catboxer wrote:

World population did not reach a billion until 1830 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_population). Today, less than 200 years later, it's about 6.7 billion.

Thomas Malthus pointed out 200 years ago that human populations are capable of increasing geometrically, while food production can only increase arithmetically. Malthus was recently referred to as "an idiot" on another thread. The reference was made by a global-warming denier. This proves that everybody has to be somewhere.

My great-grandparents had 13 kids. Of course, that was between 1868 and 1890. Things were a little different then. In 1890 world population was little over one and a half billion.

Wait a minute, I was the one who referred to Malthus as an Idiot and I have never spoken of my beliefs regarding Global Warming on Beliefnet so how do you know what I think of the issue?

I called Malthus an idiot precisely for the reason you noted. Food production is capable of growing geometrically as well as population. were that not the case then we would have experienced global starvation as predicted by Malthus over a hundred years ago. Instead today we grow enough food to support a global population nearly 7 times what Malthus experienced and feed them better on average than the population of the early 19th century was fed and even for that we are nowhere near the peak of the food that could be produced if certain 3rd world countries would adopt middle ages farming techniques.

oddjoe wrote:

Coachbob, global warming isn't a root problem.  Whether it exists or not is not the main thing.  There are too many people, most of whom don't get a fair chance for a good life.  With our population pressure on the earth, future inhabitants have a rapidly decreasing chance for a worthwhile life.

You are quite right, Oddjoe.

aws720k wrote:

As I posted earlier....under the guidelines of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, U.S. doctors normally would not implant more than two embryos at a time in a woman under the age of 35. After that age it is more difficult to become pregnant. The mother of the octuplets is believed to be 33, based on available public records. source

Something was not 'normal' in this case. I question the doctor's ethics.

Plus, who paid for this procedure? As I understand it, IVF is very expensive and isn't covered by most insurance plans....plus, in most circumstances requires intense counseling before the procedure is done.

Annie

This entire situation smacks of maleficence.  Everything about this is based upon bad decisions, lack of respect, possibly malpractice and what upsets me more than anything is that these so called parents, have been irresponsible.  The 6 prior children will suffer.  The 8 litter children will suffer.  Those involved in making this decision and following through with the fertility treatments when there were already 6 children, should be disciplined.  This includes the so called parents.