Scruttocks, there aare a multitude of factors involved in fertility raates, it can't just be dumbed down to a question of education and awareness regarding birth control.
Of course these are factors, but there are many others:
Viewed in terms of household economies, kids in developing countries are just as much as an asset as they are a cost, as they start working at much younger ages and are therefore a much more important part of the workforce. This is especially true in rural areas.
Conversely, the cost of raising and educating children lowers birth rates in industrialised nations. Here, kids won't generlly start working until their late teens/early 20s.
Lower birth rates where there is a significantly larger proportion of women in paid employment. Partly as a result, women in wealthy nations tend to have their first child much later, and consequently have fewer kids in total.
Rich countries have low infant mortality rates. People will also have fewer children simply because fewer die at an early age.
Private and public pension systems (virtually non-existent in low-income countries) eliminate parents' need for their kids to support them in their old age.
Legal abortion, coverd by national health insurance systems (again, virtually non-existent in low-income countries).
Not just education about, but actual availability of birth control methods.
Interestingly, Cuba is one of the few low-income countries that strives to provide public education, health and pensions. Their fertility rate is appproximately the same as Denmark's.
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by ツ Hєиgy (U9129)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 9 minutes ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news... Brexit already helping bring new jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent 30,000 civil servants being funded by our taxes. Close more hospitals quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission, the civil service responsible for implementing the policies, laws and treaties of the EU on behalf of half a billion people, only has 30,000 staff members
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
So.....the Brexit memo is not a government document after all the straw clutching .
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
-----------
How is it inhumane? Would love to hear this..
Firstly, there are all sorts of reasons for families to end up in the situations they land in. It's not always or just a matter of "responsibility".
Out of interest, are you in favour or against abortion?
Are you not also an advocate of people's religious rights, or does that only apply to your own faith?
And for the elderly? What's the rationale, not provide them with the care they require because they're useless old sh·its?
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
-----------
How is it inhumane? Would love to hear this..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So a couple have three children whilst the husband is on a healthy salary and can easily manage the costs. Husband falls ill, can no longer do said job, so has to take a lesser paid job.
Should one of his children be taken away from them to avoid starvation, because they're not allowed to claim benefits for that child?
I know where Red gets his name from now. He's a Chinese commie......
So a couple have three children whilst the husband is on a healthy salary and can easily manage the costs. Husband falls ill, can no longer do said job, so has to take a lesser paid job.
-----------
Surely he'd have the wherewithal due to that decent job to ensure he plans for the future and have adequate insurances in place.
I don't get why the benefits being capped to the first two children is a contentious one.
If you plan ahead and are able to support the family size you choose to have there's no problem.
The government isn't there to make up the shortfall because your planning was laissez faire. It's there for real welfare needs.
Red - you do sound like a proper Tory
Sizzle will be so mad
What if a woman has triplets? Is the last one out taken away?
edging around the main debate to concentrate on the absolute exceptions there with triplets aren't you ?
150 odd triplet births per year.. in the case of multiple births like this, say the government make an exception. it's not many at all.
Only have kids you can afford to have (multiple birth pregnancies aside), what's the problem with that?
Surely that is being responsible..
Arguments against having only the number of children you can afford to have?
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 24 minutes ago
What if a woman has triplets? Is the last one out taken away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, to work in the Tory sweathouses or as chimney sweeps for MP's
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
edging around the main debate to concentrate on the absolute exceptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As in totally ignoring the post I put to you following your request for me to do so?
Nope, that was in reply to the exception as brought up by someone talking of triplets.
Main debate is, should you only have the number of children you can afford to have and not rely heavily on the government.
No, RIH, this bit:
YOU:
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
ME:
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
YOU:
How is it inhumane? Would love to hear this..
ME:
Firstly, there are all sorts of reasons for families to end up in the situations they land in. It's not always or just a matter of "responsibility".
Out of interest, are you in favour or against abortion?
Are you not also an advocate of people's religious rights, or does that only apply to your own faith?
And for the elderly? What's the rationale, not provide them with the care they require because they're useless old sh·its?
?
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
---------------
how is it suicidal? Makes people more responsible for their futures rather than asking the government to bail them out. Leaving welfare care to those that really need it rather than anyone.
This will be a generational thing and will take time to manifest, I really do hope for the rise of the "responsible" generation.
By the way on the question of religion, there is no religion I know of that cites you must have x number of children.
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very narrow minded way to look at things.
Essentially you're saying we should continue to over populate the planet into extinction rather than work on fixing the current (completely man made) concept of a modern economy.
Yes the retirement age would need to increase if we simply allowed the population to get older and older but that's only if we keep the constantly failing economic principles of today going.
The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage...
Perhaps it's time to get responsible and stop making excuses for ruining the only planet humans and millions of other species are able to live on.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
---------------
how is it suicidal? Makes people more responsible for their futures rather than asking the government to bail them out. Leaving welfare care to those that really need it rather than anyone.
This will be a generational thing and will take time to manifest, I really do hope for the rise of the "responsible" generation.
By the way on the question of religion, there is no religion I know of that cites you must have x number of children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in a country that wants to limit immigration, you inevitably need people to breed at a sufficient rate - known as the replacement rate - to sustain the population. This rate is more than 2 children per female (in order to factor in premature deaths), and that's on average - i.e. including those women who don't have children, either because they cannot or do not want to.
There is no way on earth you'll achieve that without incentives and safety nets for reproduction.
If you don't have enough births, your population is going to continue to age while your workforce dwindles. Fewer workers and more pensioners.
The maths simply don't work.
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very narrow minded way to look at things.
Essentially you're saying we should continue to over populate the planet into extinction rather than work on fixing the current (completely man made) concept of a modern economy.
Yes the retirement age would need to increase if we simply allowed the population to get older and older but that's only if we keep the constantly failing economic principles of today going.
The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage...
Perhaps it's time to get responsible and stop making excuses for ruining the only planet humans and millions of other species are able to live on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not narrow minded in the least, it's a comment on the current reality - i.e. a country that views immigrants as a threat rather than an asset and is in a mind to curb their numbers as much as possible.
The comment I write in reply explains why it's a very bad idea. Note also that the user initially spoke also of reducing aid for the elderly, and has chosen to answer my questions selectively rather than address the entirety of the issue he brought up. Still haven't heard about his views on abortion, and he is intentionally ignoring the fact that the most widespread religion on the planet is most definitely pro-life and is only in recent times beginning to warm to the idea of using any contraceptive method whatsoever other than abstinence and coitus interruptus.
It's ironic that you call me narrow minded when a few pages back I offered you a series of reasons to explain why your views on birth control were overly simplistic, and yet -afaik- you have not given any sign of having taken any of that on board.
Narrow minded is the conclusion that I'm suggesting we continue to overpopulate the planet based on a comment on the here and now of the UK, when the demographic conundrum the UK is currently facing is totally different from that of other countries.
It would be interesting at this point to hear your thoughts on globlisation and delocalisation, for a large part of the processes we are currently enduring is a mass redistribution of incomes on a planetary scale. As mentioned in the birthrate comment a few pages back, the main common denominators for lowering birthrate worldwide are precisely high income and adequate welfare systems.
To borrow and expand your own quote "The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage"...ARE NOT the unemployed, single mothers of three, nor the millions shortchanged by the economic upheaval or increasingly unequal distribution of wealth in our home societies, yet these are the kind of people your measure would hurt the most.
Each to their own, but if you think I'm narrow minded because I am contrary to the idea that the solution to the Earth's problems is to cut the victims of the system loose, then perhaps I am.
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very narrow minded way to look at things.
Essentially you're saying we should continue to over populate the planet into extinction rather than work on fixing the current (completely man made) concept of a modern economy.
Yes the retirement age would need to increase if we simply allowed the population to get older and older but that's only if we keep the constantly failing economic principles of today going.
The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage...
Perhaps it's time to get responsible and stop making excuses for ruining the only planet humans and millions of other species are able to live on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not narrow minded in the least, it's a comment on the current reality - i.e. a country that views immigrants as a threat rather than an asset and is in a mind to curb their numbers as much as possible.
The comment I write in reply explains why it's a very bad idea. Note also that the user initially spoke also of reducing aid for the elderly, and has chosen to answer my questions selectively rather than address the entirety of the issue he brought up. Still haven't heard about his views on abortion, and he is intentionally ignoring the fact that the most widespread religion on the planet is most definitely pro-life and is only in recent times beginning to warm to the idea of using any contraceptive method whatsoever other than abstinence and coitus interruptus.
It's ironic that you call me narrow minded when a few pages back I offered you a series of reasons to explain why your views on birth control were overly simplistic, and yet -afaik- you have not given any sign of having taken any of that on board.
Narrow minded is the conclusion that I'm suggesting we continue to overpopulate the planet based on a comment on the here and now of the UK, when the demographic conundrum the UK is currently facing is totally different from that of other countries.
It would be interesting at this point to hear your thoughts on globlisation and delocalisation, for a large part of the processes we are currently enduring is a mass redistribution of incomes on a planetary scale. As mentioned in the birthrate comment a few pages back, the main common denominators for lowering birthrate worldwide are precisely high income and adequate welfare systems.
To borrow and expand your own quote "The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage"...ARE NOT the unemployed, single mothers of three, nor the millions shortchanged by the economic upheaval or increasingly unequal distribution of wealth in our home societies, yet these are the kind of people your measure would hurt the most.
Each to their own, but if you think I'm narrow minded because I am contrary to the idea that the solution to the Earth's problems is to cut the victims of the system loose, then perhaps I am.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fair enough, I hadn't everything you said previously - my mistake
I do agree that the main contributors to all these issues are certainly not those on benefits and even less so those from the third world.
All that said, I personally believe at least halving the total human popular over the next century or so is one of many keys to correcting the destruction of the planet.
Sign in if you want to comment
LIVE: Great Britain EU Referendum
Page 391 of 395
391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395
posted on 15/11/16
Scruttocks, there aare a multitude of factors involved in fertility raates, it can't just be dumbed down to a question of education and awareness regarding birth control.
Of course these are factors, but there are many others:
Viewed in terms of household economies, kids in developing countries are just as much as an asset as they are a cost, as they start working at much younger ages and are therefore a much more important part of the workforce. This is especially true in rural areas.
Conversely, the cost of raising and educating children lowers birth rates in industrialised nations. Here, kids won't generlly start working until their late teens/early 20s.
Lower birth rates where there is a significantly larger proportion of women in paid employment. Partly as a result, women in wealthy nations tend to have their first child much later, and consequently have fewer kids in total.
Rich countries have low infant mortality rates. People will also have fewer children simply because fewer die at an early age.
Private and public pension systems (virtually non-existent in low-income countries) eliminate parents' need for their kids to support them in their old age.
Legal abortion, coverd by national health insurance systems (again, virtually non-existent in low-income countries).
Not just education about, but actual availability of birth control methods.
Interestingly, Cuba is one of the few low-income countries that strives to provide public education, health and pensions. Their fertility rate is appproximately the same as Denmark's.
posted on 15/11/16
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 9 minutes ago
comment by ツ Hєиgy (U9129)
posted 30 minutes ago
comment by CoutinhosHappyFeet (U18971)
posted 9 minutes ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37983948
"The memo - obtained by The Times and seen by the BBC - warns Whitehall is working on 500 Brexit-related projects and could need 30,000 extra staff"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Great news... Brexit already helping bring new jobs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent 30,000 civil servants being funded by our taxes. Close more hospitals quickly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission, the civil service responsible for implementing the policies, laws and treaties of the EU on behalf of half a billion people, only has 30,000 staff members
posted on 15/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
posted on 15/11/16
So.....the Brexit memo is not a government document after all the straw clutching .
posted on 16/11/16
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
-----------
How is it inhumane? Would love to hear this..
posted on 16/11/16
Firstly, there are all sorts of reasons for families to end up in the situations they land in. It's not always or just a matter of "responsibility".
Out of interest, are you in favour or against abortion?
Are you not also an advocate of people's religious rights, or does that only apply to your own faith?
And for the elderly? What's the rationale, not provide them with the care they require because they're useless old sh·its?
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 16 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 10 hours, 2 minutes ago
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon would be proud of you
Always had you down as a nasty Tory
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
-----------
How is it inhumane? Would love to hear this..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So a couple have three children whilst the husband is on a healthy salary and can easily manage the costs. Husband falls ill, can no longer do said job, so has to take a lesser paid job.
Should one of his children be taken away from them to avoid starvation, because they're not allowed to claim benefits for that child?
posted on 16/11/16
I know where Red gets his name from now. He's a Chinese commie......
posted on 16/11/16
So a couple have three children whilst the husband is on a healthy salary and can easily manage the costs. Husband falls ill, can no longer do said job, so has to take a lesser paid job.
-----------
Surely he'd have the wherewithal due to that decent job to ensure he plans for the future and have adequate insurances in place.
I don't get why the benefits being capped to the first two children is a contentious one.
If you plan ahead and are able to support the family size you choose to have there's no problem.
The government isn't there to make up the shortfall because your planning was laissez faire. It's there for real welfare needs.
posted on 16/11/16
Red - you do sound like a proper Tory
Sizzle will be so mad
posted on 16/11/16
What if a woman has triplets? Is the last one out taken away?
posted on 16/11/16
edging around the main debate to concentrate on the absolute exceptions there with triplets aren't you ?
150 odd triplet births per year.. in the case of multiple births like this, say the government make an exception. it's not many at all.
Only have kids you can afford to have (multiple birth pregnancies aside), what's the problem with that?
Surely that is being responsible..
Arguments against having only the number of children you can afford to have?
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Be A Grizzly (U2206)
posted 24 minutes ago
What if a woman has triplets? Is the last one out taken away?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, to work in the Tory sweathouses or as chimney sweeps for MP's
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 3 minutes ago
edging around the main debate to concentrate on the absolute exceptions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As in totally ignoring the post I put to you following your request for me to do so?
posted on 16/11/16
Nope, that was in reply to the exception as brought up by someone talking of triplets.
Main debate is, should you only have the number of children you can afford to have and not rely heavily on the government.
posted on 16/11/16
No, RIH, this bit:
YOU:
Gradually reduce state funded care for the elderly and children.
Makes everyone more responsible.
Eg only extend child benefit, free school meals, nursery places etc for the first 2 children.
ME:
Missed that one. Almost makes culling seem like a humane alternative.
YOU:
How is it inhumane? Would love to hear this..
ME:
Firstly, there are all sorts of reasons for families to end up in the situations they land in. It's not always or just a matter of "responsibility".
Out of interest, are you in favour or against abortion?
Are you not also an advocate of people's religious rights, or does that only apply to your own faith?
And for the elderly? What's the rationale, not provide them with the care they require because they're useless old sh·its?
?
posted on 16/11/16
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
posted on 16/11/16
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
posted on 16/11/16
*they're
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
---------------
how is it suicidal? Makes people more responsible for their futures rather than asking the government to bail them out. Leaving welfare care to those that really need it rather than anyone.
This will be a generational thing and will take time to manifest, I really do hope for the rise of the "responsible" generation.
By the way on the question of religion, there is no religion I know of that cites you must have x number of children.
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very narrow minded way to look at things.
Essentially you're saying we should continue to over populate the planet into extinction rather than work on fixing the current (completely man made) concept of a modern economy.
Yes the retirement age would need to increase if we simply allowed the population to get older and older but that's only if we keep the constantly failing economic principles of today going.
The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage...
Perhaps it's time to get responsible and stop making excuses for ruining the only planet humans and millions of other species are able to live on.
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 2 hours ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
---------------
how is it suicidal? Makes people more responsible for their futures rather than asking the government to bail them out. Leaving welfare care to those that really need it rather than anyone.
This will be a generational thing and will take time to manifest, I really do hope for the rise of the "responsible" generation.
By the way on the question of religion, there is no religion I know of that cites you must have x number of children.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because in a country that wants to limit immigration, you inevitably need people to breed at a sufficient rate - known as the replacement rate - to sustain the population. This rate is more than 2 children per female (in order to factor in premature deaths), and that's on average - i.e. including those women who don't have children, either because they cannot or do not want to.
There is no way on earth you'll achieve that without incentives and safety nets for reproduction.
If you don't have enough births, your population is going to continue to age while your workforce dwindles. Fewer workers and more pensioners.
The maths simply don't work.
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very narrow minded way to look at things.
Essentially you're saying we should continue to over populate the planet into extinction rather than work on fixing the current (completely man made) concept of a modern economy.
Yes the retirement age would need to increase if we simply allowed the population to get older and older but that's only if we keep the constantly failing economic principles of today going.
The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage...
Perhaps it's time to get responsible and stop making excuses for ruining the only planet humans and millions of other species are able to live on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not narrow minded in the least, it's a comment on the current reality - i.e. a country that views immigrants as a threat rather than an asset and is in a mind to curb their numbers as much as possible.
The comment I write in reply explains why it's a very bad idea. Note also that the user initially spoke also of reducing aid for the elderly, and has chosen to answer my questions selectively rather than address the entirety of the issue he brought up. Still haven't heard about his views on abortion, and he is intentionally ignoring the fact that the most widespread religion on the planet is most definitely pro-life and is only in recent times beginning to warm to the idea of using any contraceptive method whatsoever other than abstinence and coitus interruptus.
It's ironic that you call me narrow minded when a few pages back I offered you a series of reasons to explain why your views on birth control were overly simplistic, and yet -afaik- you have not given any sign of having taken any of that on board.
Narrow minded is the conclusion that I'm suggesting we continue to overpopulate the planet based on a comment on the here and now of the UK, when the demographic conundrum the UK is currently facing is totally different from that of other countries.
It would be interesting at this point to hear your thoughts on globlisation and delocalisation, for a large part of the processes we are currently enduring is a mass redistribution of incomes on a planetary scale. As mentioned in the birthrate comment a few pages back, the main common denominators for lowering birthrate worldwide are precisely high income and adequate welfare systems.
To borrow and expand your own quote "The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage"...ARE NOT the unemployed, single mothers of three, nor the millions shortchanged by the economic upheaval or increasingly unequal distribution of wealth in our home societies, yet these are the kind of people your measure would hurt the most.
Each to their own, but if you think I'm narrow minded because I am contrary to the idea that the solution to the Earth's problems is to cut the victims of the system loose, then perhaps I am.
posted on 16/11/16
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Scruttocks (U19684)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by Mourinho delenda est (U6426)
posted 3 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by De Gea's Legs (U14210)
posted 12 minutes ago
benefits for the first 2 children is a sensible policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a country with an ageing population, that doesn't want it's people to have wait till their 80 to retire and wants to curb immigration to the max?
It's not sensible, it's fackin' suicidal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a very narrow minded way to look at things.
Essentially you're saying we should continue to over populate the planet into extinction rather than work on fixing the current (completely man made) concept of a modern economy.
Yes the retirement age would need to increase if we simply allowed the population to get older and older but that's only if we keep the constantly failing economic principles of today going.
The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage...
Perhaps it's time to get responsible and stop making excuses for ruining the only planet humans and millions of other species are able to live on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not narrow minded in the least, it's a comment on the current reality - i.e. a country that views immigrants as a threat rather than an asset and is in a mind to curb their numbers as much as possible.
The comment I write in reply explains why it's a very bad idea. Note also that the user initially spoke also of reducing aid for the elderly, and has chosen to answer my questions selectively rather than address the entirety of the issue he brought up. Still haven't heard about his views on abortion, and he is intentionally ignoring the fact that the most widespread religion on the planet is most definitely pro-life and is only in recent times beginning to warm to the idea of using any contraceptive method whatsoever other than abstinence and coitus interruptus.
It's ironic that you call me narrow minded when a few pages back I offered you a series of reasons to explain why your views on birth control were overly simplistic, and yet -afaik- you have not given any sign of having taken any of that on board.
Narrow minded is the conclusion that I'm suggesting we continue to overpopulate the planet based on a comment on the here and now of the UK, when the demographic conundrum the UK is currently facing is totally different from that of other countries.
It would be interesting at this point to hear your thoughts on globlisation and delocalisation, for a large part of the processes we are currently enduring is a mass redistribution of incomes on a planetary scale. As mentioned in the birthrate comment a few pages back, the main common denominators for lowering birthrate worldwide are precisely high income and adequate welfare systems.
To borrow and expand your own quote "The ones that are responsible for gross and increasing inequality, booms and bust and devastating climate damage"...ARE NOT the unemployed, single mothers of three, nor the millions shortchanged by the economic upheaval or increasingly unequal distribution of wealth in our home societies, yet these are the kind of people your measure would hurt the most.
Each to their own, but if you think I'm narrow minded because I am contrary to the idea that the solution to the Earth's problems is to cut the victims of the system loose, then perhaps I am.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's fair enough, I hadn't everything you said previously - my mistake
I do agree that the main contributors to all these issues are certainly not those on benefits and even less so those from the third world.
All that said, I personally believe at least halving the total human popular over the next century or so is one of many keys to correcting the destruction of the planet.
Page 391 of 395
391 | 392 | 393 | 394 | 395