Having more than 2 children is "irresponsible"
- Thread starter Urchin
- Start date
oh.my.god
i can't believe she has the balls to say that?! god damn, well I'm going to be HUGELY irresponsible then, cause if all goes to plan were going to have another 2 kids.
being irresponsible is having kids and not looking after them. oohh she made me mad
i can't believe she has the balls to say that?! god damn, well I'm going to be HUGELY irresponsible then, cause if all goes to plan were going to have another 2 kids.
being irresponsible is having kids and not looking after them. oohh she made me mad
I think anyone with more than one is crazy! I bet if I google it I could find a report saying children with 2 or more siblings are better off then only children.... and another saying the opposite.
Why do people waste time and money on doing these contradictory reports??Rock-Angel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2009
- Messages
- 427
- Reaction score
- 0
im sorry to say but i agree with your last statement!!
my sister has 4 adorable children, 2 with n x and 2 with her fiance, if she was limited to 2, surely that denying the rights of her fiance the chance to experiance children of his own ( dot get me wrong hes brill wth the first to but not quite the same!)
As long as we dont go down the route that china do.....!
my sister has 4 adorable children, 2 with n x and 2 with her fiance, if she was limited to 2, surely that denying the rights of her fiance the chance to experiance children of his own ( dot get me wrong hes brill wth the first to but not quite the same!)
As long as we dont go down the route that china do.....!
Sandi4Paul
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,185
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't agree with the words and ideas she uses, but i do agree that population growth is putting pressure on the environment and urban resources.
A way of doing population control without controlling it could be to have scholerships to send woman to university. On average (i stress on average) woman who have a higher education have less children.
I don't think the Uk can control immigration as most immigrants come form the EU and there are no border controls. Very few come from the commenwealth and many of them leave rather than settle here perminantly.
Sandi
A way of doing population control without controlling it could be to have scholerships to send woman to university. On average (i stress on average) woman who have a higher education have less children.
I don't think the Uk can control immigration as most immigrants come form the EU and there are no border controls. Very few come from the commenwealth and many of them leave rather than settle here perminantly.
Sandi
I don't think its our population thats the concern, Britain has an aging population so we need more youngsters - I thinbk its more a world wide issue. I don't think you can just say more then 2 childreN irresponsible, there are so many different factors. I know a few one child families that use disposable nappies, formula feed, have 2 cars, hardly recycle, buy clothes that are cheap so they just throw them out and buy more etc etc compared to a family with four boys who use cloth, she has breastfed all her children, buys all local produce, has no car, reuses clothes, recycles everything etc tc
1sttimemum
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,720
- Reaction score
- 0
Unbelievable. im sure people just want to insult for the fun of it these daysI think its a fair report. We should all feel a long term responsiblity for our enviroment and planet 
I also don't think kicking out immigrants would solve anything, whereas preventing unwanted pregnancies and making people have more of a sense of responsibilty for the enviroment would
I also don't think kicking out immigrants would solve anything, whereas preventing unwanted pregnancies and making people have more of a sense of responsibilty for the enviroment would
Lou said:BTW I love these topical news threads
Step away from the forum requests............
I think people who leap into parenthood without weighing up how they are going to cope are naive and irresponsible. Whether that's with one child or seven. OH and I wouldn'[t have a big family because we both feel a smaller family is better for the kids, BUT each to their own if they can afford it.
Minxy said:Lou said:BTW I love these topical news threads
Step away from the forum requests............
I think people who leap into parenthood without weighing up how they are going to cope are naive and irresponsible. Whether that's with one child or seven. OH and I wouldn'[t have a big family because we both feel a smaller family is better for the kids, BUT each to their own if they can afford it.
yup that is my biggest bugbear, not the environmental impact
When I think of the term enviroment I don't just think of things like global warming and the ozone layer and carbon emmissions...I think of everything around us and the population is included in that.
Maybe I'm just getitng old and cynical.
Oh and is there a place I can post forum sections suggestions? I didn't know
Maybe I'm just getitng old and cynical.
Oh and is there a place I can post forum sections suggestions? I didn't know
beanie said:
I totally agree. I don't know what the answer is................China has a one child policy although that has caused problems in itself.
The fact of the matter is we can't go on populating the Earth as we have been. There are just too many of us to continue at the rate we are going.
Humna population:
http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php
Jonathan Porritt talks about 10% sense and 90% BS. His head is so far up his backside that he's lost touch with reality - he lives in some kind of alternative hypothetical world.
Whilst the world taken as a whole does have a problem with population growth, here in the UK our population growth rate is currently 0.276%. Most of that very small increase is coming from immigration - 2.17 migrants per 1000 of population, or 0.217% increase. Our net gain is therefore another country's net loss, so not affecting overall world population numbers.
As others have said, it's the ageing population that's the problem here. We currently have 16.9% of our population aged under 15, a number which is dropping every year, and 16% aged over 65 - a number which is increasing every year. Our birth rate has fallen to 10.65 /1000 whilst our death rate remains fairly steady at 10.05 /1000. What this means is that the natural increase in population IS ALREADY SLOWING in the UK. It also means that in 20 or so years' time, we are going to have an even bigger economic crisis than we already have as more of the population is going to be retired and non-earning; probably also ageing, sickening, and requiring more resources (heat/food/light/drugs, etc) whilst there will be fewer people to produce and manage these resources.
To be completely blunt, these statistics mean that the population 'growth' is not due to the numbers being born in the UK, but to the numbers not dying at the other end of their lives. I'm just waiting till Porritt follows through with his eugenics programme and suggests euthanasia for all on their 70th birthdays, on the grounds they're a total waste of resources.
The other major flaw with his argument is that the UK has one of the lowest population growth rates in the world (as above). However, it is one of the highest CO2 producers. Many developing countries have much higher population growth rates and significantly lower records of pollution. This suggest that it is not the number of people in a country, but what those people are doing that is the problem. Basically, he's barking up completely the wrong tree. Most families with three children do not use up more resources than those with two. Most families with three children find that expense is more of an issue. If you have to pay for five return plane tickets rather than four, you are more likely to decide to take the ferry and go camping in France instead of the plane to the USA.... A family of five is in fact likely to travel fewer air miles each year (and waste fewer resources) than a young professional couple with no children who take a summer holiday, a winter skiing holiday and a couple of European city breaks each year. It's all about lifestyle, not numbers.
Personally, I think Porritt gives environmental campaigners a bad name. He seems to have a tendency to pick on the wrong targets, to misunderstand the issues, and to try to enforce impractical changes that would have very little impact other than causing resentment and antipathy towards environmental causes, instead of tackling the major causes of environmental change. I wonder how much environmental damage the war in Iraq has had, with planeloads of troops being sent out and flown back, arms manufacturing increasing, CO2 and other pollution from explosions, the waste of resources in the country, the need for massive rebuilding efforts, etc? But according to Porritt's logic, it's probably a good thing since at least it's controlloing population growth. The guy has totally the wrong end of the stick.
Whilst the world taken as a whole does have a problem with population growth, here in the UK our population growth rate is currently 0.276%. Most of that very small increase is coming from immigration - 2.17 migrants per 1000 of population, or 0.217% increase. Our net gain is therefore another country's net loss, so not affecting overall world population numbers.
As others have said, it's the ageing population that's the problem here. We currently have 16.9% of our population aged under 15, a number which is dropping every year, and 16% aged over 65 - a number which is increasing every year. Our birth rate has fallen to 10.65 /1000 whilst our death rate remains fairly steady at 10.05 /1000. What this means is that the natural increase in population IS ALREADY SLOWING in the UK. It also means that in 20 or so years' time, we are going to have an even bigger economic crisis than we already have as more of the population is going to be retired and non-earning; probably also ageing, sickening, and requiring more resources (heat/food/light/drugs, etc) whilst there will be fewer people to produce and manage these resources.
To be completely blunt, these statistics mean that the population 'growth' is not due to the numbers being born in the UK, but to the numbers not dying at the other end of their lives. I'm just waiting till Porritt follows through with his eugenics programme and suggests euthanasia for all on their 70th birthdays, on the grounds they're a total waste of resources.
The other major flaw with his argument is that the UK has one of the lowest population growth rates in the world (as above). However, it is one of the highest CO2 producers. Many developing countries have much higher population growth rates and significantly lower records of pollution. This suggest that it is not the number of people in a country, but what those people are doing that is the problem. Basically, he's barking up completely the wrong tree. Most families with three children do not use up more resources than those with two. Most families with three children find that expense is more of an issue. If you have to pay for five return plane tickets rather than four, you are more likely to decide to take the ferry and go camping in France instead of the plane to the USA.... A family of five is in fact likely to travel fewer air miles each year (and waste fewer resources) than a young professional couple with no children who take a summer holiday, a winter skiing holiday and a couple of European city breaks each year. It's all about lifestyle, not numbers.
Personally, I think Porritt gives environmental campaigners a bad name. He seems to have a tendency to pick on the wrong targets, to misunderstand the issues, and to try to enforce impractical changes that would have very little impact other than causing resentment and antipathy towards environmental causes, instead of tackling the major causes of environmental change. I wonder how much environmental damage the war in Iraq has had, with planeloads of troops being sent out and flown back, arms manufacturing increasing, CO2 and other pollution from explosions, the waste of resources in the country, the need for massive rebuilding efforts, etc? But according to Porritt's logic, it's probably a good thing since at least it's controlloing population growth. The guy has totally the wrong end of the stick.
lmao! we are very irresponsible then, we have 8 between us, all have been very well looked after, none of us claimed benefits and none of them want for anything, fair enough my poor dp works all the hours god sends but thats how we maintain our irresponsibilty...some people are idiots!
widowwadman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 0
BabyLove said:Xena said:Should get rid of some flipping immigrants if there's too many people in this country
Do you think I should just leave the country or also this forum?
