View Full Version : families should only have 2 children
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133316/Call-child-limit-families-Governments-leading-green-adviser.html
lets see what we all think to this.
im behind you
14-May-09, 17:16
not sure if yhe wife will be happy with this news as she is dessparate to start a family so it looks like i have an excuse now to put it on hold woop woop
Rubbish, Its just another way for the goverment to control us.
Fair enough 2 is fair but what of the women who have twins or triplets are they going to say right no more after your twins or abort your triplets as you can only have two next?
I myself i want 3 to 4. And am going to work hard in ensuring they have everything they need.
Its just goverement tripe.[disgust]
Rubbish, Its just another way for the goverment to control us.
Fair enough 2 is fair but what of the women who have twins or triplets are they going to say right no more after your twins or abort your triplets as you can only have two next?
I myself i want 3 to 4. And am going to work hard in ensuring they have everything they need.
Its just goverement tripe.[disgust]
well said, i have 4 and me and my oh both work hard to support them, this really is the biggest load of codswallop i have ever read.
i agree total tripe... i reckon the only reason they are starting this debate..is to deter the fact that these hypocrites are the ones exploiting us with theire phoney expense claims..its not bad enough that they squander our hard earned cash that they now want to tell us how many kids we can have ...well i know what they can do with that...an the sun dont shine where im thinking they can put it....vent over..[evil]
ShelleyCowie
14-May-09, 20:19
Pure pants!
My oh has 3 kids sons. 2 are from a previous relationship and then we have athrun! And i would like 1 more in a few years time!
So poop on a stick to them!! [disgust]
Wait and see they will be telling us to have as many kids as we can before we know it to reinstate poplation!! :lol:
Forgot to say i worked for years before havin athrun and my OH works and earns a good wage. So its not as if i am any burden to them! We take what we are entitled too! If someone offered me £100000000000000 right now, i definetely would not say no!!
i agree with 2 per family, we are exhausting our planet enough as it is without overpopulating it more. If you cant have kids i think you should adopt. After all look at the likes of Baby P who sadly had no care or attention given to him. Take from bad and give to good imo
i agree with 2 per family, we are exhausting our planet enough as it is without overpopulating it more. If you cant have kids i think you should adopt. After all look at the likes of Baby P who sadly had no care or attention given to him. Take from bad and give to good imo
You make a good point but what about the people who can have kids and work hard to provide for them without leaning on the goverment for support?
Why should they stop at 2 and not have another one or two more when they can support them themselves?
3 to 4 is a nice number and not everyone has several kids, most people only ever have 1 or 2 anyway. Myself i'm one of 6 and i think thats a bit much but i wouldn't be without my siblings.
Alice in Blunderland
14-May-09, 21:22
Woops thats me a baddy then Ive got five children. :eek:
I must be destroying this world .........oh well I shant loose any sleep over this one.
Oh and before any one asks............
Yes I have got a TV ;)
No Im not catholic
Yes I have heard of contraception
No I am not trying to make a football / hockey team
And yes I do have a good sense of humour as folks in Caithness arent backwards in coming forwards with lots of questions about the size of my family. :D
ShelleyCowie
14-May-09, 21:26
Well said Alice! :D
I love having my own family. And if i choose to expand it in a few years then i will not hesitate to do so! :Razz
My son means the world to me and he keeps me on my toes and cheery! Just the life i love!
Metalattakk
14-May-09, 21:28
Personally I am against the very idea that people should have a right to have children at all.
The very fact that society is going to Hell in a handcart these days leads me to believe that most (yes, most) parents haven't got the necessary skills to actually be a proper parent, and thus naturally they are unable to pass the relevant skills on to their kids.
I think that Parenthood should be regulated. All new-born boys should be sterilised at birth, then when they are old enough, financially solvent enough, in a stable relationship and both prospective parents have passed a pre-determined 'Parenthood Licence' test, they will be allowed to have their sterilisation reversed and given a 'Licence to Breed'.
That way, perhaps they will produce children who are both brought up properly, and brought up able to pass the required parenthood skills on to their own children.
Alas, so-called 'Human Rights' will never let this happen. :(
Hell in a hand-cart it is, then. I hope you're all proud of your part in it all. ;)
neepnipper
14-May-09, 21:30
What about people who choose not to have any children, do you think they should have some sort of tax rebate as they do not use so many resources as people with kids?
ShelleyCowie
14-May-09, 21:32
Excuse me but are you having a laugh?
Parenting is not a skill that you learn. It comes naturally! Instincts seem to come into parenting alot.
Infact i have had enough on this thread already because i can see you will be a thorn in my side judging peoples parenting. Who are you to judge?
Dont care if you are a parent yourself. Im guessing you dont know every single parent on here, so tell me....are we all bad parents?
Because you seem to be a know it all. get yer dictionary and i will be waiting! ;)
Alice in Blunderland
14-May-09, 21:40
Excuse me but are you having a laugh?
Parenting is not a skill that you learn. It comes naturally! Instincts seem to come into parenting alot.
Infact i have had enough on this thread already because i can see you will be a thorn in my side judging peoples parenting. Who are you to judge?
Dont care if you are a parent yourself. Im guessing you dont know every single parent on here, so tell me....are we all bad parents?
Because you seem to be a know it all. get yer dictionary and i will be waiting! ;)
Oh Shelley dont bite...............:lol:
Metal for you................
http://slimages.macys.com/is/image/MCY/products/3/optimized/154913_fpx.tif?bgc=255,255,255&wid=327&qlt=90,0&layer=comp&op_sharpen=0&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.7,1.0,0.5,0&fmt=jpeg
ShelleyCowie
14-May-09, 21:43
Sorry Alice, i like to bite! Have been in that kinda mood all day...maybe because im now a red head! ;)
Anyway, i just felt that nobody in this world has the right to say if someone can have children or not without actually meeting them!
I know i am a great mother and thats all that matters to me! Im sure my 'skills' are up to scratch for some!
Metalatakk...use the spoon! its what u use best! ;) :lol:
Metalattakk
14-May-09, 22:01
What about people who choose not to have any children, do you think they should have some sort of tax rebate as they do not use so many resources as people with kids?
I'm not altogether sure that's viable, to be honest. Parents have a hard enough time as it is, without being financially impinged upon more than they already are. Any sort of deterrent is to be taken seriously though, IMHO.
Excuse me but are you having a laugh?
Parenting is not a skill that you learn. It comes naturally! Instincts seem to come into parenting alot.
Instincts only come into parenting in as much as you naturally protect your offspring to the stage where they can stand on their own feet and fend for themselves. Teaching these kids respect and the workings of social order are not instinctive at all.
Infact i have had enough on this thread already because i can see you will be a thorn in my side judging peoples parenting. Who are you to judge?
My opinion is at least as valid as yours, and I have the right to state my opinion. If you don't like it, boo hoo.
Dont care if you are a parent yourself. Im guessing you dont know every single parent on here, so tell me....are we all bad parents?
Of course not. Are you saying that every parent is a 'good' parent?
I know i am a great mother and thats all that matters to me!
Again, you're only qualified to say something like that when you've finished the job.
butterfly
14-May-09, 22:09
i agree total tripe... i reckon the only reason they are starting this debate..is to deter the fact that these hypocrites are the ones exploiting us with theire phoney expense claims..its not bad enough that they squander our hard earned cash that they now want to tell us how many kids we can have ...well i know what they can do with that...an the sun dont shine where im thinking they can put it....vent over..[evil]
That's just what i was thinking.................
Again, you're only qualified to say something like that when you've finished the job.
A parents job is never done!!! Ever!:roll:
Metalattakk
14-May-09, 22:13
A parents job is never done!!! Ever!:roll:
That actually was my point. Well done for catching on though. ;)
Not really bothered how many children people have as long as they can afford to feed and clothe them. What i do object to are women who keep popping them out like champagne corks and expect everyone else to foot the bill.
I agree with 2 kids but only as a personal choice. No more as I wouldn't get them in the bicycle trailer.:lol:
An interesting video on youtube about fertility rates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU
Population in europe is actually expected to drop in the future and this may cause a problem as there could be a disproportionate amount of eldery people.
http://www.population-growth-migration.info/population.html#europe
Amy-Winehouse
15-May-09, 10:07
2 kids per family???
I bet the Cardinal O`brien spat out his cornflakes & tea this morning when he read that wee article[lol] All over his croissants & Daily Record/Herald/Times newspaper.
Can imagine it, "2 kids per family!!!, Were doomed" [lol]
Well Im sitting here growing baby number five. This is my second marriage and I have three with my first husband and almost two with my second husband. I am not sure I am finished yet lol. ;)
Family size is a personal choice. Those of us who have a larger than normal family are often thought of as a bit odd but i wouldnt change it for a million pounds. I would disagree with shelley in that I beleive that parenting CAN be learnt and isnt necessarily instinctive. If we are lucky we learn it from our own parents but if not then we can learn how to be a good parent from others too.
We need to make sure that we can do the best we can for our children and that doesnt necessarily mean earning loads of money and not relying on benefits. Some people end up on benefit through no fault of their own remember. And although metal is right in that being a parent never ends I would suggest that "parenting" does end. By the time your children are grown up and living their own lives they may need support and encouragement but little in the way of practical parenting skills around discipline and socialisation. Who judges whether we are good parents anyway? Ourselves? our friends?I think our children ultimately are the only ones who can say one way or another.
Me? I think i do a pretty good job on the whole. there are things i would have done differently with the older boys but the big ones havent turned out too bad and the younger one is showing signs of the lovely man he will become. The baby is just a delight and I cant wait for number 5,6,7,8.......?[lol]
Irresponsible - You betcha!!!!!!
With many families these days with the mum or dad or both bringing children into the family from past relationships how will the 2 kid rule work.
Dad has 2 children already but new wife has none.
Mum has 1 child from previous relationship and Dad has 1 child from a previous relationship and now they want a baby.
The two child rule cannot work and really does it matter as long as the children are well looked after......
Its the drug addicts and alcoholics having children that worries me....
From birth defects from their mothers addictions to a baby having heroin withdrawal pains to neglect as the parents are out to get their next fix
Its that area I would like to see being addressed.
kmahon2001
15-May-09, 11:19
Maybe, instead of trying to limit the number of births, the Government should be looking much more seriously at all the illegal immigrants that continue to get into this country, not to mention the undesirable "legal" immigrants such as the Ukrainian who murdered that woman for her pin number just to steal her meagre savings. There's been a lot of talk from politicians about addressing the immigration problems, but I've not seen any sign of definitive action being taken, such as increased deportations of people who really don't belong here.[disgust]
I have absolutely no problems with genuine asylum seekers being allowed in, nor with legitimate legal immigrants, but those who don't belong should be kicked out immediately.
Alice in Blunderland
15-May-09, 20:11
Not really bothered how many children people have as long as they can afford to feed and clothe them. What i do object to are women who keep popping them out like champagne corks and expect everyone else to foot the bill.
Hoy it takes two to tango............................ ;)
I don't have any problem with people who want more than two children.............but as it is a matter of choice, the Government should only count two children in each family for the purposes of family allowances, benefits and the like.
That way those who feel they can afford more than two children can have them, and those who use children to milk the benefits system might be less inclined to do so.
Out of nosiness, I went onto the working tax credit site and input basic information for a working parent on a minimum wage 40 hour week with a non-working wife and two children..........and I was gobsmacked at the amount it was deemed necessary to have coming in to provide for them in the manner the Government thought appropriate..........and I assume it would have been more if I had invented more children. As the figure is based on a percentage of the average wage, then maybe the way to go for those with children is to give our MPs and all the bank executives etc even bigger wages to increase that average....and then those on working tax credits would be quids in.
As a pensioner who pays tax, and who managed happily to bring up a family without all the current child-centric policies and handouts presently in place, I must say that it isn't just the MPs who are taking advantage of the taxpayer.
And, btw.....I have two children, and they in their turn have two children each. I hope my grandchildren carry on the example they have been set...........though in the current handout climate, I don't expect they will.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133316/Call-child-limit-families-Governments-leading-green-adviser.html
lets see what we all think to this.They could curb immigration, that would reduce population growth.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
15-May-09, 22:29
I don't have any problem with people who want more than two children.............but as it is a matter of choice, the Government should only count two children in each family for the purposes of family allowances, benefits and the like.
That way those who feel they can afford more than two children can have them, and those who use children to milk the benefits system might be less inclined to do so.
Out of nosiness, I went onto the working tax credit site and input basic information for a working parent on a minimum wage 40 hour week with a non-working wife and two children..........and I was gobsmacked at the amount it was deemed necessary to have coming in to provide for them in the manner the Government thought appropriate..........and I assume it would have been more if I had invented more children. As the figure is based on a percentage of the average wage, then maybe the way to go for those with children is to give our MPs and all the bank executives etc even bigger wages to increase that average....and then those on working tax credits would be quids in.
As a pensioner who pays tax, and who managed happily to bring up a family without all the current child-centric policies and handouts presently in place, I must say that it isn't just the MPs who are taking advantage of the taxpayer.
And, btw.....I have two children, and they in their turn have two children each. I hope my grandchildren carry on the example they have been set...........though in the current handout climate, I don't expect they will.
What about the families who looked into the Tax Credit scheme with two children,not out of nosiness but desperation?
What about the families who looked into the Tax Credit scheme with two children,not out of nosiness but desperation?
Desperation because the parents can't feed and clothe their children?
You know something...........I was born just after the war when poverty was not defined as having less than 60% of the median wage and lots of "things".........poverty meant not having your own front door, sometimes not having enough to eat and wearing clothes handed down through the family until they were threadbare.
Poverty is not doing without luxuries, but doing without necessities.
There is no such thing as poverty in the UK nowadays.........but there is relative poverty compared to others who get more....or spend what they have differently......for example using terry nappies rather than expensive disposables. There is "poverty" because people nowadays feel entitled to have all the luxury goods they think everyone else has, however unnecessary they are.
I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, any system which rewards people for having children is calculated to increase the population. Is there any wonder we are a magnet for immigration given our levels of subsidies?
I do wonder how many of those who get tax credits rail against subsidising the "feckless lazy chancers" who get unemployment benefits. :confused
I'm not saying we should go back to those days........but it is about time we learned to manage with what we have rather than hanker after more and better paid for by the state.
Well said Oddquine you have said it in one. Yes, have as many children as you wish if you can afford it .Hopefully they will all grow up into sensible adults, able to get a job without getting into the drug scene which must be a major worry for most parents nowadays. Its a big bad world out there and a tremendous worry when they flee the nest to make their own way in life.
Alice in Blunderland
16-May-09, 14:47
Well said Oddquine you have said it in one. Yes, have as many children as you wish if you can afford it .Hopefully they will all grow up into sensible adults, able to get a job without getting into the drug scene which must be a major worry for most parents nowadays. Its a big bad world out there and a tremendous worry when they flee the nest to make their own way in life.
Okay so the oppinion seems to be have as many children as you can afford. :)
What about the two parents four children comfortable family who suddenly have an unforseen change in circumstances. :confused
The dad or mum ups and offs without a word and wont pay maintenance.
A sudden illness strikes and leaves the family in financial difficulty.
A parent dies and has not had a chance to put matters in order or doesnt have enough life insurance.
We none of us have a crystal ball and no-one can see what the future holds but should a sudden change happen then thank God we have a system in place to support those people. Rightly or wrongly with this system at least they wont be left without.
Many years ago yes there wasnt the same system in place and people did have it hard but would you have taken benefits then had they been offered to you...............I am sure the answer would have been yes.
My dad often talks on how hard it used to be and we laugh about the first up best dressed, last up got the grotty welly boots tales.
I have even listened to the tale of how my dad came home one day to sit down to stew and potatoes for his dinner fourteen of them round the table. Afterwards when he went to feed his pet rabbit he found it was gone. You can all imagine what Im going to say next. He was informed by his mum that thats what they had for dinner so stop whinning and be gratefull. Thats when times were hard , no benefits then and still large families. If a system was in place then I am sure a lot of families would have been gratefull.
I dont have two children, I have five . I myself am one of three and I hope that my children in turn have as many children as they can love support and care for. I also hope and pray that I will be around to be a supportive Granny and far be it for me or anyone in Government to say how many children we can or cannot have.
Yes the system may have its flaws but at least we have a system, change that not dictate to the people what they can and cant do with their lives. :)
sevenfortyseven
16-May-09, 15:39
have as many kids as you want i say - we need more youngsters to pay tax for our pensions and geriatric care when we're aged and frail. frankly i shant be having any as i find them irritating and tiresome.
To start with, I am sure all of you good folks know the population of northern Europe is in decline, at least folks born there. Many countries are having to boost their population through immigration. One of the only countries where this is not the case (if I recall) is Scotland.
How I wish I could bring more people to America, Canada and Australia for a look around. Hundreds upon endless hundreds of open miles just waiting for a hearty soul to claim it and put it to productive use. Without an expanding population base, who is going to do that?
Take a look around Scotland! Almost every county is a fraction of the population they supported in the early 1800's. Scotland is beautiful, but all of her people left or were driven out. Think of how many more people could comfortably live there and provide a much needed expansion in the economy along with the industry and invention which is the norm for the Scottish nation. How can it be that the land is over-used when there are so few people to put it to work?
I know people think we are over-taxing the planet, but that is not really the case. It is a sad by-product of a theory that some leaders and thinkers first latched on to in the 1960's and have refused to let go. Few families are having enough children today, and stories like this encouraging this trend.
My theory says that it was the Scots who brought so much good to this world in so many ways, we should have quite a few more of them.
This article is a well thought out dose if national and cultural suicide. I suggest ignoring it.
Bruce H
I don't have any problem with people who want more than two children.............but as it is a matter of choice, the Government should only count two children in each family for the purposes of family allowances, benefits and the like.
That way those who feel they can afford more than two children can have them, and those who use children to milk the benefits system might be less inclined to do so.
Out of nosiness, I went onto the working tax credit site and input basic information for a working parent on a minimum wage 40 hour week with a non-working wife and two children..........and I was gobsmacked at the amount it was deemed necessary to have coming in to provide for them in the manner the Government thought appropriate..........and I assume it would have been more if I had invented more children. As the figure is based on a percentage of the average wage, then maybe the way to go for those with children is to give our MPs and all the bank executives etc even bigger wages to increase that average....and then those on working tax credits would be quids in.
As a pensioner who pays tax, and who managed happily to bring up a family without all the current child-centric policies and handouts presently in place, I must say that it isn't just the MPs who are taking advantage of the taxpayer.
And, btw.....I have two children, and they in their turn have two children each. I hope my grandchildren carry on the example they have been set...........though in the current handout climate, I don't expect they will.
A few interesting points there OQ. However.......
1. How much rent or mortgage do your fictional family pay?
2. Is the rent private or council?
3. Have they got a car?
4. Does the working parent drive 20 miles to and from work using around a gallon and a half of petrol each day as that's where the nearest job is?
5. Are the school meals free?
6. Do either of them smoke?
7. Do either of them drink?
8. How much of the tax credit goes back to the government in fuel tax, VAT, council tax etc?
9. How much is spent on "luxuries"?
And I'm sure there's a lot more questions I could put to you.
You have made a very broad and damning statement that shows you are looking down your nose at those of us who are eligible for tax credits. You're a pensioner, you can get tax credits too. Or are you too much of a snob for that?
Furthermore, you too have taken advantage of the taxpayer since the end of WW2 when the Welfare State was created. Created in fact so that you could be supercilious in your grand way and allow you a..... wait for it... STATE (Welfare State at that) pension, whether you wish to claim it or not. So how would you be now had you not been able to take advantage of it? Do you think you could have saved enoug for a decent pension? Would you have been able to pay your medical bills without the National Health being formed?
In fact, if you've got a private pension, why not give your state pension up as you would like tax credits to be given up? You would be less of a burden on the rest of us taxpayers as you can live for a lot longer than I'd be claiming child tax credit.
Poverty is not doing without luxuries, but doing without necessities.How many luxuries are you doing without?
I'm not saying we should go back to those days........but it is about time we learned to manage with what we have rather than hanker after more and better paid for by the state.You want us to eat humble pie? Does not that quote apply to you too?
Another thought or two..... You must have claimed Family Allowance to bring up your children, itself a Government benefit, would you not have applied for any tax credits had they been available? Do your own children, or their children if they're of an age, claim tax credits? If they don't, do they claim for childminding allowances from the government if both parents are working? Lastly, was it choice that you and your children only had two children each?
Do not tar all of us with the same brush. We can have lots of, and enjoy, children. If tax credits means that we're not all walking around in abject poverty and are well fed and healthy, then bring it on.
By the way..... I'm not an ignoramus. I'm well educated up to degree level and we've have 10 children. Ranging in age from 25 down to 5 and not one of them is a scrounger, layabout, drug taker or have had teenage pregnancies, in fact we have no grandchildren yet. And they are all well looked after and, in their own rights, hard working.
Okay so the oppinion seems to be have as many children as you can afford. :)
What about the two parents four children comfortable family who suddenly have an unforseen change in circumstances. :confused
The dad or mum ups and offs without a word and wont pay maintenance.
A sudden illness strikes and leaves the family in financial difficulty.
A parent dies and has not had a chance to put matters in order or doesnt have enough life insurance.
Then that is where help kicks in...........but adequate help to allow you to live in the manner to which you will have to become accustomed...........not help enough to allow you to live in the manner to which you have already become accustomed.
We none of us have a crystal ball and no-one can see what the future holds but should a sudden change happen then thank God we have a system in place to support those people. Rightly or wrongly with this system at least they wont be left without.
I don't have a problem with people not being left without.....I do have a problem with the level of benefits being pegged to a median wage of £549 for people in work.
And I do have a problem when our esteemed Government thinks that the social exclusion of not being able to give your offspring the latest mobile phone, wii or full sky package equates to poverty.
Many years ago yes there wasnt the same system in place and people did have it hard but would you have taken benefits then had they been offered to you...............I am sure the answer would have been yes.
As someone who did not, as I could have, push the pram to the dole office and sign on with no intentions of working until my children started school..........I can safely say that that my answer would be no
My dad often talks on how hard it used to be and we laugh about the first up best dressed, last up got the grotty welly boots tales.
I have even listened to the tale of how my dad came home one day to sit down to stew and potatoes for his dinner fourteen of them round the table. Afterwards when he went to feed his pet rabbit he found it was gone. You can all imagine what Im going to say next. He was informed by his mum that thats what they had for dinner so stop whinning and be gratefull. Thats when times were hard , no benefits then and still large families. If a system was in place then I am sure a lot of families would have been gratefull.
I'm sure they would..........it is the level of benefits nowadays which are the problem, imo, not the fact of them. Of course people should have enough to live on. However, I can remember being told on here that benefits were only intended to pay for basic necessities, and not meet debts incurred before the job was lost. I'd have thought that criteria would apply to those with children as well as those without.
I dont have two children, I have five . I myself am one of three and I hope that my children in turn have as many children as they can love support and care for. I also hope and pray that I will be around to be a supportive Granny and far be it for me or anyone in Government to say how many children we can or cannot have.
Yes the system may have its flaws but at least we have a system, change that not dictate to the people what they can and cant do with their lives. :)
But limiting benefits to cover only two children would not be dictating to anyone what they can do with their lives.........it would be dictating how many children the state was prepared to subsidise, whether in unemployment benefits or tax credits.
What people then decide to do knowing that is solely up to them. It is called choice with clear options.
ShelleyCowie
16-May-09, 23:37
I recieve tax credits, but to be honest i wonder if its worth it. My OH earns quite a bit so i dont really see the hassle in going through all the forms anymore for what i get.
I chose not to go back to work not because im "lazy" but i am doing what is best for my son. We have had to do major cut backs as we were living a pretty luxurious life. But we like how things are and im happy to stay at home and watch Athrun grow! :D
So i take it im not one of those lazy people sponging? Or am i! :evil
A few interesting points there OQ. However.......
1. How much rent or mortgage do your fictional family pay?
2. Is the rent private or council?
3. Have they got a car?
4. Does the working parent drive 20 miles to and from work using around a gallon and a half of petrol each day as that's where the nearest job is?
5. Are the school meals free?
6. Do either of them smoke?
7. Do either of them drink?
8. How much of the tax credit goes back to the government in fuel tax, VAT, council tax etc?
9. How much is spent on "luxuries"?
I certainly hope that the fictional family are paying everything the Government can screw out of them. You are, I suppose aware that your income can be up to £50,000 before the family element of Child Tax Credit is reduced. That is absolutely ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!!
And I'm sure there's a lot more questions I could put to you.
You have made a very broad and damning statement that shows you are looking down your nose at those of us who are eligible for tax credits. You're a pensioner, you can get tax credits too. Or are you too much of a snob for that?
I can't if I wanted to get them, I'm just over the threshold...........but the basic state pension would be adequate for my needs (and, incidentally, it is around 18% of the median wage as compared with the 60% deemed to equal poverty in a family)..........and it is appreciably more than the jobseekers benefits I was on before I hit sixty.......so I learned to cope.
Furthermore, you too have taken advantage of the taxpayer since the end of WW2 when the Welfare State was created. Created in fact so that you could be supercilious in your grand way and allow you a..... wait for it... STATE (Welfare State at that) pension, whether you wish to claim it or not. So how would you be now had you not been able to take advantage of it? Do you think you could have saved enoug for a decent pension? Would you have been able to pay your medical bills without the National Health being formed?
Let's not get into playing silly sods here. I'm not talking about universal benefits paid for through NI here...I'm talking about benefits solely predicated on the number of children you have produced. I am talking about being paid by production levels rather than need. I am talking about benefit claimants getting £56 for every child they produce and child tax claimants getting £40+ for each of their offspring over the age of one.
In fact, if you've got a private pension, why not give your state pension up as you would like tax credits to be given up? You would be less of a burden on the rest of us taxpayers as you can live for a lot longer than I'd be claiming child tax credit.
It strikes me that you are struggling to justify the tax credit levels.......otherwise you would not be so defensive. I worked for both my pensions.........paid NI for the state one and earned my work one. I don't have any problem with accepting both.....they were earned over my working life.
How many luxuries are you doing without?
You want us to eat humble pie? Does not that quote apply to you too?
Well, I don't have holidays. I don't have a car. I don't have a wii, a state of the art mobile phone(all mine does is text and make calls), any level of sky package, a PS1,2 or 3, an Xbox, a DS. My furniture is second hand and basic. I have a calor gas heater I use to save the expense of "total control" heating. I have a freezer, fridge, microwave oven, cooker and washing machine all of which were secondhand and gifts to me. I also have two TVs with freeview, both of which were presents and a computer(second hand) which I upgrade and maintain myself...........and none of which I leave on standby.
I do manage the odd drink(cider because it is cheap) and I roll my own cigarettes (badly).........and I birthday and Christmas present my grandchildren.........but not my children and their better halves.
What do you call luxuries?
I'm asking nobody to eat humble pie (unless you want to do that), I am simply commenting on the thread which asked for opinions on the limiting of families to two children...........and giving my thoughts on the matter...........which are trhat the Government positively encourages infant production through the benefits system.
Another thought or two..... You must have claimed Family Allowance to bring up your children, itself a Government benefit, would you not have applied for any tax credits had they been available? Do your own children, or their children if they're of an age, claim tax credits? If they don't, do they claim for childminding allowances from the government if both parents are working? Lastly, was it choice that you and your children only had two children each?
I didn't get family allowances for both children until 1977, ten years after my daughter was born........and of course I accepted it, because it was a universal benefit. Where have I said I have a problem with family allowances?
See my reply to Alice in Blunderland re the applying for tax credits.
My children do not claim tax credits or child minding allowances....I did the childminding when they were of an age to need supervision.
My two were definitely choice.........I got the almost-ex docked when the younger one started school. As to my own kids, I'd assume so, as there was no reason they couldn't have had more children without use of the pill/condoms..............they just didn't seem to feel the need (maybe because all of us had one of each and that was enough.)
Do not tar all of us with the same brush. We can have lots of, and enjoy, children. If tax credits means that we're not all walking around in abject poverty and are well fed and healthy, then bring it on.
I'm not objecting to working tax credits, because there has to be some differential between being on jobseekers and working, and if that is the only way to do it, so be it..........however, with the best will in the world, I fail to see the logic behind paying people to have children........and that is what the childrens credit does, whether you are prepared to accept that that is the result or not.
What do you call abject poverty? Would that be not having enough to eat? Or being homeless? Not being able to dress your children in brand new clothes? Not being able to run a car? Not being able to afford a sky package? Having to tell your children "No......we can't afford"
By the way..... I'm not an ignoramus. I'm well educated up to degree level and we've have 10 children. Ranging in age from 25 down to 5 and not one of them is a scrounger, layabout, drug taker or have had teenage pregnancies, in fact we have no grandchildren yet. And they are all well looked after and, in their own rights, hard working.
And from your post.................subsidised by the single taxpayer, the taxpayer couples who have chosen not to have family and the pensioner, who has worked to try and make life less hard in retirement................and all those taxpayers earning over £50000 a year and not eligible for subsidy.
And, btw..........I am not an ignoramus either.............I made do with an SHND because I didn't want to leave home and have the taxpayer subsidise my university education when my parents could not.
I recieve tax credits, but to be honest i wonder if its worth it. My OH earns quite a bit so i dont really see the hassle in going through all the forms anymore for what i get.
I chose not to go back to work not because im "lazy" but i am doing what is best for my son. We have had to do major cut backs as we were living a pretty luxurious life. But we like how things are and im happy to stay at home and watch Athrun grow! :D
So i take it im not one of those lazy people sponging? Or am i! :evil
I have never said anyone was lazy or sponging, Shelley, or if I did, it was never my intention.
I stopped work when my daughter was expected and didn't go back until my son started school.........which ended up at about nine years out of work..................but I claimed nothing for that time.
What nobody seems to grasp is that, in this thread, we are talking about the limiting of families to two children............and what I am trying to point out is that the only way to reduce productivity is to remove the incentives to produce.
I'm not getting at anyone who uses the system as it exists.............just saying that the system should not exist at all.......because, come time (if not already) the state cannot afford to be paying people to have children.
I'm wondering if the idiot who came up with the nonsensical idea has studied the fact that we have been told for many years now that, because of the low birth of the indigenous population, i.e. us, that without immigration our population is not sustainable?
The suggestion is nothing more than a flight of fancy from a comedian with too much time on his hands and with too little to do making a valiant attempt to fool us that his job is really necessary. In that he has failed miserably and has only proved that he and the rest of his Quango are not sustainable in the current economic climate and should be disposed of.
Or to put it more bluntly, point the goon in the direction of the nearest jobcentre, they are a clown short of their quota.
annthracks
17-May-09, 10:53
Population in europe is actually expected to drop in the future and this may cause a problem as there could be a disproportionate amount of eldery people.
http://www.population-growth-migration.info/population.html#europe
I see in the last 40 years, whilst Europe's poulation has remained roughly the same (most of them seeming to have come over here!! ;) ) China's poulation has almost doubled and India's poulation has MORE THAN doubled !!
I think the thread is about potential damage to the environment which could be caused by potential overpopulation, if you look at the bigger picture, perhaps not right now but somewhere down the road say in about 30 to 50 years time the global population is bound to grow and as the population grows it will use up the planets resorces, the human race will have to use the fields which are being used for crops to build houses to house the increasing population, no fields = no food which in return results in famine which then leads us down the road of potential cross border confrontation which = war, who is going to fight the wars? my guess would be our offspring. so I do not think that the issue of how many children you have has the same bearing as how much damage the human race ,( and that's me included) does in general to the planet, after all we do not own the planet we only rent it for 3 score years and 10,and I feel that we should be working together to leave it in a better condition for our children than we came into it in...
I'm wondering if the idiot who came up with the nonsensical idea has studied the fact that we have been told for many years now that, because of the low birth of the indigenous population, i.e. us, that without immigration our population is not sustainable?
And a lot of the immigrant population traditionally have more children than us. Cant help wondering what the demographic make up of the UKs population will be in fifty years time.
Personally I am against the very idea that people should have a right to have children at all.
The very fact that society is going to Hell in a handcart these days leads me to believe that most (yes, most) parents haven't got the necessary skills to actually be a proper parent, and thus naturally they are unable to pass the relevant skills on to their kids.
I think that Parenthood should be regulated. All new-born boys should be sterilised at birth, then when they are old enough, financially solvent enough, in a stable relationship and both prospective parents have passed a pre-determined 'Parenthood Licence' test, they will be allowed to have their sterilisation reversed and given a 'Licence to Breed'.
That way, perhaps they will produce children who are both brought up properly, and brought up able to pass the required parenthood skills on to their own children.
Alas, so-called 'Human Rights' will never let this happen. :(
Hell in a hand-cart it is, then. I hope you're all proud of your part in it all. ;)
Are you being serious? A solvent and stable relationship is no factor for being a good parent....parenting skills can't be taught and shouldn't be subject to certain conditions. Would your parents have passed the 'test'? Actually, I already know how you'll answer that.
Metalattakk
17-May-09, 14:01
Are you being serious?
What am I supposed to say here?
A solvent and stable relationship is no factor for being a good parent..
I never said it was. What I alluded to was that a financially strong base is surely necessary for bringing children into the world, both for the benefit of the child and the surrounding society.
..parenting skills can't be taught and shouldn't be subject to certain conditions.
Yes they can, and yes they should.
Would your parents have passed the 'test'? Actually, I already know how you'll answer that.
I have no idea. I haven't decided the contents of the test yet. ;)
Margaret M.
17-May-09, 15:30
I think the thread is about potential damage to the environment which could be caused by potential overpopulation, .
Let's throw global warming into the mix. Presently, planet earth can support about eight billion people. We are approaching seven billion. If the results of global warming are as many predict, the remaining land and resources will support two billion people. Five + billion of the world's population will perish. Those waiting for the government to take care of them will probably be the first to go.
A warmer earth could support a lot more people than a colder earth could, so if there is global warming, then it would be a benefit for increasing the population. One only has to look at the conditions in the medieval period that were substantially warmer than today and see that most places on the planet were growing a lot more food than they were during the colder "little ice age" that followed a few centuries later.
Be careful taking anyone's estimates of what population the earth can support as more than a wild ass guess. At present the big food growing regions in the northern hemisphere are at least 1/3rd idle by government contract. That's right, the governments in the US and Canada pay farmers not to grow crops in order to keep the prices at a level that sustains the farmers.
What would happen if the world could get Africa stabilized and growing food in a modern way? You could at least double the food production of the planet. As CO2 is a plant fertilizer, your global warming ideas would help grow that food.
As I mentioned before in this thread, there are vast areas of the planet that area largely un-peopled. What would happen if you doubled the population of Caithness? Would there be room for all of them?
I live in San Diego, a city that has seen its population double in the last 20 years or so. We had no problem finding room for everyone. It's more crowded to be certain, but I am guessing that there is room for still more.
Lastly, about using up the earth's resources. How are they "used up"? If I eat some green beans that grew on some plant in my garden, the material that they are made of is not "used up", simply changed and recycled. With the exceptions of a few tons of stuff we have shot into space, everything we started out with about 100,000 years ago is still here. Maybe in a slightly different form, but the resources are still here, waiting to be used.
Bruce H
OMG, words absolutely fail me.:confused <pulls what remains of his hair out>
Let's go to extremes with Margaret M.'s scenario of over population-say we end up with the world having 12 billion souls on it-how will it affect the earths orbit upon it's axis? Will it go all wobbly? I don't fancy getting thrown off into space. :eek:
Let's go to extremes with Margaret M.'s scenario of over population-say we end up with the world having 12 billion souls on it-how will it affect the earths orbit upon it's axis? Will it go all wobbly? I don't fancy getting thrown off into space. :eek:
So long as we all dont jump up and down at the same time.:roll:
Time to bulk up methinks, fatties will inherit the earth. :D
Time to bulk up methinks, fatties will inherit the earth. :D
Just reminded me of that "Not the 9 o'clock news" sketch.
I like bouncing boing boing boing
Up and down til I get a pain in my groin. :lol:
Jox, I totally agree with you about turnups on jeans.:lol:
Jox, I totally agree with you about turnups on jeans.:lol:
Jeez, how did you find it? :eek::D
I have never said anyone was lazy or sponging, Shelley, or if I did, it was never my intention.
I stopped work when my daughter was expected and didn't go back until my son started school.........which ended up at about nine years out of work..................but I claimed nothing for that time.
What nobody seems to grasp is that, in this thread, we are talking about the limiting of families to two children............and what I am trying to point out is that the only way to reduce productivity is to remove the incentives to produce.
I'm not getting at anyone who uses the system as it exists.............just saying that the system should not exist at all.......because, come time (if not already) the state cannot afford to be paying people to have children.
Maybe you think we should imitate the Chinese Government of the 1970's who also tried to control population by coercing couples to have one child only and gave them a certificate for doing so to enable them to have cash incentives? Effectively tax credits for less children?
It was, and is, our right to have as many children as we wish. If we could have had more, we would have. But we work hard to keep them and who has the right to deny this, because my hard working kids will provide for the future..... maybe as doctors, nurses, shopworkers, engineers, fisherman, rig workers, you name it, they can be it.
Reduce the child level to two, what happens to places like Caithness in the future?
buddyrich
18-May-09, 00:07
Parenting should absolutely be taught in secondary schools. That doesnt imply that there would be a test that requires passing, just some kind of skills base so perhaps people could benefit from the experience of those who have done it before.
Also, do underage girls who get pregnant ever face prosecution for having underage sex?
Someone expressed to me the opinion that some young single mothers only got themselves knocked up because it would mean an "automatic passport to a free house, a widescreen tv and state benefits".
It's pretty cynical and made me laugh but maybe theres a bit of truth in it.
Anyway, im not a prude and im not religious but i think it's best for a child to be raised by both its parents, in a household that can support the child financially.
Maybe you think we should imitate the Chinese Government of the 1970's who also tried to control population by coercing couples to have one child only and gave them a certificate for doing so to enable them to have cash incentives? Effectively tax credits for less children?
It was, and is, our right to have as many children as we wish. If we could have had more, we would have. But we work hard to keep them and who has the right to deny this, because my hard working kids will provide for the future..... maybe as doctors, nurses, shopworkers, engineers, fisherman, rig workers, you name it, they can be it.
Reduce the child level to two, what happens to places like Caithness in the future?
No coercion involved.............just no handouts of encouragement........... not quite the same as the Chinese model.
It is most certainly your right to have as many children as you wish..........though I'd hope you'd only have as many as you can afford to support, without subsidy, by working hard........just as I did. It was, and is, also anyone's right to object to the ludicrous levels of benefits for families with children. So we are both within our rights, are we not?
What will happen to Caithness is probably what will happen to most rural areas north of Perth..........a growing elderly population as people come home to retire, and others come up for "the good life". Even if every family in Caithness had ten children, just how many of them do you think would live up here for the rest of their lives? Children can have the education/training to be useful in Caithness but where are the jobs?
In fact, there is as much chance of two in a family of two getting work and staying here as there is of three in a family of ten doing the same.
Not really bothered how many children people have as long as they can afford to feed and clothe them. What i do object to are women who keep popping them out like champagne corks and expect everyone else to foot the bill.
I agree it is about responsibility, unfortunately too many people see don't see it that way. If you want a family make sure you can afford it.
Alice in Blunderland
18-May-09, 11:17
I agree it is about responsibility, unfortunately too many people see don't see it that way. If you want a family make sure you can afford it.
True in a perfect world however many people can suddenly find themselves with a sudden change of circumstances and whether they have one two or more children life can be turned around in an instant. What was affordable one day can be unaffordable the next. They would be penalised by this one size fits all suggestion.:)
On the subject of teen mums popping out babies for the money and benefits why not have it that the parents should ,if they can manage support them? the same as expected of families educating their children through university. :confused
GetWithTheTimes
18-May-09, 12:19
yes i totally agree with the fact people should only have a couple of kids and also i think people should have to have a license or pass some sort of test before being allowed to have kids, some parents are really bad and are drinking loads and rotten dirty house never tidied and never play with kids or anything its sick
the amount of kids in homes and up for adoption is unreal, more people should help adopt and foster kids there is enough kids not cared for thrown into homes and foster placements and they all need looking after
also its the impact on the planet you have to take into consideration. We have already overpopulated the earth many animals have gone extinct through hunting and what not and also because of us cutting down or digging up their habitats or because of pollution or lack of food
also if we all have 5 kids when we die the population will be up three and if everyone does the population will grow to such extremes that we will not have the space to put people, too many people on top of already depleting resources is just asking for trouble
i hear people saying its just another attempt to control!
well if you would prefer the planet to get back into shape you gotta make sacrifices, 2 kids is enough i dont see why you need more than 2, at least wait till the first 2 are grown up then have another 2
there was a documentary on some of you may have seen called "the world's biggest family and me" and some families are like 11 kids and that is way too far like if we all got together and had 11 kids the country would be overrun, schools would be packed, education levels would fall, children's homes and fosters homes wouldn't cope, all these kids will eventually all have cars and clog up roads and more roads will be built destroying more country, more houses and flats will be built and to be honest we dont have jobs for 11 kids each so the taxpayer will be paying for these people and then you will gurn about paying more tax.
if the whole world had this rule a long time ago there wouldnt be so many starving and uncared for kids in the world and probably less war too and definately less pollution and less extinct creatures
well if you would prefer the planet to get back into shape you gotta make sacrifices, 2 kids is enough i dont see why you need more than 2, at least wait till the first 2 are grown up then have another 2
Seeing as how a lot of families in this country only have 2 children then the sacrifices to be made to help the world should be by everybody. Not just the few with more children. For example, when we all go out together as a family, it's in one people carrier. Never ceases to amaze me at how many cars we pass with just one person in it. It may be important enough for them to be in it alone, eg for work. But how many are just out on a trip for pleasure? How is that helping the world?
if the whole world had this rule a long time ago there wouldnt be so many starving and uncared for kids in the world and probably less war too and definately less pollution and less extinct creatures
Well now. There was once upon a time a man, he was a vegetarian, a decorated war hero, seldom drank, didn't smoke and had no extramarital affairs. Yet he instigated a rule in the 1930's that led to the extermination of more than 6 million Jews and the deaths of several other million people, not all soldiers. Maybe we should have a rule about the 2 children being blonde haired and blue-eyed?
I think not! Besides rules are to be broken aren't they?
This vast and resourceful home of ours called Earth has the capacity to cope with all of us. Our technological know how is providing us with food and health. If we continued to produce food the way we did in the 50's, we'd all have starved to death long ago.
Perhaps all the naysayers and decryers on this thread should watch the film Logan's Run, or read the book. Why don't we follow the premise of this? For those who don't know this is it.....
.......A futuristic society has to balance population and resource consumption. The rule is - you can do what you like and live to excess, but as soon as you reach the age of 21 you have to be put to death. Logan was the man who chased those who didn't like this rule and ran away......
So why don't we have something similar now? Change it slightly to perhaps this.... have as many children as you want but as soon as you reach the age of 65 you are be euthanised. If the population of the planet looks as if it's still increasing then reduce the age by five years to 60. And if you only have 2 children instead of 5 or 6, tough, you still cop it at 65!
Preposterous?
So is suggesting that we should only have 2 children each.
People, read the facts. You can find then anywhere online. Population growth is greatest in the developing countries, yet the developed world is showing a downturn.
Alice in Blunderland
18-May-09, 15:46
there was a documentary on some of you may have seen called "the world's biggest family and me" and some families are like 11 kids and that is way too far like if we all got together and had 11 kids the country would be overrun, schools would be packed, education levels would fall, children's homes and fosters homes wouldn't cope, all these kids will eventually all have cars and clog up roads and more roads will be built destroying more country, more houses and flats will be built and to be honest we dont have jobs for 11 kids each so the taxpayer will be paying for these people and then you will gurn about paying more tax.
if the whole world had this rule a long time ago there wouldnt be so many starving and uncared for kids in the world and probably less war too and definately less pollution and less extinct creatures
A tad melodramatic me thinks. ;)
In either scenario you describe this would never happen.
Its again down to individual choice. Some couples have one or two children some have more and some do not have any at all. Not everyone is a good parent likewise not everyone is bad.
You see couples out there with one child not coping, some claiming benefits and some even killing their children.
You also see couples with four or five children having a loving caring and good time and providing well for them why should all be covered by the one rule. :confused
I have no problem with large families.
I do have a problem with how the benefits system is set up.
I would never penalise a child for being born its not their fault.Sorry oldest two can be given something youngest two forget it you shouldnt have been born ( I know just as melodramatic ).
Educate the children from a younger age to become more responsible adults thus giving into society not taking from it. :)
This vast and resourceful home of ours called Earth has the capacity to cope with all of us. Our technological know how is providing us with food and health. If we continued to produce food the way we did in the 50's, we'd all have starved to death long ago.
Perhaps all the naysayers and decryers on this thread should watch the film Logan's Run, or read the book. Why don't we follow the premise of this? For those who don't know this is it.....
.......A futuristic society has to balance population and resource consumption. The rule is - you can do what you like and live to excess, but as soon as you reach the age of 21 you have to be put to death. Logan was the man who chased those who didn't like this rule and ran away......
So why don't we have something similar now? Change it slightly to perhaps this.... have as many children as you want but as soon as you reach the age of 65 you are be euthanised. If the population of the planet looks as if it's still increasing then reduce the age by five years to 60. And if you only have 2 children instead of 5 or 6, tough, you still cop it at 65!
Preposterous?
So is suggesting that we should only have 2 children each.
People, read the facts. You can find then anywhere online. Population growth is greatest in the developing countries, yet the developed world is showing a downturn.
Something similar here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green)
This vast and resourceful home of ours called Earth has the capacity to cope with all of us. Our technological know how is providing us with food and health. If we continued to produce food the way we did in the 50's, we'd all have starved to death long ago.
Perhaps all the naysayers and decryers on this thread should watch the film Logan's Run, or read the book. Why don't we follow the premise of this? For those who don't know this is it.....
.......A futuristic society has to balance population and resource consumption. The rule is - you can do what you like and live to excess, but as soon as you reach the age of 21 you have to be put to death. Logan was the man who chased those who didn't like this rule and ran away......
So why don't we have something similar now? Change it slightly to perhaps this.... have as many children as you want but as soon as you reach the age of 65 you are be euthanised. If the population of the planet looks as if it's still increasing then reduce the age by five years to 60. And if you only have 2 children instead of 5 or 6, tough, you still cop it at 65!
Preposterous?
So is suggesting that we should only have 2 children each.
People, read the facts. You can find then anywhere online. Population growth is greatest in the developing countries, yet the developed world is showing a downturn.
OK so what about the other creatures that share our planet?:confused
I just think in the future there will be more people visiting a more varied selection in the recently extinct section of the Natural history museum.
GetWithTheTimes
18-May-09, 16:10
OK so what about the other creatures that share our planet?:confused
I just think in the future there will be more people visiting a more varied selection in the recently extinct section of the Natural history museum.
exactly we are a bunch of humping idiots that are over crowding the planet, at the expense of rain forests and animals which could have medicinal value maybe even a cure for cancer in one of them forests and we gonna just chop it down so we can build houses for all the kids we had over the years not one thought about the rest of the planet and everything thats in it
get a couple of dogs or summit
Do we really need a cure for cancer, heart or brain diseases? People living longer add's to a greater number needing care in their older years-it's one of nature's way of population control. We all have to die of something sometime.
Btw, before you all start launching brickbats, my father died on an aneurysm and my mother died of cancer so I know only too well the hell of see-ing it happen.
If cures are found what are we going to die of?
Jeez, how did you find it? :eek::D
Dont know really, just noticed your name. Probably wouldnt be able to find it again.;)
Do we really need a cure for cancer, heart or brain diseases? People living longer add's to a greater number needing care in their older years-it's one of nature's way of population control. We all have to die of something sometime.
Btw, before you all start launching brickbats, my father died on an aneurysm and my mother died of cancer so I know only too well the hell of see-ing it happen.
If cures are found what are we going to die of?
I think cures should be there to let someone enjoy life to the full, if we are no longer able to have quality of life then it should be medical/legally sanctioned adios muchachos and goodnight vienna.
GetWithTheTimes
18-May-09, 16:28
Do we really need a cure for cancer, heart or brain diseases? People living longer add's to a greater number needing care in their older years-it's one of nature's way of population control. We all have to die of something sometime.
Btw, before you all start launching brickbats, my father died on an aneurysm and my mother died of cancer so I know only too well the hell of see-ing it happen.
If cures are found what are we going to die of?
old age
i would rather die from age
and cancer kills people of all ages
natures way of population control can be as easy as STOP HUMPING AND HAVING KIDS IF YOU GOT A COUPLE OF KIDS ALREADY simple isnt it
then we could cure people rather than just letting em die of cancer and other diseases coz it keeps the population down
Alice in Blunderland
18-May-09, 21:18
then we could cure people rather than just letting em die of cancer and other diseases coz it keeps the population down
Oh if only it was as simple as that. :~(
My gran died from cancer, my uncle, my younger cousin and many, many more members of my family. I have another uncle who has battled against this dreadfull disease for many years and if a way to cure it were available tomorrow I would be the first in line to recommend it. Alas I dont think its reducing reproduction. :confused
In order to keep a stable population it takes an average of 2.4 children per couple, that is without taking into account that not all people will become part of a couple and even those that do will not necessarily have children.
Seeing the population of Britain is fairly stable and has been certainly for the last 50 years with no indication of there being a sudden outbreak of most people reverting to the Victorian family of five, six or more children the official who floated this idea is a perfect example of somebody trying their best to justify their non-job.
China and India alone account for a third of the world's population having between then about two and a quarter billion people and growing. Somehow I don't think that a couple of thousand fewer births in Britain will make the slightest difference. You may as well start to clear Caithness of grass by using a pair of nail scissors.
Do we really need a cure for cancer, heart or brain diseases? People living longer add's to a greater number needing care in their older years-it's one of nature's way of population control. We all have to die of something sometime.
Btw, before you all start launching brickbats, my father died on an aneurysm and my mother died of cancer so I know only too well the hell of see-ing it happen.
If cures are found what are we going to die of?As a pathologist once pointed out to me, if we found a cure for cancer, heart desease, strokes etc, tomorrow then something else would then become the biggest killer. I asked him why there had been such a increase in deaths from cancer, this was a couple of decades or more ago, and he pointed out that in the past people were killed off from accidents, which were far more numerous, desease, childbirth, or simple died before they reached adulthood. The only reason most didn't suffer from cancer is that they simply didn't live long enough for it to become a problem whereas now we do.
The simple truth of the matter is that, whatever you do or however good medical care becomes, people eventually die and there is nothing at all which can be done about that.
I think a Global population of about 2 billion is what we should be striving for, we are currently at 6 billion. Freedoms to do what we want don't fit into that scenario though. That is essentially the weak link in human freedom, we are intrinsically linked to everything on our planet if we value it.
Aaldtimer
19-May-09, 03:14
As a pathologist once pointed out to me, if we found a cure for cancer, heart desease, strokes etc, tomorrow then something else would then become the biggest killer. I asked him why there had been such a increase in deaths from cancer, this was a couple of decades or more ago, and he pointed out that in the past people were killed off from accidents, which were far more numerous, desease, childbirth, or simple died before they reached adulthood. The only reason most didn't suffer from cancer is that they simply didn't live long enough for it to become a problem whereas now we do.
The simple truth of the matter is that, whatever you do or however good medical care becomes, people eventually die and there is nothing at all which can be done about that.
Cancer is no respecter of age!
My sister had cancer of the stomach at 25, she survived another 22 years and died at the age of 47 from her second "round" of the disease, Lymphoma. A bit like John Wayne as she used to say!
Many children die every year of Lukaemia and other forms of cancer.
Admittedly the life expectancy in years gone by was significantly lower than it is now, but that's due to modern medicine, surgical techniques and hygiene practices.
And a National Health Service.:)
And, yes, you've got to die of something and thank goodness for that!
Who would want to live forever?:confused
I don't want to live forever.....well, maybe just a week short of that will be long enough. ;)
I don't want to live forever.....well, maybe just a week short of that will be long enough. ;)
I wonder how big your ears would grow if you lived that long? :eek:
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.