One Child Maximum

bwfc71 wrote:

For me, I do believe that nature will allow so much and will take control of sustainable population levels - how many disasters have taken place over last few years? How many young fit, and healthy, athletes have died from sudden heart attacks this year alone? How many food "mountains" still exist in Europe, America and even Oceania (Japan, Australia, New Zealand) because of too much food being produced but politics stops it from being shipped to areas of the globe where it is needed - politics is the problem and not animal instincts.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:

For me, I do believe that nature will allow so much and will take control of sustainable population levels - how many disasters have taken place over last few years? How many young fit, and healthy, athletes have died from sudden heart attacks this year alone? How many food "mountains" still exist in Europe, America and even Oceania (Japan, Australia, New Zealand) because of too much food being produced but politics stops it from being shipped to areas of the globe where it is needed - politics is the problem and not animal instincts.

Get real Chris, while you were typing that post 378 scrubber babies were born.

bwfc71 wrote:

and about 500 non-scrubber but poverty stricken babies had died from malnutrition.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I've touched on this topic before, but I think it's even more relevant right now with food prices so high. I recently watched a programme that said in 30+ years there could be a major food shortage due to the amount of people on the planet. When I say food shortage I don't mean you might struggle to get that extra special chocolate cake that's made with unicorn milk and cocoa beans from a small island in the Carribean, I mean the basics like bread, sugar & Kitkats. Basically, we could all be starving.

Ok, it's probably not going to happen in our lifetime, but it's probably going to effect our kids and certainly our grandchildren. But what are the governments of the world doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They're more interested in the economy, war and football. They don't seem to get that when the world is starving none of that will matter, not even football.

There is only one way to avoid food shortages and that is to limit the number of people on the planet. Personally I'd put every single person aged between 14-21 on an island and nuke it but, unfortunately, it would only slow down our journey towards world starvation, it wouldn't prevent it.

The answer is harsh but it really is the only way. People should be limited to one child only. If they have a second child, that child should be removed and given to someone who is unable to have children. They should then be fined a huge amount so as to deter them and others from even thinking about it in the future.

Before all you bleeding heart liberals get on your high horses about human rights and all that sort of nonsense, if we don’t do something about the population explosion human rights will be the least of your worries. You’ll soon find yourself fighting to the death with your next door neighbour over an apple.

We really have made the world too free with way too much choice. It really needs some strong leadership now to save mankind, it astounds me this isn’t the number one story on the 6 o’clock news every single night.

As usual, it’s up to forward thinkers like myself to sort the future of mankind out. Surely you agree with me about this one child law?

Lyric Todkill wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I've touched on this topic before, but I think it's even more relevant right now with food prices so high. I recently watched a programme that said in 30+ years there could be a major food shortage due to the amount of people on the planet. When I say food shortage I don't mean you might struggle to get that extra special chocolate cake that's made with unicorn milk and cocoa beans from a small island in the Carribean, I mean the basics like bread, sugar & Kitkats. Basically, we could all be starving.

Ok, it's probably not going to happen in our lifetime, but it's probably going to effect our kids and certainly our grandchildren. But what are the governments of the world doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They're more interested in the economy, war and football. They don't seem to get that when the world is starving none of that will matter, not even football.

There is only one way to avoid food shortages and that is to limit the number of people on the planet. Personally I'd put every single person aged between 14-21 on an island and nuke it but, unfortunately, it would only slow down our journey towards world starvation, it wouldn't prevent it.

The answer is harsh but it really is the only way. People should be limited to one child only. If they have a second child, that child should be removed and given to someone who is unable to have children. They should then be fined a huge amount so as to deter them and others from even thinking about it in the future.

Before all you bleeding heart liberals get on your high horses about human rights and all that sort of nonsense, if we don’t do something about the population explosion human rights will be the least of your worries. You’ll soon find yourself fighting to the death with your next door neighbour over an apple.

We really have made the world too free with way too much choice. It really needs some strong leadership now to save mankind, it astounds me this isn’t the number one story on the 6 o’clock news every single night.

As usual, it’s up to forward thinkers like myself to sort the future of mankind out. Surely you agree with me about this one child law?

I have a lot of time for your thinking, some spelling mistakes detract from the message, though.

largehat wrote:

Lyric Todkill wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I've touched on this topic before, but I think it's even more relevant right now with food prices so high. I recently watched a programme that said in 30+ years there could be a major food shortage due to the amount of people on the planet. When I say food shortage I don't mean you might struggle to get that extra special chocolate cake that's made with unicorn milk and cocoa beans from a small island in the Carribean, I mean the basics like bread, sugar & Kitkats. Basically, we could all be starving.

Ok, it's probably not going to happen in our lifetime, but it's probably going to effect our kids and certainly our grandchildren. But what are the governments of the world doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They're more interested in the economy, war and football. They don't seem to get that when the world is starving none of that will matter, not even football.

There is only one way to avoid food shortages and that is to limit the number of people on the planet. Personally I'd put every single person aged between 14-21 on an island and nuke it but, unfortunately, it would only slow down our journey towards world starvation, it wouldn't prevent it.

The answer is harsh but it really is the only way. People should be limited to one child only. If they have a second child, that child should be removed and given to someone who is unable to have children. They should then be fined a huge amount so as to deter them and others from even thinking about it in the future.

Before all you bleeding heart liberals get on your high horses about human rights and all that sort of nonsense, if we don’t do something about the population explosion human rights will be the least of your worries. You’ll soon find yourself fighting to the death with your next door neighbour over an apple.

We really have made the world too free with way too much choice. It really needs some strong leadership now to save mankind, it astounds me this isn’t the number one story on the 6 o’clock news every single night.

As usual, it’s up to forward thinkers like myself to sort the future of mankind out. Surely you agree with me about this one child law?

I have a lot of time for your thinking, some spelling mistakes detract from the message, though.

I have no time for her thinking, and the only mistake I can see in the original post is the use of 'effect' instead of 'affect'.

effect - make a causal difference to
affect - have an effect upon

So I will have to respectfully but completely disagree with your analysis, LT.

Lyric Todkill wrote:

I have a lot of time for your thinking, some spelling mistakes detract from the message, though.

Natasha Whittam wrote: I recently watched a programme that said in 30+ years there could be a major food shortage due to the amount of people on the planet.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Honestly i don't want to have kids personally, don't think i will.

If i did, i'd want one (barring a twins etc scenario)

I just can't imagine wanting 5-6-7 + kids. Seems crazy to me.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Honestly i don't want to have kids personally, don't think i will.

If i did, i'd want one (barring a twins etc scenario)

I just can't imagine wanting 5-6-7 + kids. Seems crazy to me.

Me too, but it doesn't seem to stop the lower classes breeding like rabbits. They could stop this virtually overnight by only giving child benefit to one child per family.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Pretentious bitch.

its not just the 'lower classes' (or the 'poor people') who breed like rabbits.

What about middle class fundamentalist Christians who refuse point blank to put a jacket over there spunk injector?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Pretentious bitch.

its not just the 'lower classes' (or the 'poor people') who breed like rabbits.

What about middle class fundamentalist Christians who refuse point blank to put a jacket over there spunk injector?

It's a fact Rebel. 80% of kids are born to people on benefits. Many see them as a way to top up their fag & booze kitty.

I'd like to see the introduction of a 'child licence' where people actually had to apply in advance of getting pregnant. You'd have to earn a pre-determined amount of money and prove you're not a nonce.

Harsh, but only harsh will slow down this human explosion.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Putting a halt to immigration and preventing Muslim families having 25 kids each would help us more.

harsh, right-wing, possibly even racist... but true.

I agree with you about the 'people use having a kid as a way to live on benefits' but many dont.

some parents work damn hard actually nat to pay for their kids...