- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Frozen embryo from 1994 born as world’s oldest baby
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:25 pm to Kentucker
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:25 pm to Kentucker
quote:
4 billion to 5 billion in 13 years (1974-1987) • 5 billion to 6 billion in 12 years (1987-1999) • 6 billion to 7 billion in 12 years (1999-2011) • 7 billion to 8 billion in 11 years (2011-2022) From this data it’s easy to see that the pace of human population growth is increasing, not decreasing. Many people fail to see the big picture.
I’ll take it you failed math your entire life
1
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:46 pm to LSUtoBOOT
quote:
Wait, now I see, what in the actual frick?
Exactly. She was going to have a child with some other guy, and the guy that's the sperm guy has ZERO say so in it.
That is on infinite levels fricked up. She won custody of embryos. This story is all kinds of fricked up.
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:49 pm to Oates Mustache
quote:when I give my opinion on this IRL - I’m always looked at like a monster
That is on infinite levels fricked up.
Frozen embryos just sitting there for decades - is that really right? Or viable embryos destroyed because a family doesn’t want more kids or doesn’t want to pay to keep them.
The more you think about it, the worse it gets.
This post was edited on 8/1/25 at 10:50 pm
Posted on 8/1/25 at 10:57 pm to Oates Mustache
Imagine 30 years later you’re getting close to retirement and your crazy ex wife decides to have the baby and hit you with child support. I realize that won’t be the case here but still kinda wild to think about.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 12:14 am to BlackAdam
quote:it was a clump of cells
That baby was robbed of any sense of humanity for 30 years. Why do we allow this?
Posted on 8/2/25 at 12:22 am to hawgfaninc
IVF is a terrible modern issue. The many moral dilemmas are masqueraded by the issue that this is just couples who want to have children, but they’re having problems conceiving.
Don’t get me wrong, having children through natural intimacy between a husband and wife married sacramentally is wonderful, but this is not it.
Don’t get me wrong, having children through natural intimacy between a husband and wife married sacramentally is wonderful, but this is not it.
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 12:23 am
Posted on 8/2/25 at 2:01 am to hawgfaninc
This type of shite is creepy as hell. Humanity is determined to ruin itself.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 7:01 am to Kentucker
quote:It's not a matter of being the authority on the topic, you seem to be struggling with the concept of rate. The data you posted proved his point.
Are you getting annoyed because I’m not accepting your word? That I fail to accept that you’re an authority on world population?
Obviously the population is increasing, but the RATE at which it's increasing is decreasing.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 7:31 am to wutangfinancial
So you don’t see that the period between adding 1 billion is decreasing? Still giggling?
Posted on 8/2/25 at 7:58 am to hawgfaninc
Is this him?
This post was edited on 8/2/25 at 8:00 am
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:10 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Your AI slop post literally shows a declining rate of increase 4 to 5 billion in 12 years is a 25% increase. 7 to 8 billion in 12 years is less than a 15% increase. No, that is not an increasing rate.
Still insulting. Have a coffee. You’ll feel better.
Okay, you’re using % rate and I’m using pace of adding a billion people as a synonym for rate; like, say, your heart rate is increasing. No need to get angry.
And about AI, I’m sorry you don’t see its value. You should because it’s embedded in almost everything we do electronically now. There’s no going back.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:20 am to Kentucker
quote:the problem with this line of thinking is that adding 1 billion when you start with 5 billion is not the same as adding 1 billion when you start with 2 billion.
Okay, you’re using % rate and I’m using pace of adding a billion people as a synonym for rate;
Posted on 8/2/25 at 9:26 am to Oates Mustache
quote:
the guy that's the sperm guy has ZERO say so in it.
Im interested in, was he required to help pay storage fees for 30 years and was he compensated for the "adoption" as I'm sure she was? Does he care?
Posted on 8/2/25 at 10:01 am to Kentucker
quote:
Still giggling?
Yes
Posted on 8/2/25 at 11:10 am to castorinho
quote:
the problem with this line of thinking is that adding 1 billion when you start with 5 billion is not the same as adding 1 billion when you start with 2 billion.
Semantics aside, I think the “argument” that Indefatigable and I were having centers on how fast the human population is growing. He, like most people who look at the situation, seems to think that the total number of people will reach a peak and then begin to decline.
I, on the other hand, don’t see that at all. Here’s how I see the big picture:
To me, the starkness of that graph is alarming and has only one message, the growth of the human population is in runaway mode and will have tragic consequences not only for the environment but for humans as well. After all, it isn’t the sheer number of humans that counts; rather, it’s their use of resources and the displacement of other species as the human population expands.
A great way of visualizing the spread of humans is to look at a map of artificial lights at night:
Posted on 8/2/25 at 11:23 am to TigerJack8
quote:
IVF is a terrible modern issue. The many moral dilemmas are masqueraded by the issue that this is just couples who want to have children, but they’re having problems conceiving.
Make adoption cheaper than IVF
Posted on 8/2/25 at 12:53 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
Make adoption cheaper than IVF
It’s gotta be damn near about the same cost. Fact is, many couples want their “own” child with their DNA.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 1:02 pm to whoa
quote:
It’s gotta be damn near about the same cost. Fact is, many couples want their “own” child with their DNA.
Chat gpt numbers below
We didn’t end up needing to go the IVF route but when it was a topic in my house. My wife’s insurance had IVF way cheaper than adoption.
quote:
The cost of IVF and adoption can vary significantly, making it difficult to definitively say which is more expensive. Generally, IVF can cost anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000 or more per cycle, not including medications, and many couples require multiple cycles. Adoption costs can range from very little (like in foster care adoption) to upwards of $70,000 or more, depending on the type of adoption (domestic infant, international, etc.) and the agency involved
Posted on 8/2/25 at 1:12 pm to Kentucker
quote:
wish our species had as much interest in managing our population as we do in finding ways to have more babies.
All of humanity can fit inside the state pf new hampshire.
We need more people, with higher IQs.
Posted on 8/2/25 at 1:56 pm to Gusoline
quote:
All of humanity can fit inside the state pf new hampshire.
As I mentioned earlier, it isn’t the sheer number of people on earth that is the problem; it’s the incredible use of resources that is devastating the environment and displacing other species, frequently to extinction.
quote:
We need more people, with higher IQs.
Well, Hitler tried that and it wasn’t received well so some other final solution will have to be thought out.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News