Attenbourogh joins population reduction group

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Speedy, Apr 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    This is the Environmental Movement's third rail, they will not want the debate to linger long on this one.
  2. Completly agree with Sir David this has been a taboo subject for far too long. Its an important issue albeit difficult and emotive. To answer your question IMHO I think it is far more reasonable to expect countries and people in the the West (assuming Britain hasn't slipped out of that club just yet :wink: ) to impliment it then developing or third world countries. At least in Britain if you have two kids the chances of them dying of water borne diseases etc is slim and making it past their 5th birthday is reasonable unlike most of Africa and large parts of Asia where infant mortality is high.

    You also have the issue that large families in developing countries are the general subsititute for the welfare state - when people get old or sick their kids take care of them.

    Edited for keyboarditis

  3. A reduction in population will automatically redress the demand on services,and with 2 million+ plus unemployed I doubt we will be seeing any adverse effects on economic growth from a reduction in numbers.

    He is bang on the money with this.

    There are way to many people cutting around these days.

    In the past we have seen populations migrate to other area's to deal with crowding and resource consumption.But as we are finding out in quite an acute manner here in the UK,there is no more room.

    As I see it we either have to stop breeding or venture outwards again...
  4. Factor out immigration and it has been happening in the UK for a while.
  5. Factor in the Chav families breeding like rats for benefit.
  6. trouble is its not the rate of uk people breeding thats the problem or indeed western culture - the new immigrants to western countries are still breeding far too much in their new countries despite their childrens higher survival rate - the biggest effect of this idea will be the eventual extinction of the host population whilst the new migrants will carry on growing e.g from an example from the animal kingdom britains native red squirrel has now been outbred and thus replaced by the immigrant grey squirrel
  7. Bang on the money again. Do we want a huge population or a better quality of life per person? And by that, I mean, how many people try to kill you when you get a drink of water?

    Contrary to popular belief, the UK isn't 'full' (as if a notion really exists), and 94% of it hasn't been built on (we're still green and pleasant and all). But it's simply a matter that quality of life decreases, pollution increases and everyone hates everyone more and more.

    Ideas for cutting population other than some Commie style one child rule or Nazi sterilisation programmes?

    I rather like tax breaks for childless and adoptive couples.
  8. 'Population reduction Group' Is this the Taliban??

    Seriously, I'll make a start by offering out two of my three children for adoption to cease any more births.

    The little barstewerds have been driving me up the bloody wall. Who needs easter holidays? Cancel all school holidays except the Summer one.

    Thank God I'm an atheist. . . Oh! . Err?
  9. He's right.
    Too many people. We are over populated, not just Britian but the whole planet.
  10. The best way would be to not increase child benefit with each new kid. Just have a flat rate of child benefit for kid number 1, then its up to parents to find the extra cash for the other kids.

    As far as economic growth goes, this will affect us in the short term. A reduction in birth rate leads to an ageing population which then requires more support. Once we break through the 30 year mark after these policies have been enacted, it should all be uphil from there.
  11. Saw a statistic the other day (can't remember where) that population has pretty much tripled since 1945, from 2bn to 6+. Compare that to the previous rate of increase of population and you can see that population increase happens at an exponential rate. 50 years from now are we going to be living in a 15, 20, 25bn person world? Are we still going to be ravaging the planet to cater for all these folk? Very scary.

    Ah well, when it gets too busy I'll just have to buy a pedalo and make for Greenland. Plenty of room there :p
  12. Organic food is a massive problem too, one that is concurrent with population. I read a study (which I will find) that said that using all the farmland we do now to grow organic food would feed 4 billion people, which is fine, so long as China and India fancy going on a permenant fad diet. If this had happened 150 years ago it would have been fine, because we could have just demanded it from colonies, but the age we live in puts Britain in a perilous situation if the population of the world isn't lowered. With the organic food movement in this country growing, and the population already far too high for these Islands, we couldn't feed ourselves. We couldn't do it in the war with 40m, how will we do it now with 60m? The countries that are big food exporters are now independent politically and would choose to feed their own people before exporting food abroad. The food that is exported will go in exchange for Oil, Gas and Coal, so Russia, the Gulf States, some of South and North America will be fine, it's just overpopulated Europe with little to bring to the table in a crisis that will suffer.
  13. Clearly this means we should be going out and shooting chavs.
  14. The truth is that like china nothing will happen until its to late and the population reaches a number so great it can't self-sustain itself and then draconian measures will have to be introduced - however you will never get a global concensus on this because some cultures will never change their ways.

    Each country needs to act in its own best interests i.e Austrailia routinely regulates its inward population migration to best suit its resources and needs. Unfortunately we live in a country where such common sense is not allowed by EU/UK govt rules and the PC crowd telling us its bad to even think about these things.

    World migration/immigration is a useful tool however much stricter controls need to be implemented.