Attenbourogh joins population reduction group

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
This is the Environmental Movement's third rail, they will not want the debate to linger long on this one.
 
#3
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
 
#4
Speedy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm

But can we do it in the UK with no ill effects on services or the economy?

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...
 
#5
Speedy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm

But can we do it in the UK with no ill effects on services or the economy?
Factor out immigration and it has been happening in the UK for a while.
 
#6
Factor in the Chav families breeding like rats for benefit.
 
#7
insert-coin-here said:
Speedy said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stm

But can we do it in the UK with no ill effects on services or the economy?

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...
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
 
#8
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.
 
#9
'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?
 
#11
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.
 
#12
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
 
#13
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.
 
#14
Clearly this means we should be going out and shooting chavs.
 
#15
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.
 
#16
Immigration isn't really in this argument - people will have babies where ever they are (and will probably have more in freer places).

In terms of human rights - how does the right to have a family sit with any measures to retain population?
 
#17
Ffyll said:
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.
Ah of course we are not 'full' until every square meter of the country has been concreted over?

I have standing room for fifty in my back garden so we cant be 'full' yet?

The point of the piece is that the worlds population is already putting a critical amount of pressure on the planets resources and it is causing irreversible damage.

The rise of the middle class within China and India has already seen a rush for resources within Africa and it will only be compounded with time.

Anyone who has made an internal flight anywhere in Africa will attest to this.

The notion of 'full' is not a reference to population numbers,but as you correctly point out the demand for resources.We can either deal with it in a relatively civilised and responsible manner,or bury our heads in the sand until some maniac decides to adopt the European dictators approach to city planning.

If the issue is not addressed then at some point we will see a critical mass achieved and explode in the sort of violence that will make Iraq look like a minor skirmish.
 
#18
Remove the incentive to do nothing in life, and the population will self regulate.

All this on the dole/housing benefit etc is the real scourge of our society, and has created a mass of workshy chavs that breed for the extra money. Make it compulsory that you can only expect help for a certain period of time, and that is dependant on the tax money paid.
 
#19
insert-coin-here said:
If the issue is not addressed then at some point we will see a critical mass achieved and explode in the sort of violence that will make Iraq look like a minor skirmish.
This is the most worrying thing of all. War for water etc. It is difficult to see where answers will come from if not from having fewer babies.
 
#20
Good point there Headgear ref Oz. If they handle things as appropriate for them then they should avoid most of the dramas.

However, what throws a spanner in all this is the interconnected nature of the modern world.

Even if Oz keeps its own house in good order, they will still inevitably end up screwed by other states who have not. Such as by pollution, spread of disease, economics and conflict.

Ref Conflict, Imagine a bustling Southeast Asia, places like Indonesia and the Phillipines perhaps even, piled high with excess population (plenty for an army perhaps?) and eyeing that massive continent of only 20m people just South of them for extra living room. Oz is going to need a pretty impressive stick to beat off that sort of pressure. Not saying this exact scenario will take place, but just look at the pressures on the Russo-Sino border - tons of population on the Chinese side of the border and hardly anyone on the Russian side will always create a certain sort of friction.

Even if Oz or whoever prevent/win a conflict, they are still going to suffer from pollution and other transnational effects produced by all the others in the world - disease and economics no doubt. Just as no man is an island, it seems that, well, no island is truly an island anymore...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top