Brits urged to curtail births....

[quimcunx]

How do we keep the economy going if there are no young people? Or do we just exploit poorer countries young people?

Well, we've done an excellent job of exploiting the fuck out of them so far!

It doesn't have to be exploitation. It probably will be, but it doesn't have to be and I certainly haven't advocated it. There are at least solutions to the question of the UK's ageing population. Whether we'll find any good ones is another question. Most are bodge jobs, be they to economies, health issues, whatever.

I can't see one to the overpopulation of Earth, except nature killing a huge swathe of us off, or taking up residence on the Moon.

Why don't you tell me how we how we sustain a population 2 times, or 3 times, or 4 times that of the world at the moment?

 

[quimcunx]

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.

Yep. People before profit.

 

[_angel_]

Well, we've done an excellent job of exploiting the fuck out of them so far!

It doesn't have to be exploitation. It probably will be, but it doesn't have to be and I certainly haven't advocated it. There are at least solutions to the question of the UK's ageing population. Whether we'll find any good ones is another question. Most are bodge jobs, be they to economies, health issues, whatever.

I can't see one to the overpopulation of Earth, except nature killing a huge swathe of us off, or taking up residence on the Moon.

Why don't you tell me how we how we sustain a population 2 times, or 3 times, or 4 times that of the world at the moment?

I doubt the answer to world population crisis lies all with the UK. We're not having enough babies to replace the population as it is. What more do you want??

I think there's a way of feeding everyone on the planet - we already produce too much food that goes to waste - that can't be right. It's our politics of money at all costs and sod the actual needs of people that isn't right. Not the fact there are 'too many' of us.

This is the kind of argument right wingers push when it comes to birth control in 'poor' countries and from stopping the 'wrong sort' of people breeding in the western countries.

 

[stavros]

Having kids is just about the most selfish thing that anyone does in their life.

Taking "selfish" at its literally value, he has a point. Selfish isn't necessarily bad, as everyone has to base the vast majority of decisions they take around themselves. A planned birth is for the most part taken by a couple as a personal choice for them. If we extend the definition to mean "at the expense of others' well-being", then there is great room for debate.

 

[ymu]

Having kids is just about the most selfish thing that anyone does in their life.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Angel and danny and others are devoting a huge proportion of their time, energy and available cash so that their kids can pay my pension. I'm very grateful to them.

Well, if I could afford a pension I would be.

 

[quimcunx]

I doubt the answer to world population crisis lies all with the UK. We're not having enough babies to replace the population as it is. What more do you want??

At no point did I say this. I quite specifically said 'not just in Britain'.

I think there's a way of feeding everyone on the planet - we already produce too much food that goes to waste - that can't be right. It's our politics of money at all costs and sod the actual needs of people that isn't right. Not the fact there are 'too many' of us.

This is true about the capitalist model followed pretty much everywhere, I agree, at this moment in time. But I didn't suggest there wasn't enough food now, or that there wasn't too much even. I asked how you suggest we feed 2, 3 or 4 times the current population, and for that matter where we would put everyone. A much bigger problem than a temporary imbalance between young and old in the UK. And a problem for which you haven't posited any solution.

This is the kind of argument right wingers push when it comes to birth control in 'poor' countries and from stopping the 'wrong sort' of people breeding in the western countries.

Quite probably but that doesn't alter the fact we are going to struggle to support the future world population if it continues to grow at the rate it is, notwithstanding the UK's falling birth rate. I'm in favour of voluntarily having less children, and later in life on average. This won't work, however, and at some point, in desperation and too late, policies of restricted childbearing will probably be put in place at which point there will end up being someone, somewhere in charge of stopping the 'wrong sort' of people from procreating.

And then when that doesn't work, nature (combatted, as you say, in some parts by the lucky/wealthy) will take it's course and the population will drop that way.

However we might rail against, nature, strive to control it, and seem sometimes to conquer it and exploit it, humans' existence on Earth has a lease. We can shorten it, or extend it, but we'll never be offered the freehold...

 

[Dravinian]

The entire article is a bit patronising when you consider the framework for the argument is that the UK is "one of the most densely populated countries in the world" then banging on about Birth Rates when Birth Rates are not the reason that we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

What's the point of halving our birth rate if our population continues to grow at the same rate due to immigration. How is that going to help our carbon footprint?

 

[danny la rouge]

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Angel and danny and others are devoting a huge proportion of their time, energy and available cash so that their kids can pay my pension. I'm very grateful to them.

Very good.

 

[quimcunx]

What's the point of halving our birth rate if our population continues to grow at the same rate due to immigration. How is that going to help our carbon footprint?

Reduction in nappy usage.

Though the increase in incontinence pads will counterbalance this somewhat.

 

[Detroit City]

What a strange thread (made stranger by the fact that it was started by Detroit City and includes the obligatory appearance of the Canuckleheid).

no, actually I was reading this article in the newspaper a few days ago and i thought it was interesting so i started a thread, innit?

i'm doing my part as i have no children (that I know of)...

What's the point of halving our birth rate if our population continues to grow at the same rate due to immigration. How is that going to help our carbon footprint?

i dont know, maybe immigrants use less carbon?

 

[weltweit]

Just think how much easier London Transport would be with a couple of million less people using it every day.

Just think how many more homes in the country we would be able to afford if there were a few million less people there.

Just think how many less new houses we would need to build, carpeting the countryside with concrete if there were 20-30million people fewer in the country.

 

[Detroit City]

just the State of Michigan is 98,000 sq. miles and has around 10 million residents. the entire UK is around 94,000 sq. miles and has almost 60 million people. that is high density my friends...

 

[ymu]

What's the point of halving our birth rate if our population continues to grow at the same rate due to immigration. How is that going to help our carbon footprint?

The majority of immigrants arrive fully grown and ready trained. We don't need to use up precious carbon for something so trivial as creating a skilled workforce when we can just steal them from other countries.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If we don't voluntarily contain population growth, nature will do it for us, far more brutally.

^This. If I weren't an anarchist I'd be all for a 'two kids and that's your lot' law; any more wishy-washy incentive for people to have fewer kids is likely to merely end up making life harder for the kids themselves, which is hardly fair. But of course there are nicer ways to reduce birth rates; I hate to say it but I bet that there'd be less kids born if there was enough social housing for everyone who needed it rather than just people with kids. And I don't remember the concept of "exponential growth + finite resources = bloody big catastrophe" being put across to me very strongly at school; the mechanics of contraception were dealt with but not the wider context.

Like so many things, excessive birth rates are likely to become less of a problem the minute we start to move back towards a fairer, more equal society where people are respected and looked out for regardless of their station in life. Can't see that happening any time soon unfortunately.

NB; I want to have three kids but my genes are so awesome that I should be allowed as many as I want

 

[_angel_]

The entire article is a bit patronising when you consider the framework for the argument is that the UK is "one of the most densely populated countries in the world" then banging on about Birth Rates when Birth Rates are not the reason that we are one of the most densely populated countries in the world.

What's the point of halving our birth rate if our population continues to grow at the same rate due to immigration. How is that going to help our carbon footprint?

That's a good point about birth rates. I would say the reason for our population growth, is mainly on the whole, people living longer. Are we meant to cull the elderly to change this?


If our birth rate continues to fall, who is going to do all the jobs necessary to look after an ageing population, as well as keep the country running? Are we going to poach people from abroad?