Failure and bitterness.

Marcheline

If I accept (for the purposes of the argument) that 'overpopulation' is an immediate threat, I ask why the governments of the world do not act reasonably to help prevent further environmental damage (as you know, in my mind, forcibly limiting the numbers of children born to citizens is NOT reasonable)

If it is such a threat, why are the governments backing unenvironmentally friendly policies, when they could:

a) Make it law that all packaging etc. must be biodegradable and that carrier bags should be banned?

b) Make it law that all new cars must run on electric/water/whatever else that wouldn't harm the environment

c) Prioritise recycling over and above incineration

In short, why are our governments continuing to allow big business get away with absolute murder in pursuit of profit, at the expense of the environment?
Could it be because they know that their powerful business backers/financiers would remove their funding of political parties etc. if they had to put the environment ahead of their profit margin? I think so. Are they frightened of being voted out if they ask people to, shock horror - bring a cloth bag to the shop, walk instead of take the car - for the sake of the environment? I think so again.

So, what do governments come up with instead: they try to coerce the public into thinking that limiting our family size is the ONLY thing that will work. This then leaves their business backers happy and the man in the street is left to left to dance to their tune.

Also, just thought of it, if the government thinks we're so overpopulated that we're heading for imminent disaster, what are they funding/allowing IVF for?

b0rker

whathavewedone wrote: »

I think it would be a very scary world if a "government body" was allowed to decide how many children you're allowed to have whether it be on the basis of income, intelligence or anything.

Reforming the benefit/working tax credit/child tax credit system to make it less attractive for people to have lots of children that they can't afford is one thing, turning into China quite another.

I'm no bleeding heart lefty but I'm quite horrified by some of the views on here. Makes you realise just how easy it could be for parties like the BNP to gain power in times of economic turmoil.

I kind of like the Chinese system when it comes to child limitations. In a world where we are already massively overpopulated it makes sense to try and reduce numbers. I would not involve so much politics in relation to incomes etc though as that would create a lot of class related prejudice. I would make it a flat 1 kid for everyone. No matter what their level of income. If that would not sustain the population to required levels then I am sure 2 kids would be an option. The kids of the employed and unemplyed would receive better education as there would be less overcrowding etc. It is a win/win.

scousethife

I dont get why people having kids entitles them to free money anyway?

chunky79

As for free money thats what the benefit scroungers see it as....not all but alot. I live in an old mining village, lots of people on benefits i even ended up on them myself once. It was 11 years ago that i needed them, i certainly did not choose that life, i was made redundant and was pregnant chances of getting a job, none. Although i had 4 interviews. Long story short the grant was £100 and i think i got £69 a week as a single parent. I was back out working in a factory 6 weeks after giving birth fulltime. I could not afford to be on benefits and i lived with my parents at the time. I spent more time at college got a better education, became a PA, married a (ryhmes with Banker) wife beater, got a divorce and bettered myself. Why? because i chose not to live on benefits because it WAS a poor life. Not all are on benefits because they choose to but alot are that i know snd many that could and should work, children in fulltime school, able bodied naff all wrong with them etc...

The government has no hope of getting the wallers back to work unless they cut benefits. A friend of mine had seperated from her husband and was very shocked at the amount of money they were handing her. She thought she would be living hand to mouth when infact she was better of financially. (thankfully differnces have now been resolved :T )

£500 maternity grant, £190 for something else isn't it healthy eating? For F*** sake, do they really think this cash amount goes on the child and fruit and vegetables. It should be vouchers for Baby shops and Asda Tesco or Morrisons and they should only be taken for said items.

I do know of a young lad, he is my friends grandson, he is 19 years old never had a job been on JSA for 12 months, he has been kicked of twice. He goes back after 3 weeks is signed back on and the cycle begins again.

I know a single mother whose children were about to leave school she became ill with depression at this time, she has never had a job in her life and is 45 years old. I could go on and on, but i think we all know people like this and this is the people that need to be sorted out. Make them go on courses, make them do community service, stop letting them go house hopping whilst me and my partner (and many many others) are doing our level best to work and keep a healthy home life for our children.

Most of what i have said is from living in a area that is rife with dole wallers. I am not lumping them and decent folk down on their luck into one category.

treliac

lana22 wrote: »

"Should we or shouldn't we help men who nature has intended to be impotent to reproduce?" Discuss........

When it comes to playing god ......

Nature can be cruel, not IMO good reason not to give assistance. However, there must be limits. Children are not commodities to be created, artificially and randomly, to meet adults' needs at any cost. Don't we all deserve a sense of our own heredity?

And how far do we take this god playing ability? Go beyond nature's intentions. What about human beings ability to destroy their own fertility through their own risky and chosen behaviour. Should we invest our limited resources in bailing everyone out?

treliac

b0rker wrote: »

I kind of like the Chinese system when it comes to child limitations. In a world where we are already massively overpopulated it makes sense to try and reduce numbers. I would not involve so much politics in relation to incomes etc though as that would create a lot of class related prejudice. I would make it a flat 1 kid for everyone. No matter what their level of income. If that would not sustain the population to required levels then I am sure 2 kids would be an option. The kids of the employed and unemplyed would receive better education as there would be less overcrowding etc. It is a win/win.

It's been so successful that natural population control will now follow since so many young men won't even get the chance to reproduce, given the lack of young women.

treliac

SGE1 wrote: »

There will always be some people who are too bigoted and jealous of others to see clearly. Their blind egoism has them abusing any member of society that doesn't resemble them entirely, and pigeon-holing all into categories that allegedly legitimise that abuse. So, a single mother becomes a scrounging slapper; a poor sod suffering from depression is just a lying whining work-dodger. Ironically, when the most educated members of society (for instance, doctors) don't corroborate their views, they are labelled as liars as well. And so everything becomes a conspiracy, and these people begin to see themselves as victims. All of this is probably to create a hierarchy of deserving parts of society, consciously or not, where these people place themselves as the highest and most deserving kind. Then follows the idea that taxes should serve only those who have paid them, leading to the most dehumanising attitude of all: they would rather let those worse off than them rot in their own filth, than part with a penny of their cash to help them.

These people are those that will probably vote BNP in the next election. At best, they are incredibly gullible to attribute their woes to the unknown (those from other countries, and generally those who don't resemble them enough) - the kind of ridiculous stupidity to led to witch-hunts hundreds of years ago. And at worse, they are aggressive, hateful, and dangerously emotionally and mentally !!!!!! individuals.

Sweepingly stated and equalling the over-emotion of opposing posters. I don't find the trashing of your opponents to be in the least bit constructive. In fact, it presents as bullying.

adamsmum

Hi
New here but had to put my ten pence worths in!! I have worked since I left school what with YTS to start with many many factories then joined the Royal Irish Regiment where I stayed for 9 years. I would still be there earning a good wage but I had my son who was born with a liver disease and needed surgery and will need a transplant in the future. I still carried on working for 2 years after Adam was born, I was lucky my mum looked after Adam for me so I knew he was well looked after......but with his condition I had to take time off work to take him to hospital, to be with him when he got kept in hospital. I remember a female warrent officer telling me that if I wanted to be kept on in the Regiment at my 9 year point that "I would have to distance myself from my child" now excuse me but !!!!!!!!!!! Needless to say at my 9 year point I was told I was unemployable and let go.....no money no nothing and no choice but to sign on benefits. I never set out to be a single mum on benefits and wish it was otherwise but my son's condition will only get worse AND this is a BIG AND I have tried to get a job over the years and once I mention my son's illness I can see them switch off.

I do agree that a lot of young one's do see this as a way not to work I know a few of them that are just down right lazy and whose parents give them money therefore encouraging them not to work.

Please for a lot of single mums it is not the choice we want it's the only choice we have

schueys_girl

Hi adamsmom,

You are very correct. Sorry to hear about your son. The benefit system should be there for those who need help and assistance for genuine reasons.

Not for those who cannot be bothered toget up in the morning and go to work, or bothered to contribute to society.

I really think its wrong that people are able to LIVE and have an OK existance when they DO NOT WANT TO WORK OR CONTRIBUTE.

My fiance works in a school, a decent high school in a fairly nice area. Most of the kids in year 9 and below have no aspirations or motivations at all...they know they can just not bother, and live off the benefit system....classes have reversed now....where there used to be a few kids disrupting the kids who wanted to work, now there are the majority who are not bothered and only a few who really want to try.

Kids get pampered too much in my opinion now. "schools boring i dont want to do, i dont like maths etc I dont like reading....so therefore im going to be a little pain in the bum and spoil it for everyone"

i didnt like some aspects of school but i damn well went and worked hard in ALL my exams because I was told there was no other choice!!!!

Now there are all sorts of choices for these kids acting up in school, get taken out of boring maths lessons and sent to college to do vehicle mechanics etc....what kind of message does this give?!

Kids in schools need to be taught LIFE lessons. There are always things in life which are boring and not fun...but nevertheless rules are rules and these things stillneed to be done!!!!!!!!!!!!

harryhound

Just been listening to a former member of the Chinese economic committee explaining that China has to create 12,000,000 new jobs every year, just to absorb the peasants trying to leave subsistence agriculture.

I suppose similar migrations (but obviously on a much smaller scale) happened in the UK 150 years ago and fuelled the industrial revolution.

In the worldwide recession look out for trouble ahead - China cannot keep putting spare people into its army, but with nobody to fight.