Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

UK population

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well just on climate change, the average person in Britain has 4 times the carbon footprint as the average Chinese person. Obviously China's still growing, but that doesn't change the fact that the average westerner consumes far more than anyone else, and so a high birth rate in the West would have a disproportionate effect on things like the use of natural resources and contributions to global warming.

    As is said in the courtroom : assuming facts not in evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Asia has just started consuming food iron coal oil gas water etc etc etc ...on a massive and growing scale ...the earth is going to be stripped of everything and there aint nothing we can do about it.

    Have you ever read The Ultimate Resource ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Ultimate Resource

    Yes, the book where, even if we take the main conclusion as correct - i.e: that adaptation will mean that resource availability and quality of life will increase exponentially even with population increase - we're still left with a massive hole where biodiversity used to be, and the fact that this thesis appears only to apply to adapting to human needs.

    The rate of species extinction at present is at even the most conservative estimate 100 times greater than average; this is being driven by habitat loss as the main factor, with global temperature change being another rising factor.

    In the face of this, the thesis just doesn't hold water for the long term, unless by 'adaptation' he means finding new forms of human production which take into account the way in which they interact with the complex systems of biodiversity and climactic variation that occur on our planet.

    Not just by exhausting one commodity and moving to the next one.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you ever read The Ultimate Resource ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Resource

    I'm not impressed.
    When that book was written another two billion people weren't expected to be wanting washing machines and cars.
    Every single thing we use and have comes from the dust of the earth ...not from the imagination.
    If ...we could find a way to run our cars on grass or mud we'd be laughing.
    If we could burn boulders in our power stations we'd eventually level every mountian on earth.
    The one hope I see is the big hardon collider.
    That machine may well produce new fuels and even the power of anti gravity ...now thats what I'd call hope and progress.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And Or ........

    $100,000 Challenge to Prove Us Wrong!



    If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation;



    then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time...



    and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . .



    CANNABIS HEMP!
    http://www.jackherer.com/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hemp wouldnt solve all of the worlds problems Rolly, but if we swapped from cotton to hemp it would certainly cut down on the water and chemicals used.

    But then given you can pick hemp with machine it would also put thousands of people out of work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I never suggested taxing the poor. Not sure what you're referring to...

    You know exactly what I mean. A "tax on procreation" is effectively saying "stop poor people breeding". Lord Hugh Ponconby-Smythe won't notice it.

    I didn't know you were into eugenics.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    We should be taxing people for having children, not giving them financial incentives. Here and in every developed country in the world.
    It can only be a matter of time before you wheel out the argument "Hitler used to pay adults in order to have lots of children, so we shouldn't do it lolz!!!!!111!!!!".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    You know exactly what I mean. A "tax on procreation" is effectively saying "stop poor people breeding". Lord Hugh Ponconby-Smythe won't notice it.

    I didn't know you were into eugenics.

    Naturally, like with many other taxes, fees and dues, the poorest would be excluded or would receive benefits.

    The point is that having children is a lifeystyle choice, and having a big family should not be encouraged.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What happened to having children was the perfectly normal thing to do and not having any was a life style choice?
    The worlds gone all arse about tit!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is a complex issue, but I must admit I think the idea of taxing the act of reproduction, both in principle and in practice, is a pretty nightmarish idea.

    There's also the question of the gendered life course as well - unsurprisingly child bearing is fundamental to a lot of women's idea of self and their projected futures. Whether you seek to restrict the number of pregnancies by push/pull incentivisation is another question, but taxing the actual act of reproduction is a bridge too far.

    Reproduction isn't a lifestyle choice, it's far too fundamental to 'being' human (particularly female) for the vast majority of humans.

    Particularly because, like all taxation (as others have pointed out) it won't fall equally on all sections of society.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not a lifestyle choice, it's essential for the stability of the population and you will receive the benefit of people choosing to change their lifestyle and devoting a lot of time, care and money at their own expense into nurturing the future workers of the UK.

    I think Aladdin's point was... there are too many workers for the future. In the middle ages the population of Europe actually influenced our battle style, compared to north africa / middle east etc. so our lords and ladies would send men into meat grinders in the middle of a field until whoever was left was left, middle eastern style was skirmishes, almost a 'show of force', until one side backed down and retreated - because people were less disposable.

    I have thought in the past about something like a parenting licence you would have to get before having kids, but it does sounds scarily Orwellian. I think it's something we don't focus enough on because it's too intimate i.e. seen as none of our business - but a lot of parents are simply bad parents. Perhaps you would have to complete a short course, similar perhaps to driving lessons except about all different aspects about child welfare.

    After a recent thing, I keep saying to my mum its shocking how different my childhood is to many other people's - you assume that parents always put their kids first but it's simply not the case.

    I don't think it's something that can be brought about, but it's something politicians should at least think about, because children are the future as you rightly said. I think the current attitude of not talking about it because it opens scary doors is naive at best and could be tragic at worst.

    Just for the record, I don't think general taxation on children would work. I'm also not against eugenics, I think it gets an extremely bad press. Absolutely not an advocate of telling people they can't have kids - but embryo screening etc. it seems nonsensical not to do this because of some attachment to whichever embryo random chance gives you (or, 'nature', if you will).

    My 2p :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I think Aladdin's point was... there are too many workers for the future. In the middle ages the population of Europe actually influenced our battle style, compared to north africa / middle east etc. so our lords and ladies would send men into meat grinders in the middle of a field until whoever was left was left, middle eastern style was skirmishes, almost a 'show of force', until one side backed down and retreated - because people were less disposable.

    Can I say that's the most complete load of bollocks I have ever read
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can I say that's the most complete load of bollocks I have ever read

    Of course you can say that, but are you just going to refute it because you think it's bollocks? Many historians would agree with me that battle tactics between different areas were very different and part of this was socio-economic factors.

    From wikipedia ( would find more sources, but surely the onus should be on you to provide a source to say that everyone fielded identical armies and fought in the same style):
    The early Arab army mainly consisted of light infantry, with some light cavalry and a few camel cavalry. In contrast, the Roman army and Persian army at the time both had large numbers of heavy infantry (Roman legions and Persian daylami) and heavy cavalry (cataphracts and clibanarii) that were better equipped, heavily protected, and more experienced and disciplined. The Roman and Persian armies were also led by skilled generals such as Heraclius and Rostam Farrokhzād respectively. Despite being outnumbered by these superior Roman and Persian armies that were several times larger in almost every early battle, the Arabs were able to overcome the odds and defeat their enemies each time, mainly due to being led by tactical geniuses such as Khalid ibn al-Walid, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, and Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, as well as the better mobility of light cavalry and light infantry units which allowed them to use better maneuvers, including various flanking maneuvers and pincer movements.

    Do you think I make this stuff up for fun?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Of course you can say that, but are you just going to refute it because you think it's bollocks? Many historians would agree with me that battle tactics between different areas were very different and part of this was socio-economic factors.

    From wikipedia ( would find more sources, but surely the onus should be on you to provide a source to say that everyone fielded identical armies and fought in the same style):



    Do you think I make this stuff up for fun?

    Your quote has nothing to do with what you originally claimed and off course socio-economic factors play a part.

    However the idea that Europe, blessed by population sent it soldiers into a middle of a field to duke it out is rubbish and takes no account of the fact that soliders were a very, very tiny part of the population (never above 1% until the late nineteenth century*). Battlefield tactics in Europe from the end of the Roman Empire to the Napolenoic Wars were as much aimed at keeping armies in being that sacrificing them on the battlefield. Population had a very, very limited impact on battle style compared to the role of the state, technology and religion/culture.

    The big difference between Europe and elsewhere is the rise of the professional soldiers, rather than the part-time warrior aristocracy and conscripted peasants - not population.

    *with the exception of industrialised UK and Napoleon's invasion of Russia - who's very size crippled it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Naturally, like with many other taxes, fees and dues, the poorest would be excluded or would receive benefits. The point is that having children is a lifestyle choice, and having a big family should not be encouraged.
    Oh dear, oh dear. Haven't you come across stories in the press that surface regularly about the state paying benefits to people who are unemployed and breeding like rabbits? I don't see any reason why I should be paying feckless people to have children. Infact, let's do a trade off. We'll start taxing people if they want to have children if we stop giving benefits to those that do.

    Oh wait... for some reason, I can't see you agreeing to that idea.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I think Aladdin's point was... there are too many workers for the future.
    If it was then that's balls. Perhaps world wide. But not in the UK. The population is ageing dramatically and unless we adopt a policy of importing young people into the country then the status quo is unsustainable.

    The rest of your post was bizarre.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The time series demographics don't lie (unfortunately) - the ageing population has been a massive creeping issue for some time now on the projections.
Sign In or Register to comment.