whitesoxfan101 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_an...icle5627634.ece COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned. Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population. A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning. “I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said. “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.” The Optimum Population Trust, a campaign group of which Porritt is a patron, says each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland - an area the size of Trafalgar Square. The British population, now 61m, will pass 70m by 2028, the Office for National Statistics says. The fertility rate for women born outside Britain is estimated to be 2.5, compared with 1.7 for those born here. The global population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050. Porritt, who has two children, intends to persuade environmental pressure groups to make population a focus of campaigning. “Many organisations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said. Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion. He said: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers. Thoughts? I'm pretty sure this isn't the first person to have this idea, actually. Edited February 2, 2009 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If we reduce the population, then who will be around to pay the taxes that fund all the beloved social programs of the left, as well as the military spending of the right? Hell, in Europe, the native Europeans have a declining birth rate, which is going to cripple them in the near future when the immigrant populations outnumber them and seize control, thru political or other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm all for population control. Have no issues with the quoted article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 tragedy of the commons no? I mean, come on, eventually this will be a very real issue. I don't know how much longer but, eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Good luck with this plan.. LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo=dorf Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If we reduce the population, then who will be around to pay the taxes that fund all the beloved social programs of the left, as well as the military spending of the right? Hell, in Europe, the native Europeans have a declining birth rate, which is going to cripple them in the near future when the immigrant populations outnumber them and seize control, thru political or other means. Personally I like that idea of offering free vasectamies (sp?) to the lower class if they choose they want it. I rather have my tax dollars pay for one surgery to prevent the birth of an unwanted child (and more likey a future criminal due to a lack of a father figure and living in a poor environment) than have my tax dollars pay for 18 years of social programs and food stamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 04:52 PM) Personally I like that idea of offering free vasectamies (sp?) to the lower class if they choose they want it. I rather have my tax dollars pay for one surgery to prevent the birth of an unwanted child (and more likey a future criminal due to a lack of a father figure and living in a poor environment) than have my tax dollars pay for 18 years of social programs and food stamps. Therein is the rub. Poorer people who can least afford to have children often have the most children and use more of the social services available from the government. And more people use more resouces, regardless of who pays for them. But call for population control, and you can be called all sorts of names, including a bigot. There was some guy who did just what you proposed with his own money and he was branded a racist by every black organization in the area. i want to say it was around Atlanta, but I can't remember for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Some lady with 6 kids already just had octuplets (yea fertility drugs!). I just saw a media report and I guess the lady has no job, isn't married, and has 14 kids now. LOL Edited February 3, 2009 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 03:57 PM) Some lady with 6 kids already just had octuplets (yea fertility drugs!). I just saw a media report and I guess the lady has no job, isn't married, and has 14 kids now. LOL She intends to support them through the talk show circuit. I'm not kidding. It seems no one can figure out why in the world any fertility company would be willing to actually implant 8 embryos in her given her financial situation. One thing I will say on the matter posed in the thread...right now, we still laugh at this, hahahahaha, those crazy Greens, always trying to control us, they're just like the Chinese. The scary thing is...barring changes in the way we use energy, we may wind up all making that choice anyway, because there really is only so much that can be supported based on a fossil fuel infrastructure, and we're rapidly bumping up against those levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I heard the family is supporting her. While she has no income, the family does. She is practicing traditional family values and staying home to raise their children. The zero population growth discussion has been around for 40 years that I can remember. Nothing new. Some countries already have programs in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nixon Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Malthus approves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts