[Up] [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: genetic genealogy

At 14:16 27/04/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Giving the quiz the once over and realizing how difficult it would be to
>trace families who were prolific breeders, I gave thanks that my ancestors
>usually had no more than 3 children per family unit. THEN, I started thinking
>if each of those 3 had 3. . . . Well, you know where it goes from there.
>It's no wonder world population has become a "problem." I wish I could
>remember the name of the speaker, but I can't; anyway, this man said that if
>we limited each couple to 2 children, we would eventually dwindle back to the
>1970s population which, according to him, was just right for the disbursement
>of natural resources without a shortage.

It's interesting how everybody's golden age seems to be 20-30 years ago.
In the 1960s the golden age was the 1940s (not the 1930s, which had the
Depression).  In the 1970s, it was the 1950s, etc.

>It will never happen. There are too many religions that support large
>families: "Be fruitful and multiply."

Actually, even though Italy contains the Vatican, head office of the Catholic
Church, which prohibits birth control, nonetheless Italy has an annual growth
rate of -0.08%, and may well end up having a population similar to what
it had in 1970 within a few decades.

Several other European countries have negative population growth rates,
and very few of them have positive growth rates more than 1%.

The U.S. currently (as of 1999) has a growth rate of 0.85%, and it's only
that high because of immigration.

The world as a whole has only a 1.3% growth rate, which is well down from
the growth rate of only a decade ago.

(The above numbers come from the 1999 CIA World Factbook.)

World population as a whole looks likely to level off at around 10M
within 50 years, exact estimates depending on which source you believe.

> It's too bad the ancient
>lawmakers/priests didn't give this more thought. Alas, I too am guilty of
>adding to the "problem." I had 3 of the little darlings myself. Does my dog
>count? Make that 4. She's as much a part of the family as the children. But
>she's spayed. And before you start, no, I'm not advocating neutering humans.
>Although, when it comes to habitual criminals. . . . Ah, nevermind.
>Johnnye St. Clair-Gerhardt

  Wonderful Johnnye begins a new dialogue with on her perambulatory thoughts and
  permutations on the World's  population and how various countries feature in the
  breeding stakes.

Alas,   it is not simply a question of numbers.  It is a question of what planet Earth can
  support and that is less than it has ever been because Man has polluted the oceans;
  indulged in wholesale ecocide (the Sahara desert was once the granary of Rome) and
  bred at a rate which rabbits might envy.

  When the birds of the air find that they are becoming too numerous, they lay fewer eggs.
  When the animals of the field find that they are out-growing the comfortable carrying
  capacity of their habitat, they curb their breeding.  Furthermore, the 'law of the jungle'
  ensures the survival of the fittest.

  It is only Man who indulges in uncontrolled breeding with those, who are the least fit to
  breed, breeding the most. Thus,  we are in real danger of breeding ourselves into intellectual  eclipse.  When we take this intellectual loss into consideration with the 
  physical loss which takes place as we repeatedly sacrifice the 'flowers of our nation' in the succession of wars which have beset  Mankind since the beginning of time, it is, perhaps, not surprising that we are left with the 'runts of the litter' (if I may use a farming expression).

The Sinclairs knew the answer until they allowed love to enter into the marriage equation.
At one time, we used to go back to 'root stock' at every third generation thereby keeping
the bloodline.  Subsequently, our fall from grace and from power tells its own story.

In these days of political correctness, the above may be sheer anathema (bordering on
unbridled heresy) to the majority of people but no stock-farmer could breed his animals
in the unrestrained manner of human beings and remain solvent.  True, we throw up the
occasional prize winner but, by and large,  there is little to commend us.  I liken our
behaviour to the behaviour of the caterpillar on the cabbage leaf.  It eats away the very
substance of its survival.  We do the same on planet Earth where we have used up more
of the World's finite resources in the last 40 years than we did in the previous 400 years.

And we claim to be "thinking" human beings!!  The proverbial behaviour of the lemming is more rational!!!

Johnnye, I think you may have started something!  I'm heading for my bullet-proof vest!!

Niven Sinclair

>[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
>[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html