The Hot Weather Madness

Over population is a problem as much as people living longer is a problem. It's impossible to address without going down some very dark paths.
Some couples in the developed world will look at things a lot differently to their counterparts in less prosperous countries and they might decide to limit the number of kids they have or even forego breeding altogether. When you don't have basic health care, access to contraception or any form of welfare system then childbirth is often an inevitability not a choice.
If we don't address the issue of climate change it is going to mean a lot more than us having hotter summers.
It'll render places uninhabitable and force displacement of huge numbers. It'll also impact the world's ability to produce enough food as well. All of those things will lead to a destabilising effect on geopolitics and possibly mean a lot more wars and military conflict. All of the above will impact on population numbers one way or another so that might figure in a lot of people's thinking.
 
GazC_MFC said:
Over population is causing the death of the planet, how else would you propose we help people have a life worth living

Do you ever think about what the world will be like when your grandchildren are born?
Click to expand...
You (and others) are talking about limiting the amount of children somebody can have without a choice. A dark road my friend. As I said. Very China like. We've seen what they do to Muslims using population control and free thought control as a reason.

@SuperStu I don't know of anybody who took into consideration government help when thinking of starting a family. What an odd sort of thing to consider anyways.
 
Randy said:
You (and others) are talking about limiting the amount of children somebody can have without a choice. A dark road my friend. As I said. Very China like. We've seen what they do to Muslims using population control and free thought control as a reason.

@SuperStu I don't know of anybody who took into consideration government help when thinking of starting a family. What an odd sort of thing to consider anyways.
Click to expand...

Yes I see. You were wanting an answer to do with coercion and violence and that's why you're playing dumb with the tax/benefits answer.

A few points to consider:
1) you probably don't really know who considered what out of your circle of friends regarding children. Even if you've discussed it with literally every person you've ever met, you only know what they've chosen to tell you.

2) you don't need to know someone personally if you understand how governments can use taxes and benefits to influence behaviour. I don't anecdotally know anyone who has told me they quit smoking due to the level of tax on cigarettes. But statistically, the more governments have taxed them, the fewer people are smokers.

3) you were responding to people saying new taxes/benefits could be introduced to influence behaviour. I.e. a hypothetical. I'm up with my 4 month old now. My partner and I both agree we probably couldn't afford a second child. If a future gov decided they wanted to encourage childbirth rates upwards they could do a raft of policies like subsidising childcare, increasing child benefit, child tax credits, free nappies, whatever. For some people the money saved would make the difference to whether they felt they could afford more children. For others obviously not.
 
Last edited:
This is quite a good read. I hope that the people who need to read it, do, but as is often the case, they’ll probably isolate themselves from anything that challenges the narrative they’ve been fooled into believing, and ignore it completely.

news.sky.com

Why is it so hard to get people to care about climate change? A neuroscientist and a psychologist shed light

The climate crisis is staring us in the face, but can we believe it? Environmental psychologists and a neuroscientist discuss why it can be so hard for us to get our heads round climate change - with a surprising list of reasons.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
SuperStu said:
Yes I see. You were wanting an answer to do with coercion and violence and that's why you're playing dumb with the tax/benefits answer.

A few points to consider:
1) you probably don't really know who considered what out of your circle of friends regarding children. Even if you've discussed it with literally every person you've ever met, you only know what they've chosen to tell you.

2) you don't need to know someone personally if you understand how governments can use taxes and benefits to influence behaviour. I don't anecdotally know anyone who has told me they quit smoking due to the level of tax on cigarettes. But statistically, the more governments have taxed them, the fewer people are smokers.

3) you were responding to people saying new taxes/benefits could be introduced to influence behaviour. I.e. a hypothetical. I'm up with my 4 month old now. My partner and I both agree we probably couldn't afford a second child. If a future gov decided they wanted to encourage childbirth rates upwards they could do a raft of policies like subsidising childcare, increasing child benefit, child tax credits, free nappies, whatever. For some people the money saved would make the difference to whether they felt they could afford more children. For others obviously not.
Click to expand...

So basically your in favour of a government been given control of yet another aspect of our lives? That's fair enough, your happy with that. I'm personally not comfortable with a government "playing god".
 
Randy said:
So basically your in favour of a government been given control of yet another aspect of our lives? That's fair enough, your happy with that. I'm personally not comfortable with a government "playing god".
Click to expand...

I never said I was in favour of it. You asked a question, how a government could do something and I was just answering that. Then you went off on one about Chinese prison camps so I clarified that that wasn't what I'd just said.

Post #394 is what I'm in favour of.
 
I cant believe what i am reading, seems theres a few on here happy to go along with morally bankrupt premise of only having a safety net for the first two children, this policy in action has seen huge numbers of children go into further poverty. We should stop or discourage familes of over two children is the sort of right wing bile the boards incarcerated former member smoggrainbow would promote.
 
Glover_elbow said:
I cant believe what i am reading, seems theres a few on here happy to go along with morally bankrupt premise of only having a safety net for the first two children, this policy in action has seen huge numbers of children go into further poverty. We should stop or discourage familes of over two children is the sort of right wing bile the boards incarcerated former member smoggrainbow would promote.
Click to expand...
well, I'm way more lefty than jezza corbyn and I'd agree with it - don't think its a left or right thing at all. what we seem to be lacking is any realistic contingency planning for the survival of the the human race.
 
As I said above, either geopolitics or nature herself will start to reduce global populations if we don't start addressing the climate issues. Choice will be taken out of our hands.
Just to avoid any confusion, I am not in favour of any sort of coercion to limit people having kids in any way shape or form, but people have to realise that it is part of the problem and for some people it will be a choice they'll make.
The more aggressively we attack human impact on the climate now, the less aggressive the toll paid by the human race will be.
It wasn't long ago people around the world were saying we shouldn't have had lockdowns as it'd result in a ruined future for our children. The result of not doing so would inevitably been a load more deaths and yet now, those same people are refusing to acknowledge the climate issues that'll ultimately mean their kids futures are worse than they should be. We see this all the time from right wing politicians spouting freedom as being the most sacrosanct thing in the world, but the real reason is money and keeping hold of it.
 
If someone is really serious about climate change and " saving the planet " The number of children you bring into the world should be front and centre in your thoughts. No amount of recycling, electric cars offsetting carbon emotions or any other environmental savings can ever reduce the carbon footprint having a child will impact on the planet. Why does it have to be the Government that has to encourage / force ( Insert your preferred choice ) somebody? What happened to personal responsibility.
 
Glover_elbow said:
I cant believe what i am reading, seems theres a few on here happy to go along with morally bankrupt premise of only having a safety net for the first two children, this policy in action has seen huge numbers of children go into further poverty. We should stop or discourage familes of over two children is the sort of right wing bile the boards incarcerated former member smoggrainbow would promote.
Click to expand...
Human survival vs freedom of choice is the debate.

Do you allow the population to grow and kill the planet, or do you try an stagnate it to allow other people to have a fair chance of a good life

If climate change continues on it current route they’ll be more people in poverty.

I don’t believe in stopping benefits for children. I do believe we need to stop the population increasing in an already stretched world
 
Redpete said:
If someone is really serious about climate change and " saving the planet " The number of children you bring into the world should be front and centre in your thoughts. No amount of recycling, electric cars offsetting carbon emotions or any other environmental savings can ever reduce the carbon footprint having a child will impact on the planet. Why does it have to be the Government that has to encourage / force ( Insert your preferred choice ) somebody? What happened to personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you were around in 2020/2021 when covid hit and how people took personal responsibility on for themselves……
 
Redpete said:
If someone is really serious about climate change and " saving the planet " The number of children you bring into the world should be front and centre in your thoughts. No amount of recycling, electric cars offsetting carbon emotions or any other environmental savings can ever reduce the carbon footprint having a child will impact on the planet. Why does it have to be the Government that has to encourage / force ( Insert your preferred choice ) somebody? What happened to personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
When was personal responsibility for anything other than immediate surroundings ever in play?

We're on a football message board surrounded by people happy to drive for hundreds of miles to see a 90 minute match. Those living outside the area continue following Boro and encouraging their offspring to do the same, rather than follow a local team.

We have football authorities who could vastly reduce electricity wastage by kicking winter games off an hour or 90 minutes earlier in the winter months.

The way to encourage the reduction in family numbers has already been proven, you give families a good standard of living. We as a nation are moving in the opposite direction, we're trying to do it through deprivation. Every time the Conservative box is ticked that's what's being voted for.
 
I`m glad I vote for a political party that is against the 2 child limit, that just pushes families in to poverty

The only ethical way is through education
 
We know from experience that as child mortality drops then so does the birth rate. In most developed countries the birth rate is below 2. I am hopeful that this will continue without the need for any interference from Governments or anyone else. The other method of population control is to have periodic wars to slaughter a good chunk of the population and that will become more likely unless we address the demand on resources for "stuff". It might be that the current Ukraine war is more about resources than political influence and security with Russia wanting to secure the agricultural resources of Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top