One Child Maximum

Natasha Whittam wrote:

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...

We are in agreement. We have to put aside any worries about racism or offending people. This is the future of mankind we're talking about, I couldn't give a shit about a few muslims or christians saying they have a right to produce 25 kids per week.

People ignore or mock me, but trust me, in 30 years life will be VERY different from today. And not in a good way. The poor will literally be starving and living on the streets.

very far fetched 'worst case' disopian view...

but I do kind of agree with you...

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

very far fetched 'worst case' disopian view...

but I do kind of agree with you...

Why is it far fetched? Some people can only just afford food now, imagine how high food prices will be in 30 years. There will also be a lot more poor people as there will be less jobs for more people.

You miss the point of population growth.


1000 years ago we couldn't have coped with the population in 1800.

In 1800 we couldn't have coped with the population in 1900.

In 1900 we couldn't have coped with the population in 2000.


But funnily enough the world has actually experienced an increase in the quality of life. Thats because of technological advancement. 100 years ago you would have seen an old man and his son forcing a plough through a muddy field, or if they were a bit of a wealthier farmer, had a horse doing it. Now we have huge industrialised farming sites with gigantic machinery capable of producing ten of thousands times more than we ever could in the past.




Your assessment is based on the fact that technology will stay the same and that population growth will remain constant, which isn't true. Population growth in advanced countries slows and steadiest and is actually projected to decrease as the country advances further.

Lofty_Love wrote:You miss the point of population growth.


1000 years ago we couldn't have coped with the population in 1800.

In 1800 we couldn't have coped with the population in 1900.

In 1900 we couldn't have coped with the population in 2000.


But funnily enough the world has actually experienced an increase in the quality of life. Thats because of technological advancement. 100 years ago you would have seen an old man and his son forcing a plough through a muddy field, or if they were a bit of a wealthier farmer, had a horse doing it. Now we have huge industrialised farming sites with gigantic machinery capable of producing ten of thousands times more than we ever could in the past.




Your assessment is based on the fact that technology will stay the same and that population growth will remain constant, which isn't true. Population growth in advanced countries slows and steadiest and is actually projected to decrease as the country advances further.

Nice point, I just don't agree with it. Fair enough, if someone comes up with a way to make decent food for free or a new form of affordable energy then I'd agree with you to a point (although there would still be the question of where you house everyone).

But there have actually been little advancements in fuel and food over the last 100 years. We were eating steaks in 1912 and being warmed by fossil fuels. What's changed?

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Nice point, I just don't agree with it. Fair enough, if someone comes up with a way to make decent food for free or a new form of affordable energy then I'd agree with you to a point (although there would still be the question of where you house everyone).

But there have actually been little advancements in fuel and food over the last 100 years. We were eating steaks in 1912 and being warmed by fossil fuels. What's changed?

We can produce a lot more food for a lot cheaper than we could 100 years ago, out of a long list of things you could have chosen Id say you picked one that has massively change there. Even using your example: you could have walked into Joe Bloggs house 100 years ago and seen him eating a fine cut fillet steak! that would cost a days wages, but it would be perfectly normal to see that now.

Ok we are using the same fuel but the advancement in the efficiency of its use has occurred. But its not really important because we are going to have to find new energy sources. This however is no where near as difficult as its being made out to be, we already have loads of methods of creating renewable energy. The only problem is the large initial costs and the fact that oil is still better than most of them. But when we get close to running out of oil the change will be made, energy companies won't just freeze up and die when oil runs out, they will just invest in other forms of energy.

Advancement in solar panel technology has been rapid, there are areas in England in which you can run your whole house on electricity produced by solar panels, and sell excess energy to the grid. The technology will come in time.


We easily have enough resources to cope with world population, the importance is distribution. A water shortage doesn't happen because there isn't enough water on our planet, which makes up over 70% of the planet! its because it isn't distributed correctly.






And there is plenty of space on the Earth to house people, that is not even close to being a problem yet.

Lofty_Love wrote:


We can produce a lot more food for a lot cheaper than we could 100 years ago, out of a long list of things you could have chosen Id say you picked one that has massively change there. Even using your example: you could have walked into Joe Bloggs house 100 years ago and seen him eating a fine cut fillet steak! that would cost a days wages, but it would be perfectly normal to see that now.

Ok we are using the same fuel but the advancement in the efficiency of its use has occurred. But its not really important because we are going to have to find new energy sources. This however is no where near as difficult as its being made out to be, we already have loads of methods of creating renewable energy. The only problem is the large initial costs and the fact that oil is still better than most of them. But when we get close to running out of oil the change will be made, energy companies won't just freeze up and die when oil runs out, they will just invest in other forms of energy.

Advancement in solar panel technology has been rapid, there are areas in England in which you can run your whole house on electricity produced by solar panels, and sell excess energy to the grid. The technology will come in time.


We easily have enough resources to cope with world population, the importance is distribution. A water shortage doesn't happen because there isn't enough water on our planet, which makes up over 70% of the planet! its because it isn't distributed correctly

You talk a good story, and I really want it to be true, but I see no signs of it happening. Oil could run out in under 30 years if China and India continue to grow - and even if that doesn't happen, the price will be 10 times what it is now.

I accept that food is a lot cheaper than it was 100 years ago, but it's also a lot dearer than it was 5 years ago. And it ain't coming down anytime soon. It will continue to rise until it prices a section of society totally out of the game.

Lofty_Love wrote:You miss the point of population growth.


1000 years ago we couldn't have coped with the population in 1800.

In 1800 we couldn't have coped with the population in 1900.

In 1900 we couldn't have coped with the population in 2000.


But funnily enough the world has actually experienced an increase in the quality of life. Thats because of technological advancement. 100 years ago you would have seen an old man and his son forcing a plough through a muddy field, or if they were a bit of a wealthier farmer, had a horse doing it. Now we have huge industrialised farming sites with gigantic machinery capable of producing ten of thousands times more than we ever could in the past.




Your assessment is based on the fact that technology will stay the same and that population growth will remain constant, which isn't true. Population growth in advanced countries slows and steadiest and is actually projected to decrease as the country advances further.

this is actually a very good and valid point.