Save The Planet - Stop Breeding

[sunny-dave]

Not just Climate Change - water and food are going to become increasingly scarce resources unless population growth stalls.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

This also illustrates the perverse nature of paying people to have children, through child benefit, instead of making people pay the full economic costs of their child including education and health care.

Surely a government that was serious about cutting carbon emissions and preserving resources for the future would *increase* income tax according to the number of children in a household, rather than offering subsidies and handouts?

[ummmm]

You think we should have to pay for health care and education? You can't be serious.

Basically punishing the poor.

[New Judge]

I read this story this morning (though not in "The Grauniad", I hasten to add) and this, together with a report that deploying the Royal Navy to ferry migrants from the coast of Libya to Italy has actually increased illegal immigration, led me to ask myself "Could we do with a Minister for The Bleedin' Obvious".

I have stated countless times on AB that over-population is the biggest threat to mankind (and the well-being of the planet) than "Gobal Warming" or "Climate Change" (or whatever the latest data suggests we should call "weather") will ever be. The population growth exhibited in the UK is alarming. Population growth in sub-Saharan Africa is terrifying. Meanwhile the UK government shells out a Grand per annum for the first child born and £600 for each and every subsequent one, it provides "Child Tax Credits" (which have only recently been capped a little) and treats the creation and upbringing of ever-more children as a divine right.

[Old_Geezer]

Been pointing out that the human race has to show control over it's breeding for years. Problem is many aren't listening and many others feel they have the right to ignore responsibilities to the planet and human race. Either, "I can afford it so I can pay for as many offspring as I want", or "The State won't let my kids suffer and will pay, so I can have as many as I like".

During peace time I can see a humane argument for helping those who can't afford their first child to do so. We only have one shot at (family) life as far as we know. So long as the welfare aid is limited. But beyond the first, no. Daft thing to do.

Health and education I consider to be separate matters. A civilised society tries to make health a right as far as it can, not let the unfortunate suffer. And education up to a basic level is incredibly useful to a population. Beyond that it should be for those bright enough to take advantage and return the investment.

[woofgang]

I am not sure its “that” easy. There doesn’t seem to be any consideration given to social and economic development in current low emissions countries. As well as developed countries having less children, surely emerging countries would have to be prevented from emerging any further? Then there are more nebulous considerations regarding the ecological effect of having less animal by products to use for eg clothing (because we are all vegetarian) The obvious solution is to use synthetic petroleum based materials which bring their own issues.

[Baldric]

It has always been my opinion that "if you can't afford 'em don't have 'em and expect someone else to pay for "em"

[woofgang]

....I am reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) computer model of the future based on the environment of Victorian London.....you know the one where the main environmental problems were spitting and horse manure? I go to google.

[ummmm]

But what if they could afford them at the time but something changed for them.

[woofgang]

I was kind of right......
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/03/29/the-horse-manure-problem/

[New Judge]

"But what if they could afford them at the time but something changed for them."

Why is it that whenever a general problem is discussed, specific "exceptions to the rule" are trotted out?

The vast majority of people across the world (including many in the UK) who breed to excess cannot, by their own efforts, afford to support their brood properly. Many of them are unable, from the outset, to afford to feed and clothe their children adequately without either charitable support or State aid. It is a ludicrous situation where nations such as the UK are clearly over-populated (with all the associated problems that brings) and the government is struggling to provide essential services whilst paying people to breed. It's the economics of the madhouse.

People who were self-sufficient but hit hard times through accident, tragedy or misfortune can be assisted. Those who churn out a child every 12 to 24 months secure in the knowledge that the State will pick up the bill for their ever-increasing brood should realise that in the real world bearing another child brings extra costs, extra responsibilities and a considerable extra threat to the planet.

[Deskdiary]

I have never understood why those people that choose to breed to excess (and let's fact it, we know the type of people I am referring to) are, to all intents and purposes, rewarded for doing so - considerations of whether or not they can afford to have more children do not apply to them.

Can anybody imagine going to ask their boss for a pay rise because of a desire to have another child/more children? You'd be laughed at.

I loved this from New Judge;

""Gobal Warming" or "Climate Change" (or whatever the latest data suggests we should call "weather")"

[gingejbee]

So, it appears, having a good number of gays around is, perhaps, an advantage, after all?

[Old_Geezer]

An alternative solution to horse travel was found. (Although that's still got issues.)

I'm wondering what the alternative is to human beings. Perhaps all will be academic once the robots kill us all off and take over.

[david small]

We need to invent a spray that can be airborne, and sterilises entire populations wether they want to or not. No more hungry babies dying of a variety conditions. No more grieving parents. The world would be a better place.
There are too many of us.

[Ryzen]

Yes ginge..gays are natures way of curbing population growth.Any reduction measures taken by the government will be received the same way as the Poll tax.

[woofgang]

so who chooses where to spray and how do they choose?

[scooping]

Don't mind controls on the birth rate, just so long as we can use some bio-mechanism to reduce the number of Lefties and increase the rate of Tories. Surely not beyond the wit of man.

[Kromovaracun]

It's hardly surprising. There's very little we can really do to mitigate the effects of climate change or dwindling resources while the global population is well in advance of 7 billion.

Alas, simply operating the levers of child welfare is not enough. It's a plaster on a gaping wound. People will keep having kids at unsustainable rates regardless of whether they are supported by the government. What is needed is either a) Utopia-style mass sterilization (which is fanciful) or b) A wholesale cultural change away from the idea that having children is a worthwhile or desirable thing to do (which is pretty much impossible because people are biologically hardwired to love kids).

So it's true, but there's really not very much we can do with this knowledge and unless science and technology can come up with some pretty extraordinary solutions we're a bit stuffed.

[sunny-dave]

Mr J Swift had a Modest Proposal, krom ...

[-Talbot-]

Europe had stopped unsustainable breeding but apparently that is a bad thing and our leaders tell us we need millions of fertile migrants.

[TWR]

Africa / China comes to my mind, and the UK Is following.