cycling to have new car

[mustang1]

I hear us, but surely she can't be making money just for the car, and would have needed the job anyway? Catch-22?

I also know someone who works three jobs. I guess she doesn't like any of them !but I guess most people would choose not to work if they had the choice). To '''reward" herself, she bought a BMW convertible which I guess must cost at least £15k. I think she could have bought a reliable runabout for £10k but she probably thought of the enjoyment if sshe spent an extra £5k. Guess she wants a bit of fun while sitting in traffic, and I do see her point .

 

[Andy in Germany]

I hear us, but surely she can't be making money just for the car, and would have needed the job anyway? Catch-22?.

Exactly, she was in the unfortunate position of having very little choice of work, and with the job centre on her back she had to take what was offered, which happened to be only a few KM away but the other side of a very deep valley -and there's no direct public transport link.

Ironically, if she'd found something in the next big town, which is further away, she could have used a bus with little trouble, but there wasn't anything available anywhere else, so she was pushed into a situation not of her making...

 

[screenman]

I've thought for a long time there ought to be a 1 for 1 on children, you are only allowed to have one to replace yourself, once that has happened you then are sterilised. So for instance a couple get married, they have a child, as part of the split one of them has to decide who the child replaces, then that person cannot have another with anybody else, unless the new partner hasn't a child already. Very draconian but necessary.

Who is going to look after the old?

 

[Andy in Germany]

Who is going to look after the old?

Or earn the money to pay their pensions.

 

[Andy in Germany]

I must admit I get nervous when people start talking about 'population control': It seems too close to the idea of 'Lebensraum' to me.

There's also a good body of evidence to suggest that population isn't the problem we are told. This eloquent if typically strident article by George Monbiot puts forth the argument that most environmental damage is caused by wealth, not lots of children.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

There's also a good body of evidence to suggest that population isn't the problem we are told.

Simple answer than is to stop the Merkins having anymore kids, from that report it's them that's doing all the bad stuff, although that report is 10 years ago, it would be interesting to see updated figures

 

[Andy in Germany]

Simple answer than is to stop the Merkins having anymore kids, from that report it's them that's doing all the bad stuff, although that report is 10 years ago, it would be interesting to see updated figures

I dunno, he's a bit strident about bankers in the south east of England too.

I know it's an 'old' article, but the arguments are interesting, and I think the point that consumption rather than reproduction is our main problem is a compelling one.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Who is going to look after the old?

The same people who do now, the health service or the care workers who call on them. The days when the kids had you living with them so they could wipe your bum are all but gone. And we will have to get used to working longer as we live and enjoy good health for longer than we used to in order to pay for all this.

Of course we could just carry on kicking the can down the road and continue to reproduce and increase the planet's population, that is our choice. But it is no good then complaining about using the earth's resources up or increasing greenhouse gasses if we do that. And it's also no good smugly telling everyone that you've diligently cut your environmental impact by 10% if the number of people on the planet has increased by 30% and they all expect the same lifestyle as you.

Tough choices ahead.

 

[Andy in Germany]

The same people who do now, the health service or the care workers who call on them. The days when the kids had you living with them so they could wipe your bum are all but gone. And we will have to get used to working longer as we live and enjoy good health for longer than we used to in order to pay for all this.

I see the logic, but I'm not sure that works either way.

In the first scenario, the population decreases and there are less people to do the caring, because carers are always at a premium, and paid badly so many people will work elsewhere if that is an option. There will also be less people doing other jobs to pay for caring, because it is paid for either by pensions or insurance, which requires more people working and paying into the system than there are getting money from the system.

Second scenario where over consumption causes ecological disaster and the economy collapses, then there still won't be the people working to support carers, because that requires a bouyant economy that has a surplus.