.  Many jobs are better suited in other locations.
> There will always be a need for specialization and to trade for goods
> and services made available elsewhere.

Yes. But as fuel prices rise, perhaps some goods made locally will be
more attractive, and growing locally as well, for similar reasons.
Whether these effects will simply be statistically measurable or
dramatic, I don't know.

I know that I have more stuff in the house than I want, but I don't
live alone (which is good, but it means I am more ...cluttered).

In any event, there is a certain frantic nature to our society, and a
desperate make/buy/toss way of looking at things. I don't want to cast
a millstone around the neck of society, but aren't there any brakes on
this thing?

Kermit

[Kermit]

We could always offer less money to the retired, or offer it starting
at a later date. Really, this is simple enough. A hundred years ago we
offered essentially nothing as a society for the elderly.

Wouldn't saving kids *increase the young to old ratio, or at least
not make it worse? Seems like not treating the diseases of the elderly
would achieve what you want, unless you are motivated primarily to
kill kids. Hate 'em worse than grandma, huh?

> And population
> would still rise.

Why? Assuming we can persuade, trick, bribe, or bully people into
using sufficient birth control, it seems like a one child policy would
lead to a gradual decline. the hard part is getting most people to
accept any of these policies, and I'm tellin' ya, it would be a harder
row to plow trying to convince everyone to let the kids die.

>  How about we shorten lifespans a bit?

Why? If we lengthen lifespans, then we have folks who can work a few
more years, when they are at their most productive (except for rugby
players, perhaps).

> Do we need to rock & spit for 15 years?

I'm looking forward to retirement so I can teach martial arts more. I
suppose if you can't think of anything to do besides rock and spit,
you could always do yourself in - *I wouldn't stop you.

>
> >I guarantee that no matter how politically difficult it would be to
> >persuade people to use birth control, it will be harder to talk them
> >into letting their kids die unnecessarily after giving birth to them.
>
> >Especially when there is no link between communicable diseases like
> >the flu and obesity.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 12, 8:01 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "dav...@agent.com" <dav...@agent.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cg39o7lt0t839jt6n...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > <dav...@agent.com> wrote:

Moreover, we understand to some degree the social, psychological, and
physiological processes at work.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On Apr 12, 7:55 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

I acknowledge the predisposition of some folks to delight in
predicting gloom. I never cared for that myself.

Surely you understand that pointing to some boys who have cried
"Wolf!" a number of times is no proof against real disaster occurring?

Kermit

[dav...@agent.com]

Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Moreover, we understand to some degree the social, psychological, and
>physiological processes at work.

Feral cats don't receive vaccinations. Pets do.

[dav...@agent.com]

>We could offer less money to the retired, or offer it starting
>at a later date. This is simple enough. 100 years ago we

>offered essentially nothing as a society for the elderly.
>
>Wouldn't saving kids *increase the young to old ratio, or at least
>not make it worse? Seems like not treating the diseases of the elderly
>would achieve what you want, unless you are motivated primarily to
>kill kids. Hate 'em worse than grandma, huh?

The function of natural enemies is to limit genetic errors.
When you suppress the enemies, errors proliferate,
as in obesity, autism, bipolar, ADHD, etc.

>> And population
>> would still rise.
>
>Why? Assuming we can persuade, trick, bribe, or bully people into
>using sufficient birth control, it seems like a one child policy would
>lead to a gradual decline. the hard part is getting most people to
>accept any of these policies, and I'm tellin' ya, it would be a harder
>row to plow trying to convince everyone to let the kids die.

It's only a small percentage that would perish.
We got along fine with that thru most of history.

>>  How about we shorten lifespans a bit?
>
>Why? If we lengthen lifespans, then we have folks who can work a few
>more years, when they are at their most productive (except for rugby
>players, perhaps).

People in their 80s & 90s aren't at their most productive.

>> Do we need to rock & spit for 15 years?
>
>I'm looking forward to retirement so I can teach martial arts more. I
>suppose if you can't think of anything to do besides rock and spit,
>you could always do yourself in - *I wouldn't stop you.

If you can get around fine, you probably wouldn't just rock & spit.
If you can't, you probably wouldn't be teaching martial arts.

[dav...@agent.com]

Why are you dumping debt & overcrowding on future population?
Let 'em eat cake? Where's your fracking & nuclear gonna take us?
How will your R&D give us a solution to democratizing the Muslim
states?

[Boikat]

"Debt" is an illusion. Overcroding can be eliviated by expansion of
cities of towns, which, if done properly would not be a problem.

> Where's your fracking & nuclear gonna take us?

Fossil and nuclear energy are not the only options. But developing
them would be too much like work, and your lazy fat ass would rather
kust let children and elderly die of curable diseases.

> How will your R&D give us a solution to democratizing the Muslim
> states?

Who the hell says they need democratizing? The only reason you want
that is because, in your warped little world, you think people would
willingly vote for laws that would allow the eithholding of
vaccinations that cure or prevent common diseases. That is pure
stupidity on your part.

Boikat

[Boikat]

On Apr 12, 11:19 pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:

<snip>

>
> People in their 80s & 90s aren't at their most productive.

So, you have decided they are not worthy of living?

<snip>

Boikat

[SkyEyes]

On Apr 10, 12:47 pm, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > <dav...@agent.com> wrote:
> >> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>dav...@agent.com wrote:
> >>>>  "David Canzi" <dmca...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >>>> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >>http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-04-09/childhood-obesit...
>

> >>>> >>Study finds gene variants behind childhood obesity risk
> >>>> >>By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
>

> >>>> >I don't see the suppression of childhood diseases mentioned
> >>>> >anywhere in the article.
>
> >>>> The suppression of that along with suppression of flu
> >>>> & others has allowed obesity gene variants
> >>>> to proliferate, instead of falling by the wayside.
>
> >>>I missed the part where obesity genes are proliferating.
>
> >>http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm
> >>Childhood Obesity Facts
> >[...]
>
> >>>And why would they be linked to communicable diseases?
>
> >>Why not?
>
> >It takes no effort to fantasize that there's some link between
> >obesity and infectious childhood diseases.  It takes effort to
> >find out whether or not that fantasy is true.  That effort is
> >your job, not anybody else's.
>
> * The % of children aged 6–11 years in the U.S. who were obese
>      increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly,
>      the % of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese
>      increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.
>
> We ought to stop suppressing those diseases & find out.
> We need to do that anyway, in order to control population.

I wouldn't worry about that. If many more parents decide not to
vaccinate their children, we'll lose our herd immunity and you'll get
your wish.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[jillery]

It's not just about choosing between global vs local. It's about
doing without altogether. Whether these things are essential depends
on your definition.

You mention above keeping the Internet. Is that essential? If so,
how many places can roll their own routers? Is any kind of global
communication essential? If so, can civilization revert to passing
handwritten messages on paper? Shall it rediscover the joys of
learning about what happened across the sea months later? I hope not.

>I know that I have more stuff in the house than I want, but I don't
>live alone (which is good, but it means I am more ...cluttered).
>
>In any event, there is a certain frantic nature to our society, and a
>desperate make/buy/toss way of looking at things. I don't want to cast
>a millstone around the neck of society, but aren't there any brakes on
>this thing?

Your complaint is a consequence of an inherent conflict between
familiar comforts and exciting changes. I have no doubt some cast
cynical looks at the first wheel :)

[dav...@agent.com]

And if they don't, you'll get your wish, that the consequences
of what we're doing will fall on future populations!

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <f10a8c36-887a-453a...@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>, Kermit wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:27 pm, Robert Grumbine <b...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>> In article <976deadd-3634-42e5-b67a-9f2913900...@b14g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, Kermit wrote:

>> > On Apr 10, 7:32 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>

>> [trim]

>>
>> >> >You didn't answer my question:  You'd rather have dead skinny
>> >> >children than slightly overweight live children to decrease the
>> >> >surplus population?
>>
>> >> What will the world be like with 8 or 9 billion?
>>

>> > It won't reach nine billion.
>>

>>   It's already 7, so 9 is not a reach.
>
> I won't be astonished if we succeed in this, true. But every step of
> the way will put more demands on resources. Food production is already
> down, water is pushed to the limit and will be harder to control
> because of the effects of global warming.
>
> My money says that the death rate will overcome the birth rate within
> 20 years, and it won't be pleasant.

Not a bet I'd take.

For scaling purposes, we added about 4 billion people in the last
50 years. So 25 years to 9 billion. (Give or take a lot, obviously)

Agriculture already uses a huge fraction of available fresh water.
And fishing already consumes a huge fraction of primary productivity.
(Both in the 30-40% range iirc). Fantasists look at those percentages
and think that this means we could easily (i.e., without magic techno-
fixes) triple human population. In a sense, it does. But that sense
is that everything that doesn't feed humans has to die. Also that
the irrigation network has to become globe-girdling, so that shortages
in one area can be met by surpluses in a different one. Anyone for
massive planetary governmental action?

--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

[Walter Bushell]

In article <slrnjomcb...@saltmine.radix.net>,

Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:

> For scaling purposes, we added about 4 billion people in the last
> 50 years. So 25 years to 9 billion. (Give or take a lot, obviously)

That is linear extrapolation whereas population growth has been
exponential, if not resource constrained.

So the situation is *much* worse.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Steven L.]

"dav...@agent.com" <dav...@agent.com> wrote in message

news:dj8eo79i62sjksrhc...@4ax.com:

As I pointed out, they're not the same infections that humans get, so
they're not the same vaccines.
Human children aren't vaccinated against distemper.



-- Steven L.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <slrnjomcb...@saltmine.radix.net>,
Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:

> Agriculture already uses a huge fraction of available fresh water.
> And fishing already consumes a huge fraction of primary productivity.
> (Both in the 30-40% range iirc). Fantasists look at those percentages
> and think that this means we could easily (i.e., without magic techno-
> fixes) triple human population. In a sense, it does. But that sense
> is that everything that doesn't feed humans has to die. Also that
> the irrigation network has to become globe-girdling, so that shortages
> in one area can be met by surpluses in a different one. Anyone for
> massive planetary governmental action?

Ah, yes. I remember the "Wonderful World of Disney" and the
"inexhaustible resources of the sea" which we have if not exhausted
are pressing hard against the limits, with fishing moving down the
food chain. And on land we are mining water to support irrigation.
I've read of farmers in India who commit suicide because they can no
longer afford to pay for electricity for their wells.

Fortunately the % rate is declining, except most dramatically in sub
Saharin Africa.

Exponential growth is a monster.

[chris thompson]

On Apr 16, 12:02 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnjomcbf.bgd.b...@saltmine.radix.net>,

http://www.jayhanson.us/page80.htm

Chris

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <proto-2A1CBC....@news.panix.com>, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <slrnjomcb...@saltmine.radix.net>,
> Robert Grumbine <bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>
>> For scaling purposes, we added about 4 billion people in the last
>> 50 years. So 25 years to 9 billion. (Give or take a lot, obviously)
>
> That is linear extrapolation whereas population growth has been
> exponential, if not resource constrained.
>
> So the situation is *much* worse.

Or not. The doubling time has been increasing from the mid 1960s
to present. If it hadn't, we'd already have passed 8, maybe 9 billion.
(quick and sloppy calculator check).

The UN's guestimates are for this to continue, leading to us
not getting to 9 billion until ca 2050, vs. my linear guess of
2037.

Either way, however, we'd get there before my kids reach 70,
and I have a shot at still being around myself.

[dav...@agent.com]

>They're not the same infections that humans get, so

>they're not the same vaccines.
>Human children aren't vaccinated against distemper.

And they're not the same genes, too. So what?
Suppressing enemies causes defects to proliferate!

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<c523b9a7-83a7-4db8...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.jayhanson.us/page80.htm

But we're not reigndeer.

Except . . .

[Tim Norfolk]

On Apr 16, 9:16 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> In article

> <c523b9a7-83a7-4db8-a09f-a6fe4927e...@dc2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>  chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.jayhanson.us/page80.htm
>
> But we're not reigndeer.
>
> Except . . .
>
> --
> This space unintentionally left blank.

Isn't the reigndeer also called the 'king of the tundra'?

[Steven L.]

"dav...@agent.com" <dav...@agent.com> wrote in message

news:d6qgo7dpcpqterlj9...@4ax.com:

That's a truism.

The consequences of what we do, always fall on future populations.



-- Steven L.

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<f082e17a-8f0f-4ba0...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Of course, that's how they got the name.

[dav...@agent.com]

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>"dav...@agent.com" <dav...@agent.com> wrote:

When the consequences are positive for us and negative
for the future population, there's a problem. In fact, getting
ahead at someone else's expense is the cause of all our problems,
with the exception of those caused by natural disasters.