|
|
Post by Ann1 on Jan 8, 2012 19:17:49 GMT 1
Good god, I find myself agreeing with Rums *note to self* go for a lie down!! ;D I've long been an advocate of limiting families to two children, with financial penalties for more, I don't mean fining people!!! But only giving them benefit/child benefit for the first two. As obviously you cannot make people adhere to that but a financial penalty might work. I know it's a contentious issue that a lot won't agree with, but something has to be done, as the earths' resources cannot continue to sustain continual population expansion on the scale that it currently is.
Half the world is starving and the other half is using too many resources, but even if they were equally distributed, I still don't think it's sustainable over the long term, without some form of population control.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Jan 8, 2012 21:34:07 GMT 1
Two things I've thought about....most things have been covered above. The ashes from the coal fires were put onto the garden to improve the soil and where would we be without garden worms......if I see any on the ground I put them in my pocket and transport them home to our compost bin.....there's millions in there working away breaking the stuff down. Free compost!  |
|
|
|
Post by Ann1 on Jan 8, 2012 22:06:43 GMT 1
Needless to say, I always check his pockets before shoving things in the washing machine!!  
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Jan 8, 2012 22:10:27 GMT 1
The problem with trying to limit family size is how do then overcome the hurdle of religious teachings which do not advocate the use of birth control. Birth control wasnt around a couple of centuries back and people had large families-however there was also a high death rate and an earlier death rate-its an acknowledged fact that people are living for far longer these days and we read about how in this country we should prepare for the number of elderly who will require care-but of course Im not gonna advocate exterminating the over sixties. Both of my parents come from families consisting of more than the suggested two kids but they managed to manage if you know what I mean. The reality is that there is an unequal distribution of wealth-and whilst Im on the topic some-one should have stopped that Queen of ours breeding too cos theres an awful lot of spongers on the toffs side too. The amount of food wastage in this country alone doesnt bear thinking about-we import or produce far more than we need.How many bananas etc get chucked cos they are the wrong shape or size for Gawds sake-let alone stuff past its sell by date or the remnants of meals people cant finish. We destroy animals because they arent the right gender for gawds sake-all those male chicks bred and immediately destroyed could have grown up to be adult animals which could have provided a meal for some-one. I dont even want to think about the amount of food those herds of cattle require to continue to supply the burger industry and how much of that ends up on the streets after a Friday or Saturday night. The religious leaders who refuse to budge and allow the spread of disease in less developed countries also have a lot to answer for-they insist people adhere to the teachings developed centuries ago and condemn those followers who are devout to have large families and risk the spread of infections such as HIV because they will not allow the use of condoms-are we proposing to ban the faiths that do this ? Finally-there is a country that advocates and enforces a limited sized family. And we all know what happens to the unwanted kids dont we? Sorry but be careful what we wish for-we just might get it Ok rant over-Ill stick the kettle on  |
|
|
|
Post by fourrums on Jan 8, 2012 23:14:22 GMT 1
The big problem is that the species of Homosapien who offer the least to humanity are those who have the most children. And those who benefit humanity have the least.
Sad but true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ann1 on Jan 8, 2012 23:33:27 GMT 1
I don't think we should kill people off, but I do think we should stop keeping them alive. Modern medicine has advanced so rapidly, that people who would've died are now kept alive regardless of quality of life. I'm not saying forcibly stop people having more than 2 kids, but don't pay CB if they do. Maybe a financial penalty would concentrate the mind a bit. There is no doubt that there is awful wastage of food, but I really cannot think of a way of stopping that, apart from getting rid of silly rules, re shapes of bananas etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by fourrums on Jan 8, 2012 23:45:17 GMT 1
No Fish?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ann1 on Jan 8, 2012 23:47:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by fourrums on Jan 9, 2012 18:47:20 GMT 1
How do you post them pics and that caterpillar?.
|
|
|
|
Post by patsie on Jan 9, 2012 22:34:11 GMT 1
Shadow - fantastic post!
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadow on Jan 9, 2012 23:29:41 GMT 1
Im glad you enjoyed it Patsie  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2012 17:04:08 GMT 1
Maybe you need to address your remarks to the Pope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banshee on Jan 15, 2012 18:25:50 GMT 1
Good god, I find myself agreeing with Rums *note to self* go for a lie down!! ;D I've long been an advocate of limiting families to two children, with financial penalties for more, I don't mean fining people!!! But only giving them benefit/child benefit for the first two. As obviously you cannot make people adhere to that but a financial penalty might work. I know it's a contentious issue that a lot won't agree with, but something has to be done, as the earths' resources cannot continue to sustain continual population expansion on the scale that it currently is.
Half the world is starving and the other half is using too many resources, but even if they were equally distributed, I still don't think it's sustainable over the long term, without some form of population control. Interesting thoughts here. Made me think that I actually have 17 direct descendants coming from me. My Mum (The immigrant) has 27 direct descendants. So what is the suggestion here.... that only wealthy people in wealthy countries should contribute to the population? |
|
|
|
Post by Ann1 on Jan 15, 2012 21:20:30 GMT 1
No the suggestion is that everyone, regardless of income, limit their family to 2 kids. There is already overpopulation in the world, so why make it worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banshee on Jan 22, 2012 15:09:34 GMT 1
Well I have gone way over limit! ;D The thing is tho that if you limit, then you have to enforce that limit. Then we have to decide what that enforcement would entail? Would we put people in prison for having more than 2 kids? Would that include both parents? Thus leaving the state to provide for the kids while parents in prison. I feel this would really fall on the women to be blamed. We already have fathers not taking any responsibility for their kids anyway. They would definetly not take responsisbilty if prison was a risk. Would that stop people procreating? I doubt it.
Would we fine people for having more kids? That would mean that there would be those that could afford the fine and those that couldnt, so leading to only the rich having a real choice on family size.
It would be unfair to not pay child benfit for the 3rd or more child. This benfit is paid for by us anyway. You cant just withdraw it or you would have to withdraw all benefits.
Dont forget that all kids are expected to grow up and contribute to the rest of us through taxes, so they will be paying back what ever they had, and paying for others.
Of course we could go down the chinese route but we know where that went with baby girls not being wanted and abandoned. or maybe the indian route where they forcibly sterilised people.
You cant govern people by force, the answer is always education. We are all educated in the options for family planning, but not everyone will take any notice. Such is life. Live and let live, let people make their own choices about family size. There are very few large families in relation to the average 2.4, so its not really a big issue to be worried about is it?
|
|
