5 ms·

I'm sorry, I was being sarcastic. (Rather irresponsible here, where it's justifiably uncommon.) Part of my sarcasm stems from the fact that non-human models ver

I'm sorry, I was being sarcastic. (Rather irresponsible here, where it's justifiably uncommon.) Part of my sarcasm stems from the fact that non-human models very often do not translate well to human models, yet people are happy to celebrate health victories in those species. So I always think it's funny to celebrate any victory in the non-human model as though it were the goal. "E.g., cancer cured in rats! Finally! Those poor rats suffer so much." (Which brings up another issue about the actual suffering that animals endure for our immortality...) Regarding dwindling population, that was sarcastic too; while human population growth has subsided in some areas, there's still a net explosion of humans on this planet. So that makes advances in fertility seem absurd when looking at the big picture. Finally, for those of us who believe that humans are responsible for many of the ills we're seeing in our habitat, a logical conclusion is that more humans equals more problems.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Regarding dwindling population, that was sarcastic too; while human population growth has subsided in some areas, there's still a net explosion of humans on this planet. A declining growth rate (as we've had since the peak in the 1960s) is not a "net explosion".
gpvos 9y ago
I could tell that you were being sarcastic, but to me it looked like a typical response from someone who had only read the headline and didn't bother to click through and read at least some paragraphs from the article. (That's also why I was a bit more condescending than usual.)
throwaway859 9y ago
> there's still a net explosion of humans on this planet To be more precise, there's an explosion of Africans and Middle Easterners. Why shouldn't ethnic Europeans or the Japanese leverage technology to forestall their demographic decline and possible extinction?

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Regarding dwindling population, that was sarcastic too; while human population growth has subsided in some areas, there's still a net explosion of humans on this planet. A declining growth rate (as we've had since the peak in the 1960s) is not a "net explosion".

gpvos 9y ago

I could tell that you were being sarcastic, but to me it looked like a typical response from someone who had only read the headline and didn't bother to click through and read at least some paragraphs from the article. (That's also why I was a bit more condescending than usual.)

throwaway859 9y ago

> there's still a net explosion of humans on this planet To be more precise, there's an explosion of Africans and Middle Easterners. Why shouldn't ethnic Europeans or the Japanese leverage technology to forestall their demographic decline and possible extinction?