Is population growth a good thing?

drc

I'm curious about what other people think. The government is always saying that population growth in the UK is a good thing as we need more people to pay for the pensions of the older generation.

However, on the other side of the coin, the forecast of the world population for 2050 is 9 billion and something like 70 million for the UK alone. There is already pressure on resources such as food and water (not to mention oil) and competition for these things creates wars. So, is population growth a good thing (and will it really pan out as the government says with young people/immigrants working to pay for the pensioners) or are we headed for catastrophe by encouraging people to have more kids?

ILW

I think that the main problem is, that this government seem to be determeined to encourage the wrong people to have loads of kids. The underclass see it as a way of bettering themselves into more benefits, bigger houses etc. In general those children from generations of non working households will form more non working households who will always be a burden on the country.
The people that strive to improve themselves through hard work tend to limit the amount of children they have, to what they can afford.
Dont know what the answer is, but restricting benefits to the first two offspring and no social housing above 2 beds, may be a start.

markharding557

well i'm going to agree and disagree with one or two things:
1/ this problem of welfare dependancy was not just the creation of this government it began with previous conservative governments,this government just have not done much about it.
2/ as someone who lives in an estate which is mixed private/council i can assure you there are no big houses here just 2/3 bed semis.
i think people should be discouraged from having more kids by reducing the amounts paid for any extra that come along while on benifit.
the money saved should be channelled into working tax credit

amcluesent

>we need more people to pay for the pensions of the older generation.<

Because the socialists have stolen the pensions of the those who have worked for the last 25 years.

Now welfare is a giant Ponzi scheme. Labour also want chavs to have a load of ferals, as they are so stupid they vote Labour.

abaxas

amcluesent wrote: »

>we need more people to pay for the pensions of the older generation.<

Because the socialists have stolen the pensions of the those who have worked for the last 25 years.

Now welfare is a giant Ponzi scheme. Labour also want chavs to have a load of ferals, as they are so stupid they vote Labour.

I agree in part.

But paying someone 50% of their final salary for 20 years when they have put in 15% of their salary for 40 years, was never going to work! That is a ponzi scheme at best :P

People are going to have to face the fact of reduced pensions, and if they dont like it, pension default.

olly300

amcluesent wrote: »

Now welfare is a giant Ponzi scheme. Labour also want chavs to have a load of ferals, as they are so stupid they vote Labour.

"Chavs" don't tend to vote.

Most people who vote are the over 50s. Most people in that age group if they are going to have children have had them already.

So if a party wants to be elected in the UK they need to keep the over 50s happy.

Cannon_Fodder

Worldwide it is not sustainable.

I'm waiting to find (I'm sure some tin-hat type has done the maths) what the impact of 7 Billion CO2 emitters is considered to be...

and whether it is more than airlines, cars, industry etc.

Revenge_of_the_Red_Devil

Up to a limit, it's a good thing. But we have no chance of avoiding population growth. If the whole world's population is increasing, it's naive to think we can somehow keep it steady at 62 million or whatever it is.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

Overpopulation is the biggest 'green' issue by far. Yet it is completely ignored. Tells you everything you need to know about the motivation behind 'green taxes'.

ILW

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Worldwide it is not sustainable.

I'm waiting to find (I'm sure some tin-hat type has done the maths) what the impact of 7 Billion CO2 emitters is considered to be...

and whether it is more than airlines, cars, industry etc.

I did read (cannot remember where) that if the world were to resrtict the number of children they are going to have over the next 50 years by just 10% on average, it would have a better "climate change" result than all the current proposals and targets put together.
Hopefully someone can confirm this, but I doubt it will be anyone from the green industry and there is no money in it for them.

silvercar

That one child will produce more CO2 than can be counter-acted by any amount of reduced energy light bulbs, cavity wall insulation, solar panels etc.