We're screwed, aren't we?

[Brains]

Solution:
The only way the population is going to be bought down to sensible and sustainable levels is a global virus with a 1% or less survival rate
That would bring global population down to 80 million or so.
Which is still more people than live in the UK & Eire today.

I seem to remember that the majority of Europeans can trace their DNA back to only 3 women, so maybe a survival rate of 0.1% would be OK (800,000 people globally, or the population of Suffolk)

 

[Brains]

The population of the developed nations is falling
The population of the developing nations is increasing
Nature abhors a vacuum
Therefore the people of the overpopulated areas of the planet will naturally flow into the underpopulated areas.
This means that the current refugee problems of West Africans, Central Americans, Burmese and Syrians all heading north is just the early vanguard of the millions that will follow.

History has a habit of repeating it's self,
This has happened in Europe before, for much the same reasons.

Check out the march of the Huns, from China to Hungary and then in a single generation from Hungary via Germany, France, Spain to Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia to then under Attila invade Italy from the south.
A thousand years later another Hun, Genghis Khan did much the same thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

 

[MrPie]

OK, I'll try again.

You don't understand the carbon cycle.

If you say so.....

 

[Dogtrousers]

OK, I'll try again.

You don't understand the carbon cycle.

Indeed not, steel cycles only for me.

 

[HMS_Dave]

The population of the developed nations is falling
The population of the developing nations is increasing
Nature abhors a vacuum
Therefore the people of the overpopulated areas of the planet will naturally flow into the underpopulated areas.
This means that the current refugee problems of West Africans, Central Americans, Burmese and Syrians all heading north is just the early vanguard of the millions that will follow.

History has a habit of repeating it's self,
This has happened in Europe before, for much the same reasons.

Check out the march of the Huns, from China to Hungary and then in a single generation from Hungary via Germany, France, Spain to Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia to then under Attila invade Italy from the south.
A thousand years later another Hun, Genghis Khan did much the same thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period

The rules have changed. Developing and developed countries have growing populations. People are migrating not because of fertile lands but because of wealth and invisible money. The countries of Africa, South America and some Asian countries have much lower population densities than ours and most western countries and yet have the most levels of migrancy. Your post is bang on historically but is no longer pertinent to the modern world.

 

[swansonj]

Global population growth is plainly the major problem. It is not controversial, in any way as far as I can see, to object to unfettered child production when there is no means of support except the state. Last answer on this subject.

Global population growth is indeed plainly a major component of the problem (I say "a major component" rather than "the" because it's all interlocked with standards of living and expectations). The question is, as with CO2 emissions, who should bear the brunt of the measures necessary to do something about it. One answer is "all of us". Another answer is "someone other than me" - preferably someone with a different colour skin to me, or speaking a different language, or living somewhere else a long way away, or of lower wealth than me, or of a social class or a lifestyle I can look down on - anything that allows me comfortably to get the monkey of responsibility off my shoulders onto the shoulders of someone else whom I can then conveniently blame because I already regard them as "other" and, perhaps only subconsciously, inferior.

You explicitly said that if you can afford it, then, in your view, you can have as many children as you want. I can't interpret that any way other than: we are facing a global crisis, but the rich can just carry on as they were, it's poor people (possibly combined, in this instance, with people whose lifestyle choices I feel are morally inferior) who must change.

If my interpretation is wrong, I'd love you to explain, but unfortunately you've said that you won't be giving any more answers.

 

[DCBassman]

One answer is "all of us

The only anser is "all of us".

You explicitly said that if you can afford it, then, in your view, you can have as many children as you want. I can't interpret that any way other than: we are facing a global crisis, but the rich can just carry on as they were, it's poor people (possibly combined, in this instance, with people whose lifestyle choices I feel are morally inferior) who must change.

No, I said that those who have the money are always going to be able to circumvent any rules that base limitations on the ability to pay.

If my interpretation is wrong, I'd love you to explain, but unfortunately you've said that you won't be giving any more answers.

I'll make an exception just for you. Your interpretation was wrong. See above.

 

[Mugshot]

No, I said that those who have the money are always going to be able to circumvent any rules that base limitations on the ability to pay.

Yet the people that get examined are the single mothers, the immigrants, the disabled, the unemployed etc. Maybe some people need to look the other way on the ladder.

 

[DCBassman]

Yet the people that get examined are the single mothers, the immigrants, the disabled, the unemployed etc. Maybe some people need to look the other way on the ladder.

This people looks both ways. You can only stop (or hinder, at least) the rich from circumventing a "two-NHS-babies-then-pay-rule", for example, by making that rule an actual population limiting law.
Those in power ALWAYS look down the ladder first, as that's where all the rules go and the money comes from.

 

[Mugshot]

Those in power ALWAYS look down the ladder first, as that's where all the rules go and the money comes from.

Are you in power?

This people looks both ways. You can only stop (or hinder, at least) the rich from circumventing a "two-NHS-babies-then-pay-rule", for example, by making that rule an actual population limiting law.

Your ire appears to directed far more one way than the other. This is where you started;

Have all the kids you want, BUT DO NOT expect the rest of us to pay for them...

That doesn't suggest the concern for population control you are expressing now, only whether the individual is rich or not.

 

[DCBassman]

Are you in power?

Your ire appears to directed far more one way than the other. This is where you started;

That doesn't suggest the concern for population control you are expressing now, only whether the individual is rich or not.

You're picking holes for the sake of it. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand.

 

[Mugshot]

Nothing I've said is difficult to understand.

No, it's not.

 

[DCBassman]

@Mugshot Do me a big favour and explain your animosity.

 

[DCBassman]

I expect to get shot down in flames, and I know there are mitigating circumstances in many cases, but there seems to be an abundance of single mothers with several children who seem to expect to get handouts for everything for their kids and themselves. Whatever happened to giving some thought as to whether you could actually afford kids before you have them.

@Mugshot , basically all I've said is to agree with @Mo1959 , and add in a bit about population in general. Kindly spread your ire more generally, or answer my previous post. Thank you.

 

[Electric_Andy]

I wonder what impact a "1 child per family" law would have? For example, if a lady or a couple had 1 child already and then the lady became pregnant, how would that work? Could you force someone to have a termination (I would say no, ethically). Would you fine the lady/couple? What if they couldn't pay? Would you impose a law that states when you've had 1 child then you must be sterilised? What if you had the operation and then (god forbid) you lost your child?

In theory it's an ok law, but millions of people would suffer heartbreak. And probably just as many would be broke, which would then increase the homeless population....