Individual

You seem to like traditional medicine because it doesn’t work. Western medicine has contributed to the reduction in mortality rates and increased life expectancy of the past 200 years, which is partly responsible for population growth. And because you don’t like population growth you would prefer higher rates of sickness and death.

I have seldom seen anti-progress ideology expressed so starkly. I commend you for your honesty, but totally disagree. I see reductions in mortality (especially infant mortality) and rising life expectancy as among the greatest achievements of western science.

The world’s population will stabilise when death and birth rate move back into equilibrium. Birth rates have been falling steady for decades, and the signs are we’ll probably reach that equilibrium about the middle of this century. I would much prefer this future – a world of low birth rates, low death rates, high life expectancy and diminished vulnerability to disease – than the one you seem to prefer

you would prefer higher rates of sickness and death.
Rhian,
Wrong ! I'd prefer if western medicine focussed on quality of life rather than quantity. My remarks re traditional medicine means what I stated. It didn't cause overpopulation. Western medicine does. Nothing sinister or too complex to understand there, or is there ?

Individual

You need to ask yourself WHY there was no "over population" (your phrase, not one I'd accept) before western medicine, in times when birth rates were far higher than they are today (mainly due to the lack of effective contraception – another boon of western medicine). The answer is that most people did get to reproduce. This was partly because “traditional” medicine is not effective, so mortality rates were higher and life expectancy lower. Before the industrial revolution, global life expectancy was about 25. Nowadays it’s about 80 in developed countries like Australia.

I think this is a good thing, especially as I’m considerably older than 25!

This book has some fascinating data on life expectancy, mortality and birth rates etc:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DF-N_lXjlL8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=angus+maddison+world+economy&hl=en&ei=WE5RTP-qAo68vgOmgOG2Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rhian,
Hmmh, I thought over 6 billion people is more than enough to sustain human existence. Any more is jeopardising this existence. If you think overpopulation is not a suitable term then what is ? What about the fate to all other life on this planet if humans keep spreading ?
Less & less space for agriculture & wildlife. We must ask medical science what direction it is heading & how it's going to choose who will have the right to exist & who not. Because, sooner rather than later medical assistance will only be offered to those who can afford it. Don't for one minute believe that modern medicine is about helping people in need. Modern medicine is primarily to make money & bolster ego & keep enough people fit enough to make money for others. Back to square 1.