Fertility drugs are bad, mmmnkay?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
That's about right. I about fell over when some friends of ours (who are in the final stages of adoption) informed me about the cost. That plus the myriad hoops you have to jump through to even consider and it's no wonder adoption is relatively rare.

Unfortunatley you just can't put an ad paper: "Litter of 6, 3 males, 3 females, all shots and circumcisions, free to good home."
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
That's about right. I about fell over when some friends of ours (who are in the final stages of adoption) informed me about the cost. That plus the myriad hoops you have to jump through to even consider and it's no wonder adoption is relatively rare.

Unfortunatley you just can't put an ad paper: "Litter of 6, 3 males, 3 females, all shots and circumcisions, free to good home."
Nice. :D

 

Arkitech

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2000
8,356
4
76
Originally posted by: Nanotech
Originally posted by: Heisenberg
I'm so glad to know my taxes are going to pay for those kids.

I'd rather my taxes go to kids than another investigation on whether or not Bill Clinton received oral sex.
 

RaynorWolfcastle

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
8,968
16
81
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

Well, FWIW, North America and Europe's growth rates are and population are relatively insignificant on the world scale. Consider that even with immigration, the US and Europe combined only contained 11% of the world's population in 2000.
Text

From the text :
Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries.

The more developed countries in Europe and North America, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are growing by less than 1 percent annually. Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%). If the growth rates in these countries continue to fall below zero, population size would slowly decline. As the chart "World population growth, 1750?2150" shows, population increase in more developed countries is already low and is expected to stabilize.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
The more developed countries in Europe and North America, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are growing by less than 1 percent annually. Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%). If the growth rates in these countries continue to fall below zero, population size would slowly decline. As the chart "World population growth, 1750?2150" shows, population increase in more developed countries is already low and is expected to stabilize.
Our populations are fine. No need to try and compete underdeveloped nations. And of course people are leaving Russia, estonia, hungary, and ukraine. Who TF wants to live in thos pissant dumps?

Population numbers are not so much the problem as consumption, as Optimus mentioned. The industrialized nations on the planet are chewing through resources at vast rates. One American sucks back what a dozen half-dying people in Africa do. And of course fausto is right that Americans (or any developed nations) are not going to suddenly "cut back". The average US family won't move into a smaller house, stop cutting its lawn, drive 1-2 small econoboxes, stop using AC as much, etc.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Ime
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

If you are so worried about over-population, don't have any kids.
Um....if every couple has two kids, the overall population doesn't grow. If no one has kids, we cease to exist as a species and the roaches take over.


Think.

Then post.

Think.

Then post.


And seeing as the
2000 census shows the average children per family is 1.86, we should worry more about the roaches taking over the US before overpopulation does.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Ime
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

If you are so worried about over-population, don't have any kids.
Um....if every couple has two kids, the overall population doesn't grow. If no one has kids, we cease to exist as a species and the roaches take over.


Think.

Then post.

Think.

Then post.


And seeing as the
2000 census shows the average children per family is 1.86, we should worry more about the roaches taking over the US before overpopulation does.
I'm referring to the global population. Folks in developed countries aren't prodigious breeders for the most part. ;)

 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Ime
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

If you are so worried about over-population, don't have any kids.
Um....if every couple has two kids, the overall population doesn't grow. If no one has kids, we cease to exist as a species and the roaches take over.


Think.

Then post.

Think.

Then post.


And seeing as the
2000 census shows the average children per family is 1.86, we should worry more about the roaches taking over the US before overpopulation does.
I'm referring to the global population. Folks in developed countries aren't prodigious breeders for the most part. ;)

Understood, but since this thread was about a US family having 8 kids and the 2000 census showing we are under the "break-even" average, I would postulate that this family (or other american families like them) has no impact on the global overpopulation issue, even if there is one.
 

RaynorWolfcastle

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
8,968
16
81
Originally posted by: Fausto

I'm referring to the global population. Folks in developed countries aren't prodigious breeders for the most part. ;)

As far as I know, Missouri is located in a developed country ;).

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Population numbers are not so much the problem as consumption, as Optimus mentioned. The industrialized nations on the planet are chewing through resources at vast rates. One American sucks back what a dozen half-dying people in Africa do. And of course fausto is right that Americans (or any developed nations) are not going to suddenly "cut back". The average US family won't move into a smaller house, stop cutting its lawn, drive 1-2 small econoboxes, stop using AC as much, etc.
The consumption/inhabitant is a debate for another thread, Fausto's comments here were specifically about overpopulation
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle
Originally posted by: Fausto

I'm referring to the global population. Folks in developed countries aren't prodigious breeders for the most part. ;)

As far as I know, Missouris is located in a developed country ;).
Hence, my "for the most part" qualifier. :p

 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

*looks at Lake Erie from 10th floor office*

Dont make me start bringing a rifle to work. That water is MINE, biyatch!

;)

 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
If you already have 2 kids why are you taking Fertility drugs???


And this again proves my point, the dumber you are the more liely you are to get pregnant.
rolleye.gif

Where does it say in the article that they were taking fertility drugs? :confused:
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

*looks at Lake Erie from 10th floor office*

Dont make me start bringing a rifle to work. That water is MINE, biyatch!

;)
You can have Erie...that water is pretty nasty. :p
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
If you already have 2 kids why are you taking Fertility drugs???


And this again proves my point, the dumber you are the more liely you are to get pregnant.
rolleye.gif

Where does it say in the article that they were taking fertility drugs? :confused:
Like sisters Hannah, 4, and 2-year-old Abigail, the Otten Six were conceived with the help of the fertility drug Gonadotropins.

"They told us we could have multiple births," Tina Otten said in an interview from her hospital bed. "We never imagined six."


 

geno

Lifer
Dec 26, 1999
25,074
4
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: geno
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
If you already have 2 kids why are you taking Fertility drugs???


And this again proves my point, the dumber you are the more liely you are to get pregnant.
rolleye.gif

Where does it say in the article that they were taking fertility drugs? :confused:
Like sisters Hannah, 4, and 2-year-old Abigail, the Otten Six were conceived with the help of the fertility drug Gonadotropins.

"They told us we could have multiple births," Tina Otten said in an interview from her hospital bed. "We never imagined six."

Doh, glanced over it. I'm an idiot :p
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

*looks at Lake Erie from 10th floor office*

Dont make me start bringing a rifle to work. That water is MINE, biyatch!

;)
You can have Erie...that water is pretty nasty. :p

Ha! It hasnt caught fire in years! :p

Actually, that was a river that empties into it, not the lake itself. Plus, although pretty much every southerner I've met likes to mention the Cuyahoga River catching fire, it has gotten cleaner over the years, while if you look at the fish advisories in SC and Georgia... they have a LONG list of fish you dont want to eat regularly. And their lists are growing, whereas OH's list is shrinking. Just something I've noticed when I go fishing with my cousins down south.
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: Fausto
So, we just wait for the train to wreck and then go from there? In all seriousness, there is no easy answer here, but the population of the world needs to be addressed at some point in the near future. IIRC, the big issue (that everyone's ignoring) is that of fresh water more than anything else.

*looks at Lake Erie from 10th floor office*

Dont make me start bringing a rifle to work. That water is MINE, biyatch!

;)
You can have Erie...that water is pretty nasty. :p

Ha! It hasnt caught fire in years! :p

Actually, that was a river that empties into it, not the lake itself. Plus, although pretty much every southern I've met likes to mention the Cuyahoga River catching fire, it has gotten cleaner over the years, while if you look at the fish advisories in SC and Georgia... they have a LONG list of fish you dont want to eat regularly. And their lists are growing, whereas OH's list is shrinking. Just something I've noticed when I go fishing with my cousins down south.
I know, I know. :(

I miss swimming in the North Channel during the summer and being able to see forever underwater. I probably spent 25% of my teenage years on the boat with my folks on the Great Lakes.

 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
1
0
Why the fvck do you need to take fertility drugs when you already have two fvcking white trash brats?

This POS just singlehandedly cancelled the business Wal Mart lost in Inglewood.