News10 mins ago
The Right Idea, But How Should We Do It
10 Answers
http://
This is a subject I feel strongly about. All the 'green' policies in the world will be of no use whilst the worlds population continues to explode. It doubled over the last 30 years and is continuing upwards and onwards.
It has to be crystal clear, even to the ardent right-on liberal that we as a species cannot continue this way. As we continue to remove natural selection we must strive to prevent the necessary birth of millions many of whom, increasingly, will be born to hardship and starvation.
But, what is the best way to go about this?
I think for starters in this country we should remove any benefits for more than two children from now on. Then we should set about encouraging certain religions to take the correct path rather then be against contraception.
This is a subject I feel strongly about. All the 'green' policies in the world will be of no use whilst the worlds population continues to explode. It doubled over the last 30 years and is continuing upwards and onwards.
It has to be crystal clear, even to the ardent right-on liberal that we as a species cannot continue this way. As we continue to remove natural selection we must strive to prevent the necessary birth of millions many of whom, increasingly, will be born to hardship and starvation.
But, what is the best way to go about this?
I think for starters in this country we should remove any benefits for more than two children from now on. Then we should set about encouraging certain religions to take the correct path rather then be against contraception.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"we should remove any benefits for more than two children from now on. Then we should set about encouraging certain religions to take the correct path rather then be against contraception."
How does that stop or persuade people to not have more children? Also, if someone has the personal financial means, can they keep going?
How does that stop or persuade people to not have more children? Also, if someone has the personal financial means, can they keep going?
It's not clear that the problems of overpopulation have much to do with the UK, or the Western world in general. Because of that the focus shouldn't be on home but on improving health and education in Africa, and other "Developing nations" -- where the current population explosion is far greater and having far more impact than in the UK.
Large families in the UK are comparatively rare, so no measures taken here will have any significant impact to the overpopulation problem.
Large families in the UK are comparatively rare, so no measures taken here will have any significant impact to the overpopulation problem.
Taking the really long view, it'll be a self-correcting situation. The excess population will get decimated either by wars over increasingly scarce resources, or by new infectious diseases which thrive on the overcrowding, or by something else, after which evolution will favour a modified human species with a lower breeding rate.
Yes, people do have more children simply to get more benefit or housing. It is not just Child benefit.
Jim, I said for starters, not it was the final solution. It obviously becomes more difficult for those who have means, hence the discussion.
And are you saying that because we in the UK will have little impact on it then we should not bother? Pity the same philosophy want applied to the 'green' rubbish!.
On the subject of improving health of "developing" Nations, surely that will lead to more not less?
Perhaps we should not send so much aid to save people unless they agree to some for of contraception? Yes radical but not seen any other viable solutions yet.
Jim, I said for starters, not it was the final solution. It obviously becomes more difficult for those who have means, hence the discussion.
And are you saying that because we in the UK will have little impact on it then we should not bother? Pity the same philosophy want applied to the 'green' rubbish!.
On the subject of improving health of "developing" Nations, surely that will lead to more not less?
Perhaps we should not send so much aid to save people unless they agree to some for of contraception? Yes radical but not seen any other viable solutions yet.
"On the subject of improving health of "developing" Nations, surely that will lead to more not less?"
Quite the reverse, if the Western world is anything to go by -- the Birth rate lowers with improving health and education, presumably because this gives women more to do than just child-bearing, though it's more complicated than that. So bringing health and better education to those nations with very high birth- and death-rates will help to stabilise the population in the long-term.
As to your other point:
" are you saying that because we in the UK will have little impact on it then we should not bother?"
I'm not really saying that at all. Or perhaps, I mean that efforts should be focused first in the places where any difference will be significant and actually worthwhile. The specific measure you are suggesting for example of cutting off child benefit for the third child and any after that is unlikely to discourage people having large families and is more likely to make things harder for the children than prevent them from being born in the first place. As has been stated earlier, the "lost income" would be around £13-£14 per child per week, a loss that is unlikely to frighten people into having fewer children. And anyway, for those large families there are over three times as many small ones, approximately 3.7 million families having just one child in 2012 statistics:
http://
The net effect is that population growth in the UK is rather more to do with immigration than large families exactly. Although part of the reason immigration is impacting our population, it has to be said, is that immigrants often have larger families on average.
Anyway, I'm not saying we shouldn't bother, but that we should focus our efforts in places where they can make a difference. And here, in the UK, is not really that place -- at least, not by targeting family budgets. The most obvious solution given that I said that UK population rise was mostly due to immigration would be strictly-enforced caps, but this merely shifts the problem from here to wherever else those people wishing to come to this country end up going instead. (Not that such caps shouldn't be implemented, but they wouldn't tackle this specific overpopulation problem.)
No, the best place to focus is in those countries who are contributing most to the global population growth, such as Africa and Central/ South America. Which brings me to your final point:
"Perhaps we should not send so much aid to save people unless they agree to some for of contraception?"
This approach might be worth exploring to some extent but with a great deal of care -- you can't rely on the people you need to pay attention to, or be aware of, the message you're trying to convey. It's all very well withholding money from Africa, but that's unlikely to lead to more contraception take-up in itself because you have to fight a whole cultural and religious attitude as well. Keeping the money means, to some extent, not spending it on health care and contraception and much-needed education facilities. It also means less money going to the wrong places, as does happen a lot, and that certainly is worth addressing: if we are going to give money as aid to foreign countries, it ought to be used for aid, and a lot of that money just isn't. How we give Aid, and what it is spent on, are issues worth addressing and urgently.
Quite the reverse, if the Western world is anything to go by -- the Birth rate lowers with improving health and education, presumably because this gives women more to do than just child-bearing, though it's more complicated than that. So bringing health and better education to those nations with very high birth- and death-rates will help to stabilise the population in the long-term.
As to your other point:
" are you saying that because we in the UK will have little impact on it then we should not bother?"
I'm not really saying that at all. Or perhaps, I mean that efforts should be focused first in the places where any difference will be significant and actually worthwhile. The specific measure you are suggesting for example of cutting off child benefit for the third child and any after that is unlikely to discourage people having large families and is more likely to make things harder for the children than prevent them from being born in the first place. As has been stated earlier, the "lost income" would be around £13-£14 per child per week, a loss that is unlikely to frighten people into having fewer children. And anyway, for those large families there are over three times as many small ones, approximately 3.7 million families having just one child in 2012 statistics:
http://
The net effect is that population growth in the UK is rather more to do with immigration than large families exactly. Although part of the reason immigration is impacting our population, it has to be said, is that immigrants often have larger families on average.
Anyway, I'm not saying we shouldn't bother, but that we should focus our efforts in places where they can make a difference. And here, in the UK, is not really that place -- at least, not by targeting family budgets. The most obvious solution given that I said that UK population rise was mostly due to immigration would be strictly-enforced caps, but this merely shifts the problem from here to wherever else those people wishing to come to this country end up going instead. (Not that such caps shouldn't be implemented, but they wouldn't tackle this specific overpopulation problem.)
No, the best place to focus is in those countries who are contributing most to the global population growth, such as Africa and Central/ South America. Which brings me to your final point:
"Perhaps we should not send so much aid to save people unless they agree to some for of contraception?"
This approach might be worth exploring to some extent but with a great deal of care -- you can't rely on the people you need to pay attention to, or be aware of, the message you're trying to convey. It's all very well withholding money from Africa, but that's unlikely to lead to more contraception take-up in itself because you have to fight a whole cultural and religious attitude as well. Keeping the money means, to some extent, not spending it on health care and contraception and much-needed education facilities. It also means less money going to the wrong places, as does happen a lot, and that certainly is worth addressing: if we are going to give money as aid to foreign countries, it ought to be used for aid, and a lot of that money just isn't. How we give Aid, and what it is spent on, are issues worth addressing and urgently.
It's mostly due to the fact that everybody has been brainwashed into thinking that all human life is sacred and every one of these lives must be preserved at all costs no matter what the circumstances. Along with the obsession that no one must be ill and every illness must be treated so that we can all live longer and longer. Nature's natural selection process is being interfered with. If it had been allowed to carry on as it does in the animal kingdom, the human race would end up fewer but over time would be leaner and fitter. The way we are going is unsustainable.
A few things to ponder over:
The African continent has 1.1 billion people. By the year 2100, it will have 4.1 billion – more than a third of the world’s total population.
Between now and 2100, six countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the United States of America, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Uganda. Four of the six are in central Africa.
The absolute annual global increase in global population is currently 78 million. 97% of this increase occurs in “less developed” regions.
Meantime population growth excluding immigration is virtually nil in Europe. So, as with “carbon emissions” effective control lies not in Europe but elsewhere. Of course Europe must beware because, as the UK has demonstrated with its record population growth figures recently announced, there is a danger that imported population growth will overwhelm any efforts the indigenous population might make to retain the numbers at a sustainable level. But there’s not much chance that such caution will prevail.
By the way, here's an example of a gentleman who most certainly saw his children as a key to increased income:
http://
The African continent has 1.1 billion people. By the year 2100, it will have 4.1 billion – more than a third of the world’s total population.
Between now and 2100, six countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Nigeria, the United States of America, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania and Uganda. Four of the six are in central Africa.
The absolute annual global increase in global population is currently 78 million. 97% of this increase occurs in “less developed” regions.
Meantime population growth excluding immigration is virtually nil in Europe. So, as with “carbon emissions” effective control lies not in Europe but elsewhere. Of course Europe must beware because, as the UK has demonstrated with its record population growth figures recently announced, there is a danger that imported population growth will overwhelm any efforts the indigenous population might make to retain the numbers at a sustainable level. But there’s not much chance that such caution will prevail.
By the way, here's an example of a gentleman who most certainly saw his children as a key to increased income:
http://
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Caught, Those Who Allegedly Cut Down The...
News14 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
News18 mins ago
Law21 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
