Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brits urged to curtail births....

Detroit City

Detroit City

Hans plays with Lotte, Lotte plays with Jane...
Banned
Chicago Tribune said:
LONDON -- There are plenty of ways to cut your carbon footprint, whether it's driving less or buying an energy-efficient refrigerator. But the British Medical Journal, in an editorial last month, urged a more controversial one: having fewer children.

With 60 million people already living in one of the most densely populated countries in the world, the journal said, British couples should aim to have no more than two children as part of their contribution to worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions, stem climate change and ease demands on the world's resources.

Limiting family size is "the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren," the editorial's authors said.
Click to expand...

Full article here...
 
We took the decision to replace ourselves and no more, so we had two kids, then I had the snip.

Not a good idea for public policy makers to poke their noses in, though (One child policy anyone?)
 
People have been having less kids in Britain for quite sometime now. I don't quite understand why that's news... :confused:
 
Iemanja said:
People have been having less kids in Britain for quite sometime now. I don't quite understand why that's news... :confused:
Click to expand...

I think that it needs to be a global resolution, given that it's a global issue. 2.1 per couple is reckoned to be the "replacement level", after taking into account child deaths and other health issues.

And if it is to be tackled globally, really we need the major religions of the world to see sense with regard contraception.
 
I think we should be having fewer than that.

I would like a declining population, a decline right down to perhaps 40m.

We would all have a bit more room each then.
 
weltweit said:
I would like a declining population, a decline right down to perhaps 40m.

We would all have a bit more room each then.
Click to expand...

not only that but your queues would be shorter by a third....just think what one could do will all that extra time :p
 
What a strange thread (made stranger by the fact that it was started by Detroit City and includes the obligatory appearance of the Canuckleheid).
 
Quite right, not just for Britain though. What also helps is not having children until later. A bigger gap between the generations makes for less population growth too.
 
weltweit said:
I think we should be having fewer than that.

I would like a declining population, a decline right down to perhaps 40m.

We would all have a bit more room each then.
Click to expand...

Yep. There'll be loads of lonely old people with no one to look after them. There are already more pensioners than children, is that something to be desired?
 
_angel_ said:
Yep. There'll be loads of lonely old people with no one to look after them. There are already more pensioners than children, is that something to be desired?
Click to expand...

It's something we need to adapt to cope with. It's a lousy and selfish reason to encourage people to keep pumping out more and more children.
 
quimcunx said:
It's something we need to adapt to cope with. It's a lousy and selfish reason to encourage people to keep pumping out more and more children.
Click to expand...

Is having children selfish though? How are we going to 'adapt to cope with it'? By bringing more people in via immigration? Or by getting short term workers to come and keep the economy going without any rights to stay here and then telling them to piss off, without the same rights that people in the UK enjoy?

Are we talking about two classes of people, the UK middle class elderly enjoying their retirement and workers now, who will be told not to have kids, take poorly paid jobs and not to expect a retirement either?
 
_angel_ said:
Is having children selfish though? How are we going to 'adapt to cope with it'? By bringing more people in via immigration? Or by getting short term workers to come and keep the economy going without any rights to stay here and then telling them to piss off, without the same rights that people in the UK enjoy?

Are we talking about two classes of people, the UK middle class elderly enjoying their retirement and workers now, who will be told not to have kids, take poorly paid jobs and not to expect a retirement either?
Click to expand...

Having kids is just about the most selfish thing that anyone does in their life.
 
_angel_ said:
Is having children selfish though? How are we going to 'adapt to cope with it'? By bringing more people in via immigration? Or by getting short term workers to come and keep the economy going without any rights to stay here and then telling them to piss off, without the same rights that people in the UK enjoy?

Are we talking about two classes of people, the UK middle class elderly enjoying their retirement and workers now, who will be told not to have kids, take poorly paid jobs and not to expect a retirement either?
Click to expand...

Having children is a very basic urge. I'm undecided on whether I personally think it is selfish when world population projected growth is taken into consideration. I do think urging people to have children to maintain a ratio between pensioners and workers in the UK is selfish. I also think it an ill-advised and short-sighted plan.

The ratio of pensioners to workers is going to be a problem in the near future and I won't pretend to have the solutions. But our society has always had problems. Somehow you have to deal with whatever situation is to hand. The last 60 years have been remarkably affluent and cosseted years for the UK.

If the society we live in now is anything to go by your scenarios may come to pass, which would be unfortunate. But I don't condone an alternative which involves unchecked population growth in the world as a whole until such time as the Earth can no longer sustain that population and we're talking about 2 classes of people: The rich, mostly in Europe and North America who can afford to eat, and the poor, mostly in Africa, South America and Asia who will starve or die of curable diseases in numbers far surpassing present figures.

If we don't voluntarily contain population growth, nature will do it for us, far more brutally.
 
How do we keep the economy going if there are no young people? Or do we just exploit poorer countries young people?
 
Who is suggesting no young people? I thought the idea was just to not have an ever-increasing number.

I reckon we spend too much time worrying about 'keeping to economy going' and not enough focussing on fulfilling peoples' needs.
 
Fruitloop said:
Who is suggesting no young people? I thought the idea was just to not have an ever-increasing number.

I reckon we spend too much time worrying about 'keeping to economy going' and not enough focussing on fulfilling peoples' needs.
Click to expand...

Who is allowed to have children and who isn't then?

Who is going to look after all the old people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

breadandcircuse
Should the upcoming sporting events in the US be moved to another country?
2
Replies
48
Views
1K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
Dom Traynor
Bong Bong's time is up. Anti corruption hearings and protests in the Phillipines.
Replies
0
Views
203
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
Cloo
  • Poll Poll
The White House ballroom's time is up
2 3
Replies
67
Views
1K
Cloo
Cloo
teqniq
I have tried telling Pete Hegseth his time is up but he appears to be too drunk and belligerent to move
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
155
Views
6K
Coffeecup
C
bcuster
Is Cory Booker's Time is up?
Replies
23
Views
715
bcuster
bcuster
Back
Top Bottom