contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?
according to
Two children should be limit, says green guru
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland - an area the size of Trafalgar Square.
The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050.
Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning.
“Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.
and this GP refuses to help anyone with 2 kids already have third and subsequent children with fertility treatment
again from the times online
Green GP refuses to help women have large families
DR PIPPA HAYES, a Devon GP, has a conscientious objection. She believes couples should restrict their families to two children - and says she would not help to provide fertility treatment for women who want to have exceptionally large families.
Hayes, who underwent sterilisation after the birth of her second son, despite wanting a daughter, believes that large families place an insupportable burden on the planet’s resources. She states her beliefs on the website of her Exeter-based practice.
This weekend she said she would formally decline to help certain patients.
“If a mother of four came to me and said, ‘Will you refer me for fertility treatment so that I can have a fifth baby’, I would say, ‘Sorry, this is something which is against my beliefs, but I suggest you go and see one of my partners’. I believe I would have a right to be a conscientious objector if it happened.”
She said that mothers of large families, such as the anti-abortion campaigner Victoria Gillick, would avoid consulting with her.
Hayes added: “If someone said to me, ‘Doctor, I have got two children, I am thinking about number three, what do you think?’ then I think it would be reasonable to discuss it. I would never obstruct anyone, however, because it is a free world.”
If the woman decided to conceive a third child naturally, Hayes would support her and give all the normal health advice such as taking folic acid supplements.
She said of her decision to sacrifice the chance of having a daughter: “I always knew two were the limit. That is all we are entitled to.
“I elected to have a female sterilisation a year or so after baby number two. I had no doubt it was a final decision. The question we always ask patients is, ‘What if your family is wiped out?’ but I don’t tend to think like that.
“I wanted a daughter in the first place but my lot was to have boys and I have got two lovely sons. My husband originally thought a nice big family was what he wanted, but he was happy to go along with my beliefs.”
Hayes is a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group that tells couples to “stop at two”. Membership of the group has doubled in the past 12 months to about 1,000 and it aims to double its membership to 2,000 this year.
This month an international group of scientists and academics is launching a campaign called Global Population Speak Out to publicise the “fundamental link between the size and growth of the human population and environmental degradation”.
John Guillebaud, a patron of the group and emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health at University College London, said: “Deciding to stop at two, or at least have one child less, is probably the simplest, quickest and most significant thing any of us could do to leave a sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.”
Parents of large families argue that the movement is ill-founded, however, and that we should concentrate instead on reducing the amount of resources consumed by individuals.
They also point out that large families often lead more environmentally friendly lives. Jose-phine Treloar, 48, a mother of seven from Kent, said: “People with two children often have more money and their assets are ploughed into fewer people. “ In large families there is an element of necessity that means material goods are used more efficiently.”
She said large families were a “soft target” for people who wished to pass the responsibility for reducing carbon dioxide emissions onto others.
The population of the UK is growing at its fastest rate since the 1960s, increasing by 2½% between mid 2001 and mid2006, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Fertility rates are at their highest level since 1980.
More than one in five births in Britain are to mothers born outside the UK.
***********
I for one am quite worried about this suggestion, as a mum of 4 and someone who wants another baby.....I dont like the idea of other people deciding for me that my family is big or small enough.
what do others think....does having a big family ruin the planet, or is it all just scare mongering and using that as a scapegoat?
Does being in a bigger family make you any less green or any more polluting?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Does having more than 2 kids.......
I for one am quite worried about this suggestion, as a mum of 4 and someone who wants another baby.....I dont like the idea of other people deciding for me that my family is big or small enough.------Nobody is trying to tell you how many kids to have, simply pointing out some consequences.
Does having a big family ruin the planet, or is it all just scare mongering and using that as a scapegoat?----Yes people destroy the planet, the more people you make, the less resources each of our children and grandchildren will have to enjoy.
Does being in a bigger family make you any less green or any more polluting?---It is almost impossible to adjust your lifestyle to compensate for the resources used by an additional human being.
Does having a big family ruin the planet, or is it all just scare mongering and using that as a scapegoat?----Yes people destroy the planet, the more people you make, the less resources each of our children and grandchildren will have to enjoy.
Does being in a bigger family make you any less green or any more polluting?---It is almost impossible to adjust your lifestyle to compensate for the resources used by an additional human being.
Sex God
We could do a lot more for the environment by not commissioning and publishing wank-stained, sensationalist reports like this, that serve merely to annoy and give the papers a chance to sell a few more copies (and how can that be good for the environment?)
I'm growing tired of eco-fascism. Some people will not be happy until we are living in trees and eating woodlice while trying to build a bridge out of our own faeces.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
I'll say it. He's a Prick! This is simply another piece of half arsed, flawed, illogical, eco-pap. The problem isn't more children you moth eaten, dozy, vegetating tit, but that there are a damn sight more OLD people about because we are getting good at this whole medicine and health malarkey. Pensions shortfall give you a clue? Rising age of retirement? The selfish gits won't die and keep getting well again! In actual fact, child numbers, certainly where I live, are falling. Schools are closing because the numbers aren't there anymore! Those last three points are a joke and prove nothing towards Porrit's barmy argument. Incidentally what the nationality is of the person giving birth in this country has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. That is simply the wonderful British press targeting a select group again. When mud's being slung, make sure it hits who we want to target, rather than anyone relevant to the actual argument. You could almost argue it is inflammatory and racist. It certainly is pointless and stupid.
What's the point of saving the world if there is nobody left to enjoy it afterwards, or those that are here have to get about everywhere by Stannah stairlift? You complete imbecile, climb back in your warren and keep eating the leaves.
I'm a-political, I think they are all tossers, but this kind of stuff is the worst kind of eco-sensationalism, scaremongering. Why not take it to it's logical conclusion? Two kids per family and then you are both sterilised. And once you reach 65. Euthenasia. Either that or blast 'em into space. Using bio-degradable fuel obviously, and rockets made from re-cycled Sanatogen tins.
"Save the planet! Kill everyone and wank instead!"
I don't see that taking off as a bumper sticker to be honest. Well it may do a roaring trade in the local Al Qaeda branch of Smiths, but beyond that I fail to see its appeal.
And don't get me started on the eradication of human rights and civil liberties...
How wonderful to see the wonder of human life, the beauty of a newborn baby, the fruits of your long arduous labour as parents and people, your life's work, talked about in terms of "a carbon footprint the size of Trafalgar square..."
Moron.
Oh, and I had my tackle invalidated after two children by personal choice, which is exactly the way it should be. I don't need some knock-kneed, bearded sycophant preaching that everyone need do the same. Save the planet, bury an eco-mentalist in a peat bog and recycle him as a firelighter, is what I say.
And as for that Doctor! How dare she? What gives her the right to decide who is treated for their fertility issues? What a joke, only not so funny. Prejudice is prejudice, regardless of who it is against. She is paid to TREAT not to JUDGE. She has her beliefs and that's fine, but they should not impinge on her job and most importantly the people she is paid to serve and treat. If she wants to judge, get a wig on and hit the bar. If she wants to spout political crap and air her views, then join a party rather than a rather pathetic little sect who think they are making a contribution to saving the world by playing God, Judge and Jury over couples in an often heart-breaking condition.
Oh... and one word. China. They have the same idea. Go and see the orphanages where babies abandoned on tips are taken for how clever an idea this is.
Feck... I've turned all Mr Kenty... Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
I'm growing tired of eco-fascism. Some people will not be happy until we are living in trees and eating woodlice while trying to build a bridge out of our own faeces.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
I'll say it. He's a Prick! This is simply another piece of half arsed, flawed, illogical, eco-pap. The problem isn't more children you moth eaten, dozy, vegetating tit, but that there are a damn sight more OLD people about because we are getting good at this whole medicine and health malarkey. Pensions shortfall give you a clue? Rising age of retirement? The selfish gits won't die and keep getting well again! In actual fact, child numbers, certainly where I live, are falling. Schools are closing because the numbers aren't there anymore! Those last three points are a joke and prove nothing towards Porrit's barmy argument. Incidentally what the nationality is of the person giving birth in this country has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. That is simply the wonderful British press targeting a select group again. When mud's being slung, make sure it hits who we want to target, rather than anyone relevant to the actual argument. You could almost argue it is inflammatory and racist. It certainly is pointless and stupid.
What's the point of saving the world if there is nobody left to enjoy it afterwards, or those that are here have to get about everywhere by Stannah stairlift? You complete imbecile, climb back in your warren and keep eating the leaves.
I'm a-political, I think they are all tossers, but this kind of stuff is the worst kind of eco-sensationalism, scaremongering. Why not take it to it's logical conclusion? Two kids per family and then you are both sterilised. And once you reach 65. Euthenasia. Either that or blast 'em into space. Using bio-degradable fuel obviously, and rockets made from re-cycled Sanatogen tins.
"Save the planet! Kill everyone and wank instead!"
I don't see that taking off as a bumper sticker to be honest. Well it may do a roaring trade in the local Al Qaeda branch of Smiths, but beyond that I fail to see its appeal.
And don't get me started on the eradication of human rights and civil liberties...
How wonderful to see the wonder of human life, the beauty of a newborn baby, the fruits of your long arduous labour as parents and people, your life's work, talked about in terms of "a carbon footprint the size of Trafalgar square..."
Moron.
Oh, and I had my tackle invalidated after two children by personal choice, which is exactly the way it should be. I don't need some knock-kneed, bearded sycophant preaching that everyone need do the same. Save the planet, bury an eco-mentalist in a peat bog and recycle him as a firelighter, is what I say.
And as for that Doctor! How dare she? What gives her the right to decide who is treated for their fertility issues? What a joke, only not so funny. Prejudice is prejudice, regardless of who it is against. She is paid to TREAT not to JUDGE. She has her beliefs and that's fine, but they should not impinge on her job and most importantly the people she is paid to serve and treat. If she wants to judge, get a wig on and hit the bar. If she wants to spout political crap and air her views, then join a party rather than a rather pathetic little sect who think they are making a contribution to saving the world by playing God, Judge and Jury over couples in an often heart-breaking condition.
Oh... and one word. China. They have the same idea. Go and see the orphanages where babies abandoned on tips are taken for how clever an idea this is.
Feck... I've turned all Mr Kenty... Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
:worship:Quote by benrums0n
I for one am quite worried about this suggestion, as a mum of 4 and someone who wants another baby.....I dont like the idea of other people deciding for me that my family is big or small enough.------Nobody is trying to tell you how many kids to have, simply pointing out some consequences.
Does having a big family ruin the planet, or is it all just scare mongering and using that as a scapegoat?----Yes people destroy the planet, the more people you make, the less resources each of our children and grandchildren will have to enjoy.
Does being in a bigger family make you any less green or any more polluting?---It is almost impossible to adjust your lifestyle to compensate for the resources used by an additional human being.
Ben..."as a Mum of four"??
I always thought you were a bloke!!
Sex God
Quote by Lucyandmike7
I for one am quite worried about this suggestion, as a mum of 4 and someone who wants another baby.....I dont like the idea of other people deciding for me that my family is big or small enough.------Nobody is trying to tell you how many kids to have, simply pointing out some consequences.
Does having a big family ruin the planet, or is it all just scare mongering and using that as a scapegoat?----Yes people destroy the planet, the more people you make, the less resources each of our children and grandchildren will have to enjoy.
Does being in a bigger family make you any less green or any more polluting?---It is almost impossible to adjust your lifestyle to compensate for the resources used by an additional human being.
Ben..."as a Mum of four"??
I always thought you were a bloke!!
lol... Me too! But I do tend to make that mistake a lot...
Quote by Lucyandmike7
I for one am quite worried about this suggestion, as a mum of 4 and someone who wants another baby.....I dont like the idea of other people deciding for me that my family is big or small enough.------Nobody is trying to tell you how many kids to have, simply pointing out some consequences.
Does having a big family ruin the planet, or is it all just scare mongering and using that as a scapegoat?----Yes people destroy the planet, the more people you make, the less resources each of our children and grandchildren will have to enjoy.
Does being in a bigger family make you any less green or any more polluting?---It is almost impossible to adjust your lifestyle to compensate for the resources used by an additional human being.
Ben..."as a Mum of four"??
I always thought you were a bloke!!
LOL i did a double take too Lucy, but hes quoting me and answering my pint at the end of the sentene....i did have to read it a few times before i realised :lol: :lol:
:gagged:Oh bother....Res is too eloquent for me... 'knock kneed'
Anyhoo. I got sterilised after my son was born as there was no way that my body was made to produce children.
My take on it is that with cancer you get sympathy, a life insurance payout and it is cut out.
With pregnancy you get 9 months of torture, a parasite growing inside you, damaged body. 24 hours of labour. People cooing over the 'beautiful little thing' you have evacuated. 18 years (at least) of paying out and NO COMPENSATION( apart from love and all that shit)
If people wanna do that more than once, let alone 4 times, they deserve my praise.
Now, if people want to hand me their babies after going through that crap then PM me for my address and drop them off.
As Res said, it is sensationalist nonsense. Several generations of distorted gender bias and an aged population in worse conditions than ours is all that those ideas will produce.
Saving the planet is a global need.
If you want to pop some kiddies out for me Mrs Bone then you are welcome otherwise ignore the crap stories and enjoy being a parent.
Anyhoo. I got sterilised after my son was born as there was no way that my body was made to produce children.
My take on it is that with cancer you get sympathy, a life insurance payout and it is cut out.
With pregnancy you get 9 months of torture, a parasite growing inside you, damaged body. 24 hours of labour. People cooing over the 'beautiful little thing' you have evacuated. 18 years (at least) of paying out and NO COMPENSATION( apart from love and all that shit)
If people wanna do that more than once, let alone 4 times, they deserve my praise.
Now, if people want to hand me their babies after going through that crap then PM me for my address and drop them off.
As Res said, it is sensationalist nonsense. Several generations of distorted gender bias and an aged population in worse conditions than ours is all that those ideas will produce.
Saving the planet is a global need.
If you want to pop some kiddies out for me Mrs Bone then you are welcome otherwise ignore the crap stories and enjoy being a parent.
Quote by splendid_
Oh bother....Res is too eloquent for me... 'knock kneed'
Anyhoo. I got sterilised after my son was born as there was no way that my body was made to produce children.
My take on it is that with cancer you get sympathy, a life insurance payout and it is cut out.
With pregnancy you get 9 months of torture, a parasite growing inside you, damaged body. 24 hours of labour. People cooing over the 'beautiful little thing' you have evacuated. 18 years (at least) of paying out and NO COMPENSATION( apart from love and all that shit)
If people wanna do that more than once, let alone 4 times, they deserve my praise.
Now, if people want to hand me their babies after going through that crap then PM me for my address and drop them off.
As Res said, it is sensationalist nonsense. Several generations of distorted gender bias and an aged population in worse conditions than ours is all that those ideas will produce.
Saving the planet is a global need.
If you want to pop some kiddies out for me Mrs Bone then you are welcome otherwise ignore the crap stories and enjoy being a parent.
oki doki hun...next ones dedicated to you...thats if my eggs aint hardboiled by now cos im getting on a bit!
Sex God
Quote by Bonedigger
If you want to pop some kiddies out for me Mrs Bone then you are welcome otherwise ignore the crap stories and enjoy being a parent.
oki doki hun...next ones dedicated to you...thats if my eggs aint hardboiled by now cos im getting on a bit!
*now has visions of a baby being born and called Splendiferous Bone*
Sex God
I'll stick my neck out and say that they are correct!!!!
Think what the population of China would be now, if the Government there had not introduced a one child policy. OK they did it in a very draconian way, but they recognised the problems of over population and acted on it.
The more people you have with the same resources, such as water and food, then literally some people will be fighting over those resources.
How many people can our little Island support? 60 million? 70 million? 80 million? Where will you build the houses, get the water from, put the waste??
So, one question for people who disagree, give a maximum figure for the population of Great Brition that you think is supportable.
John
John
Think what the population of China would be now, if the Government there had not introduced a one child policy. OK they did it in a very draconian way, but they recognised the problems of over population and acted on it.
The more people you have with the same resources, such as water and food, then literally some people will be fighting over those resources.
How many people can our little Island support? 60 million? 70 million? 80 million? Where will you build the houses, get the water from, put the waste??
So, one question for people who disagree, give a maximum figure for the population of Great Brition that you think is supportable.
John
John
Quote by noladreams30
If you want to pop some kiddies out for me Mrs Bone then you are welcome otherwise ignore the crap stories and enjoy being a parent.
oki doki hun...next ones dedicated to you...thats if my eggs aint hardboiled by now cos im getting on a bit!
*now has visions of a baby being born and called Splendiferous Bone*
oh how perfectly fabulous :notes:
im baggsying that one
I think this artical is typical of Britain today.
A crackpot idiot being paid vast sums of money,to spout this rubbish. I bet we find out he has six kids by five different Mothers. :shock:
The enviroment is another issue entirely. Seems global warming is all bollox anyway...but hey a great idea to weed more money out of us.
I can understand Iraq or Iran coming up with this crap, but in Britain? A load of bollox, and so is this enviroment nonsense.
A crackpot idiot being paid vast sums of money,to spout this rubbish. I bet we find out he has six kids by five different Mothers. :shock:
The enviroment is another issue entirely. Seems global warming is all bollox anyway...but hey a great idea to weed more money out of us.
I can understand Iraq or Iran coming up with this crap, but in Britain? A load of bollox, and so is this enviroment nonsense.
Sex God
I have one. So someone else can have 3. Seems fair to me.
As I understand it, the increase in UL population isn't to do with home-grown kids. It's people coming in from elsewhere. I'm quite happy with that, variety being the spice of life etc. But if we need to husband our resources, wouldn't limiting people coming in be (in practical terms) far easier than perching on people's beds saying - get that condom on. Or are we talking in world terms? In which case, the contribution by UK parents is minimal.
As I understand it, the increase in UL population isn't to do with home-grown kids. It's people coming in from elsewhere. I'm quite happy with that, variety being the spice of life etc. But if we need to husband our resources, wouldn't limiting people coming in be (in practical terms) far easier than perching on people's beds saying - get that condom on. Or are we talking in world terms? In which case, the contribution by UK parents is minimal.
Sex God
Hi John,
You raise some good questions that require answering so I shall try my best to do so as I see it.
"Fairly Draconian" is an interesting way of describing baby girls being murdered because they are not boys, or at best being dumped to die on waste rubbish dumps. However being the paragon of sanity and human rights that is China, it must of course be western media bias that promulgates this kind of nonsense. The two links that follow are not easy reading but highlight my point. I would not be comfortable being part of any society that has laws and regulations that could lead to anything approaching this:-
As for the notion of resources and overpopulation, this is a good point. I see the two things as being inextricably linked. There is an argument to say that England, at least, is over populated already. We've all struggled for a parking space on a Saturday, missed out on that Christmas gift because it is out of stock, or had to make do with a certain loaf because the one we really wanted had already been sold.
However I think that we are a hugely wasteful country. We have more than enough food & resources here to sustain the current population, and the means to produce more if required (just think of all the farmers being paid NOT to grow crops, but to leave vast tracts of land uncultivated due to a lack of demand). How often have you seen a supermarket TRULY empty? Shops out of stock? Bread shortages as in Russia in the 70's? We are all sometimes guilty of buying far more than we need, using more than we need, using the car for a trip we could walk, leaving the TV on for five minutes when we pop out. Furthermore our utility/service providers are amongst the worst offenders, an antiquated pipe system seems millions of litres of water lost each year. Clean fresh water that we have paid to be cleaned and ready for our use. And don't get me started on the energy companies or I will blow a gasket! ;-)
This country has more than enough to sustain it's population, provided we make small changes to how we behave. That to me seems eminently more sensible than what is in effect a "cull" of the population, over levels of population which are entirely arbitrary and hypothetical.
If such a measure was introduced then the entire population would just get older. There would be fewer children but more older people. That would place a HUGE drain on services. Fewer people being born means fewer people to run around and look after them or do the auxilliary work needed to cater for every other aspect of societies needs. We have an ageing population. Making it older will not solve the problem, merely exacerbate it and lead to further problems down the line. And that does not even question the moral, legal and ethical arguments of such a move.
For me it isn't a case of not having enough resources, or having too many people. It is a case of not doing the right things with what we do have and having such a flawed, outdated infrastructure that so much is wasted it defies belief.
I also think the population can be controlled by educating the vulnerable and those identified in being within target groups where there is a proven history of multiple children. Condoms, the pill and other forms of contraception should be freely available everywhere. I'd love to see a condom machine on the altar at the local catholic church next to the rosaries but I think hell will freeze over first. You can only educate this into a population, not exterminate it from them. That takes time to affect. But, I believe, a lot less time than it will for the population to grossly explode in numbers in such a way as was stated in the rationale.
Above all, people are not stupid. They may require, help support and education to make the changes needed to avoid the problems that you pointed out but to me that is a far better way of doing things than the measures put forth in the original post.
But I think the most telling point in all of this is that, in global terms, it does not matter one iota what we do. I think Britain is responsible for half a percent of the worlds toxic emissions and a tiny fraction of the worlds population. So we can cut down all we like, but we are only shaving fractions off half a percent. You want to fight this, then you have to go global. I'm not saying we should not do our bit, but it is pointless us thinking we are making any difference, if we are the only ones. China, India and the US, The Far East, South America plus Europe and emerging African nations all have a duty too. Then you enter the realm of politics and you have no chance. Look at Kyoto.
Can you see such a notion of birth control or enforced sterilisation catching on in the largely catholic parts of South America and Europe? Never mind the catholic population in this country. What about human rights, civil liberties, freedom of choice? I am not saying everyone should end up with a family like the Waltons, however I do trust the majority of people to make the right decisions about their family and its construct. And those that can't should be helped, educated and advised, rather than shunned, isolated and seen as being the "leeches" on society.
To conclude, I think we have a defence mechanism in place for over-population. It's called mother nature. It seems quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that we should save the Earth, when the people trying to save it, obviously have no trust in it whatsoever.
Anyway, that's my waffle over with. Back to boobs.
You raise some good questions that require answering so I shall try my best to do so as I see it.
"Fairly Draconian" is an interesting way of describing baby girls being murdered because they are not boys, or at best being dumped to die on waste rubbish dumps. However being the paragon of sanity and human rights that is China, it must of course be western media bias that promulgates this kind of nonsense. The two links that follow are not easy reading but highlight my point. I would not be comfortable being part of any society that has laws and regulations that could lead to anything approaching this:-
As for the notion of resources and overpopulation, this is a good point. I see the two things as being inextricably linked. There is an argument to say that England, at least, is over populated already. We've all struggled for a parking space on a Saturday, missed out on that Christmas gift because it is out of stock, or had to make do with a certain loaf because the one we really wanted had already been sold.
However I think that we are a hugely wasteful country. We have more than enough food & resources here to sustain the current population, and the means to produce more if required (just think of all the farmers being paid NOT to grow crops, but to leave vast tracts of land uncultivated due to a lack of demand). How often have you seen a supermarket TRULY empty? Shops out of stock? Bread shortages as in Russia in the 70's? We are all sometimes guilty of buying far more than we need, using more than we need, using the car for a trip we could walk, leaving the TV on for five minutes when we pop out. Furthermore our utility/service providers are amongst the worst offenders, an antiquated pipe system seems millions of litres of water lost each year. Clean fresh water that we have paid to be cleaned and ready for our use. And don't get me started on the energy companies or I will blow a gasket! ;-)
This country has more than enough to sustain it's population, provided we make small changes to how we behave. That to me seems eminently more sensible than what is in effect a "cull" of the population, over levels of population which are entirely arbitrary and hypothetical.
If such a measure was introduced then the entire population would just get older. There would be fewer children but more older people. That would place a HUGE drain on services. Fewer people being born means fewer people to run around and look after them or do the auxilliary work needed to cater for every other aspect of societies needs. We have an ageing population. Making it older will not solve the problem, merely exacerbate it and lead to further problems down the line. And that does not even question the moral, legal and ethical arguments of such a move.
For me it isn't a case of not having enough resources, or having too many people. It is a case of not doing the right things with what we do have and having such a flawed, outdated infrastructure that so much is wasted it defies belief.
I also think the population can be controlled by educating the vulnerable and those identified in being within target groups where there is a proven history of multiple children. Condoms, the pill and other forms of contraception should be freely available everywhere. I'd love to see a condom machine on the altar at the local catholic church next to the rosaries but I think hell will freeze over first. You can only educate this into a population, not exterminate it from them. That takes time to affect. But, I believe, a lot less time than it will for the population to grossly explode in numbers in such a way as was stated in the rationale.
Above all, people are not stupid. They may require, help support and education to make the changes needed to avoid the problems that you pointed out but to me that is a far better way of doing things than the measures put forth in the original post.
But I think the most telling point in all of this is that, in global terms, it does not matter one iota what we do. I think Britain is responsible for half a percent of the worlds toxic emissions and a tiny fraction of the worlds population. So we can cut down all we like, but we are only shaving fractions off half a percent. You want to fight this, then you have to go global. I'm not saying we should not do our bit, but it is pointless us thinking we are making any difference, if we are the only ones. China, India and the US, The Far East, South America plus Europe and emerging African nations all have a duty too. Then you enter the realm of politics and you have no chance. Look at Kyoto.
Can you see such a notion of birth control or enforced sterilisation catching on in the largely catholic parts of South America and Europe? Never mind the catholic population in this country. What about human rights, civil liberties, freedom of choice? I am not saying everyone should end up with a family like the Waltons, however I do trust the majority of people to make the right decisions about their family and its construct. And those that can't should be helped, educated and advised, rather than shunned, isolated and seen as being the "leeches" on society.
To conclude, I think we have a defence mechanism in place for over-population. It's called mother nature. It seems quite frankly ludicrous to suggest that we should save the Earth, when the people trying to save it, obviously have no trust in it whatsoever.
Anyway, that's my waffle over with. Back to boobs.
So how does it work if you are with someone who has children from a previous marrage, and would then like to start a family with your new partner? or does that not count? would it depend on weather it was the female that had had the children previously or the male
?
I.E My husband has children(2) from his previous marrage does that mean that we could then go a head and have "2" our selfs :dunno: , or could his first wife have any more children as she has already had her "2" even though her new hubby hasnt got any? has he also already "had" his 2 children and that would then mean that i couldnt?:dunno:
Sorry if you covered this previously, jus a lot to take in at start of thread lol :dunno:
?I.E My husband has children(2) from his previous marrage does that mean that we could then go a head and have "2" our selfs :dunno: , or could his first wife have any more children as she has already had her "2" even though her new hubby hasnt got any? has he also already "had" his 2 children and that would then mean that i couldnt?:dunno:
Sorry if you covered this previously, jus a lot to take in at start of thread lol :dunno:
I cant say I agree on 2 children per family but there is an argument to be had for more people = more pollution/waste etc
Contraception is freely available and has been for some time, as a teenager some 15 years ago I knew where to get it etc - and thats having come from a 'catholic' family and having gone to a convent school... How long can the church be used for peoples inability to use contraception ? These 'vunerable' people dont want to use it, they would rather shag around having muliple children by numerous fathers (a generalisation I am aware) without a care of how to look after them or who will fund it. The children born into these target groups as you put it are the vunerable ones.
Quote by Resonance
I also think the population can be controlled by educating the vulnerable and those identified in being within target groups where there is a proven history of multiple children. Condoms, the pill and other forms of contraception should be freely available everywhere. I'd love to see a condom machine on the altar at the local catholic church next to the rosaries but I think hell will freeze over first.
Contraception is freely available and has been for some time, as a teenager some 15 years ago I knew where to get it etc - and thats having come from a 'catholic' family and having gone to a convent school... How long can the church be used for peoples inability to use contraception ? These 'vunerable' people dont want to use it, they would rather shag around having muliple children by numerous fathers (a generalisation I am aware) without a care of how to look after them or who will fund it. The children born into these target groups as you put it are the vunerable ones.
Sexlightened
this is mr jb, mrs jb will have an entirely different opinion on this but.........
I'm part of a large family, and proud of it. The idea of beng regulated in any way is frightening!
However!
I'm against some of the benefit system. This country is being punished enough already with the drain of pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefits etc. Why is it that benefits are paid in such a way that the more children a family has the more money that family get? The larger family, if in council accomodation, then gets bigger houses (but doesn't move out of the bigger house when the family eventually move on!). The family tends, sweeping generalisation here, to decide that working for a living isn't worth it so stays on benefits. The children don't have a worker as a role model so lack any ambition and eventually rely on benefits themselves. The children of families at the lower end of the social scale (government statistics here) use more of the healthcare in a region, lag behind in education - it's a downward spiral.
Yet I'm one of four.
I'm part of a large family, and proud of it. The idea of beng regulated in any way is frightening!
However!
I'm against some of the benefit system. This country is being punished enough already with the drain of pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefits etc. Why is it that benefits are paid in such a way that the more children a family has the more money that family get? The larger family, if in council accomodation, then gets bigger houses (but doesn't move out of the bigger house when the family eventually move on!). The family tends, sweeping generalisation here, to decide that working for a living isn't worth it so stays on benefits. The children don't have a worker as a role model so lack any ambition and eventually rely on benefits themselves. The children of families at the lower end of the social scale (government statistics here) use more of the healthcare in a region, lag behind in education - it's a downward spiral.
Yet I'm one of four.
Sex God
Quote by Sexysmilingeyes
I cant say I agree on 2 children per family but there is an argument to be had for more people = more pollution/waste etc
Contraception is freely available and has been for some time, as a teenager some 15 years ago I knew where to get it etc - and thats having come from a 'catholic' family and having gone to a convent school... How long can the church be used for peoples inability to use contraception ? These 'vunerable' people dont want to use it, they would rather shag around having muliple children by numerous fathers (a generalisation I am aware) without a care of how to look after them or who will fund it. The children born into these target groups as you put it are the vunerable ones.
I agree with your first point, but surely if we are recycling more and more things, we are learning to curtail our waste of produce and as we get better and better at this, remembering this kind of technology is still barely in its infancy, will that mean more or less waste per person? I think probably less, even if there are more people.
Your second point I will take issue with. I did not imply the church was at fault for being unable to use contraception. Certain faiths are at fault. Catholicism preaches no form of unnatural contraception should be used! It is a central unifying tenet to its doctrine and when a hugely significant number of the modern world believe in this form of, in my opinion, black magic mumbo jumbo, how can that not have an affect on population growth? How can they satisfy the criteria set down by Porritt and still marry that with their faith? The two are polar opposites.
Do we then pick and mix our choice of religion? Pick the bits that we like and ignore the bits we don't? I believe a great many people do this already. Good on them I say.
However, I have not said religion is the sole cause. Of course it isn't As you rightly say, a great many people and I quote :
"would rather shag around having multiple children by numerous fathers (a generalisation I am aware) without a care of how to look after them or who will fund it."
That is true. I wonder though if your primary grievance is the number of children, the number of fathers, or how they are "funded"? That is not the issue. That is entirely a sociological issue and nothing to do with being "green". I dare say there are a great number of families with 3 or more children, perhaps with some from different fathers, who may be on benefits, who do a damn site more for the environment and the world in general, than a traditional nuclear family with 2 perfect children and a BMW in the garage. So in respect to the original argument, which is about saving the planet and being green, who is in the wrong in that situation?
It's so easy to lump people into groups and highlight the differences and choose who to blame and point the finger at. The Asylum Seekers, Gypsies, Jews, The Rich, the poor, Women, Children, Fat people, thin people any divisive line you wish to use as your rallying call to arms. When will people in power ever learn that you cannot bring unity to any cause by highlighting these or any differences in a negative light? To do so is the rallying call of the selfish and cowardly. It breeds resentment, anger and ill feeling often based on totally flawed arguments with no basis in truth but presented in a warped way to make it appealing to the "we must blame someone" mindset. It does not befit a society of the twentieth century that is supposedly enlightened to require someone to blame.
What is required is that we can ALL do SOMETHING and we need to blame nobody.
By the way, those waiting to say "He's telling us to hug a terrorist!" please read this very carefully. Nothing mentioned in this thread is illegal (yet, until Porritt gets his way). That is entirely a different issue. This is about perception, responsibilities and attitudes. Prejudice and greed, selfish and selflessness. It is about restriction of civil liberty, it is about reducing us as humans to a measurable quantifiable "carbon footprint".
I happen to believe there is a bit more to us than that.
Incidentally, what would dear old H.R.H the Queen think of Mr Porrit's outburst, or Angelina Jolie, Madonna, or the foster parents who take in several children at a time to give them a semblance of a life? Perhaps we should not target the rich and wealthy in this scheme? Just the poorer people who require subsidising? In which case, why did not Porrit suggest sterilising anyone earning below £20,000 per annum?
There is a real problem with the abuse of the system by people. The fault lies entirely with the system that has been legislated, bastardised, abused and misshapen beyond all recognition. We MUST have a welfare system, but it should be a well and fair system. THAT is where the problem lies, not in cutting your baby tubes, or implementing laws that could be straight from an Orwellian nightmare. You change the system so it cannot be abused and educate and help those who need it.
Why punish the vast majority of sensible people in this country who may want and can afford to have three or more children and still maintain a green, eco-friendly lifestyle? Why strip away their rights when the actual problem is not being addressed? You cannot beat an illness by treating the symptoms, you have to attack the root cause. This is of course, a lot more difficult. It is so much easier to find someone else to point the finger of blame at.
Do we then pick and mix our choice of religion? Pick the bits that we like and ignore the bits we don't? I believe a great many people do this already. Good on them I say.
However, I have not said religion is the sole cause. Of course it isn't As you rightly say, a great many people and I quote :
"would rather shag around having multiple children by numerous fathers (a generalisation I am aware) without a care of how to look after them or who will fund it."
That is true. I wonder though if your primary grievance is the number of children, the number of fathers, or how they are "funded"? That is not the issue. That is entirely a sociological issue and nothing to do with being "green". I dare say there are a great number of families with 3 or more children, perhaps with some from different fathers, who may be on benefits, who do a damn site more for the environment and the world in general, than a traditional nuclear family with 2 perfect children and a BMW in the garage. So in respect to the original argument, which is about saving the planet and being green, who is in the wrong in that situation?
I would go further than saying a great many do, but that most do - for any religion its is very hard in the modern world to totally live by old rules / laws.
Catholicism also preaches no sex outside of marriage so if you think people stick to the no contraception rule they should stick to this one also. It may not make married families any smaller but keep people childless until they are married - but as we know that doesnt happen !
I dont have a primary grievance as I dont think any of the issues can be stood alone.
How the family is funded is very important, as the larger the brood the bigger the house - therefore higher fuel bills footed by tax payers, bills which if they had to pay themselves may try to reduce, as it comes out of there pocket.
I live 5 min from an area that is in the top 5% of social deprivation, and what I see are people with bags full of food from farmfoods or similar frozen food store - packaging here being the issue. They all have a car/s or a motorbike to pimp as they please. The amount of rubbish dumped outside of the houses is awful, so much for recycling at your local tip. At Christmas houses covered in lights, blow up santas and the like - on all day for at least a month, I dare say they are not energy saving bulbs - not only do these people have a larger carbon foot print it is being funded by tax payers.
So in summary I do think more children more pollution, especially if those children / families are funded by the state. If they had to be responsible and pay for the child themselves maybe they would think twice.
Sex God
Quote by Sexysmilingeyes
I would go further than saying a great many do, but that most do - for any religion its is very hard in the modern world to totally live by old rules / laws.
Catholicism also preaches no sex outside of marriage so if you think people stick to the no contraception rule they should stick to this one also. It may not make married families any smaller but keep people childless until they are married - but as we know that doesnt happen !
I dont have a primary grievance as I dont think any of the issues can be stood alone.
How the family is funded is very important, as the larger the brood the bigger the house - therefore higher fuel bills footed by tax payers, bills which if they had to pay themselves may try to reduce, as it comes out of there pocket.
I live 5 min from an area that is in the top 5% of social deprivation, and what I see are people with bags full of food from farmfoods or similar frozen food store - packaging here being the issue. They all have a car/s or a motorbike to pimp as they please. The amount of rubbish dumped outside of the houses is awful, so much for recycling at your local tip. At Christmas houses covered in lights, blow up santas and the like - on all day for at least a month, I dare say they are not energy saving bulbs - not only do these people have a larger carbon foot print it is being funded by tax payers.
So in summary I do think more children more pollution, especially if those children / families are funded by the state. If they had to be responsible and pay for the child themselves maybe they would think twice.
I agree with your first point once again! I certainly think the modern world renders a great deal of traditional religious texts and dogma obsolete.
Catholics also do preach no sex outside of marriage, and I am sure many traditional or strict catholics follow this. I am equally sure a great many don't. Also a large percentage of this country are not catholic at all, so it is something of a moot point really. Also but correct me if I am wrong here, but did Mr Porrit state whether the child had to be born in wedlock or not? I didn't think he did. In which case the marital status of the parents is irrelevant.
I'm a bit confused about the "coming out of their pocket" statement and the rest of the response though. It seems to me that the main object of your ire is poorer sections of the community. I too live by an area like that, as a Child I was brought up on one that made Beirut look like Benidorm, This to me seems more a diatribe against the poor and their predilection for storing kitchenalia in their garden and gawdy Christmas decorations, than a rational argument against the larger family. Why earmark only the poor for that when the middle and upper classes who may live in "better" areas are equally as culpable? They may not have the cooker in the garden, but they may have a BMW, Mercedes and Land Rover on the drive for the 2 minute school run. Which is worse for the environment?
I don't feel this is a class issue at all. If you don't like the fact the welfare state caters for the poor then that's fair enough, but how they choose to spend the money they do get is up to them.
It follows that more people make more waste, but I also think that better ways of dealing with that waste can reduce the problem drastically. I also feel that your rights as a human being should not be dictated by what is on your driveway, be it a Mercedes or a Fridge freezer.
I am also confused by the "pay for the child themselves" comment. I take it to mean that because they received state funded benefits, we are as a country in effect paying to bring up their children? If that is what you mean then there is no argument. We are I suppose. But tell me the alternative? Force them into jobs they don't exist? Evict them and starve them? Make them do unpaid work to get their benefits (which then creates a whole host of other problems involving childcare, human rights etc etc)?
As usual, the right wing tabloid crap espoused weekly about some horrible family who abuse the system to the nth degree gets put forth as a reason for such ludicrous measures to be put in force affecting everybody else. Most people in those situations are NOT living the life of riley, most WOULD work if they could, most do not like having to live off the state, many would love to have a Merc on their drive rather than an old washing machine. Many would love an imported Norwegian Spruce, decorated by Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen and lighted by Harrods on their driveway, but have to settle for B&Q's cheap range of snow lights. This joke of some well off underclass of people who the state of money and deprive the true "working/middle classes" of the fruits of their labour is a total myth. There are a few who know how to use and abuse the system. They should be dealt with and punished accordingly.
Most importantly of all the system needs to be changed to ensure that those in genuine need are given the support they require to contribute towards society (and green issues if they do not already) and those who do milk the state with no intention of contributing, are dealt with in ways that ensures they cannot continue in this way. I see that as much fairer than blanket sterilisation if you live in an area where the average house price is below £x, or is council owned, once you have two children.
It's akin to one child doing something wrong in school and punishing the entire class or yeargroup. I don't agree with that at all.
But hey, if we all had the same opinion, what a boring place this would be and thanks for commenting! ;-)
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
Quote by SlurpySarah
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
xQuote by Theladyisaminx
"Does having more than 2 kids contribute to the decline of the planet environmentally?"
All humans contribute to the decline of the planet, no matter how environmentally concious they may be. What concerns me, is the cost to the country and the lack of social responsibility shown by or required of "habitual breeders". This article is taken from the Guardian in 2004.
Basically, it says that the cost of raising a child to the age of 21 in the UK has risen to £153,620.
£153 620!!!
And that was 5 years ago! How many people have suffered through lack of money to buy dialysis machines, cancer treatments, CTI scanners etc etc etc etc etc. But those who continually pump out multiple children don't care - someone else will pay for your kids, won't they? You won't have to worry about the financial costs, because someone else will. You don't have to worry about how many suffer through the lack of funds to the NHS, education etc. because someone else will, won't they?
In my opinion, 2 children should be the maximum and 1 child the optimum.
so what would happen in a case like mine I had one child and went for another, ended up naturally falling for twins, would you suggest terminating one at early pregnacy or both and start again?
Are twins common in your family group? If so, I think you were irresponsible in trying for more after your first child. If not, well then mistakes happen - that's why pencils have erasers. Your extra children are causing suffering and death because of the money they cost. That's something you'll just have to live with. Bear it in mind next time you hear of any children suffering because of the lack of funds for essential services. Watch the Great Ormond Street Hospital charity advert and ask yourself the question - "why do we need a charity to look after our children?".
why would we be restricted to one child? we have a dwindling population here in europe. And an aging one. We need to increase the birth rate just to stand still!
Whilst I agree that humankind contributes to the worlds problems we also have to understand we humans are not outside of nature but part of it.
We need to live sustainably and that means stopping this crazy push for ever expanding economic growth.
Whilst I agree that humankind contributes to the worlds problems we also have to understand we humans are not outside of nature but part of it.
We need to live sustainably and that means stopping this crazy push for ever expanding economic growth.
