our word is coming increasing overpopulated and we are diminsihing our natural resources to sustain this capacity. Which do you think has had a bigger effect on population growth—lowering infant mortality rates or lowering mortality after age 65? and why....
2007-02-18 08:05:22 · 3 answers · asked by caramelvix3n 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
I believe lowering mortality after age 65 is the culprit. Births can be controlled with birth control and abortion (whether we agree or disagree). However, we are not yet euthanizing people for turning 65.
Another example that offers proof is the Social Security situation (although this is US specific). Our issue is that we have too many people reaching retirement and the younger generations are not populous enough to support them.
2007-02-18 09:02:15 · answer #1 · answered by michael.avery 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lowering infant mortality rates because globaly more money is spent on health and research for unborn children and preventing diseases etc in infants than on the elderly.
Its a well known fact that an individuals age and worth in a society is a contributing factor to the services thats availbe for people i.e. a heart operation for an infant opposed to a heart operation for a 65yo: An infant may contribute 65 years of paying taxes or becoming a doctor opposed to a 65yo who may not last the operation.
2007-02-18 19:04:01 · answer #2 · answered by Truth D 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lowering infant morality ages because children are the future
2007-02-18 16:14:17 · answer #3 · answered by MM 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋