Sorry Simon, I was being sarcastic. The thought of death doesn't bother me either, apart from the pain felt by the multitudes when I move on.
Ooops, I didn't get that! I imagine a street party in my case 🙂
My point was reaction to some people on here who say that we shouldn't be allowed to 'breed' in order to save the world, as they see it.
well, pardon me for homocentricity, but I couldn't give a flying **** for the planet without us on it - how many billion planets are there in the galaxy ?
outside the norm, but you suggested earlier that repressing "the need to procreate" caused deviancy
It does cause deviation from the norm. Norm being the innate need for the species to procreate! Not changing tack at all. You're just picking holes in my wording.
No not you SFB, I'm agreeing with you!
No not you SFB, I'm agreeing with you!
yes I know - I was just using your remark to provide context 🙂
Oh 😳 😆
Yep, I have a strong natural urge to go to sleep...
I'll leave with a quote from some old nutter who knows a thing or two about nature:
"There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago.
...
The human population can no longer be allowed to grow in the same old uncontrolled way. If we do not take charge of our population size, then nature will do it for us and it is the poor people of the world who will suffer most.
...
I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people"-- Sir David Attenborough, father of two and patron of [URL= http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ ]The Optimum Population Trust[/URL]
Me
"Do you remember your post suggesting that repressing what you call natural urges would lead to priestly behaviour?"
Jackson pollock
"Generally as a species. It is you that has applied it to yourself"
Now you have suggested that repressing ones breeding urges may lead to "priestly behavior".
And now you are saying I'm applying that suggestion to myself...
So, which would you prefer, PEADOPHILE! rapist, or someone prepared to limit his inate urges to procreate in order to correspond with an understanding of the situation the human species may well be facing as regards global overpopulation?
There is another option, that of ****less breeding, but it generally only invites contempt here on STW when it involves poor people.
Go on, say sorry.
Apologise for what? - your ignorance... oh go on then, I'm sorry you're an ignorant konb!
Go on Jacko, say sorry. There's no need for insults.
The thing about curbing procreation is that we think other people should be doing it, but it's observable that in the rich countries, it has already dropped near or below replacement level - so instead of trying to get poorer people to not have so many children, it would make more sense to share the wealth and then they'd do it by choice 🙂
For what? Playful banter thats all 😉
"The thing about curbing procreation is that we think other people should be doing it, but it's observable that in the rich countries, it has already dropped near or below replacement level - so instead of trying to get poorer people to not have so many children, it would make more sense to share the wealth and then they'd do it by choice "
An approach to curbing global overpopulation suggested by..sodafarls on the previous page. Damn, that boy is good.
"For what? Playful banter thats all"
Apologise for your playful banter and tell me why you are sorry.
**** me, you guys take things so so seriously.
lighten up................. 😉
I am not reading the rest of the post's but on this guys basis I have twins so at birth I should have decided which one lives and which one will have to be smoked to save the planet. But smoking one will add to global warming as well to dispose of child which is not allowed to live. Perhaps said person should be smoked slowly which removes an annoying boil off the face of the planet.
**** me, you guys take things so so seriously.
lighten up.................
says the bloke who said anyone not wanting kids was a "sad f*ck" who should kill themself?
..at birth I should have decided which one lives..
Hyperbole much?
Using up all the earths resorces = poor argument!
Does anyone really think there is any chance of saving the planet....its just a matter of time. I often wonder whether there is any point to all the recycling I do and attepts to reduce the energy I use 😥
Have as many children as you want, just make sure they're well looked after, loved and do your best to make them turn out decent human beings!
I often wonder whether there is any point to all the recycling I do and attepts to reduce the energy I use
well there definitely isn't if you decide to have 15 kids 🙄
amazing...
But smoking one will add to global warming as well to dispose of child which is not allowed to live. But smoking one will add to global warming as well to dispose of child which is not allowed to live.
Children are actually a large percentage fat, given a decent wick they'll burn nicely under their own steam, wasting very little in the way of non-renewable fuels.... 😆
[url=
onwards....[/url]
Good vid cofeeking!
Children are actually a large percentage fat, given a decent wick they'll burn nicely under their own steam, wasting very little in the way of non-renewable fuels...
Also, unless your wife had cravings for coal during pregnancy, babies are carbon neutral when burnt (perhaps ignoring any tertiary carbon spent during "extraction") 😉
😀 that whole series (of 8 ) vids is well worth the watching!
I've got 4 kids, I love them all to bits, and you know what? I dont give a fiddler's **** whether or not anybody thinks I'm being selfish!
Blimey is this still going?
People are selfish and care nothing for the planet. Thread closed.
Yoshimi - we don't have to "save the planet", it will take care of itself. What we're actually talking about is "saving" humankind (from itself largely!). Just another example of grandiose human thinking! 🙂
Lets all save the planet. And slowly wipe out the human race in the process. So why did we save the planet?
Lets all save the planet. And slowly wipe out the human race in the process.
Was humankind near to extinction 50 years ago when we only had a third of our current world population?
Lets all save the planet. And slowly wipe out the human race in the process. So why did we save the planet?
🙄
I think you should replace "slowly wipe out" with, "reduce to a manageable and sustainable number".
Why do people get so defensive about such an obvious solution? (Not aimed at your MF just a general statement).
Lets all save the planet. And slowly wipe out the human race in the process. So why did we save the planet?
Only by not "saving the planet" as you put it we're slowly wiping out the human race by depleting available resources? Planet will live on, we need to reduce our damage to it in order for US to survive, not it.
But if there is a control on procreation there will eventually be a steady decline...
For example (say there was a 1 child limit) and only 70% of the adult population actually want children. Of that 70%, a further 20% cannot conceive (current stats say 1 in 8 couples struggle). By the second generation of such a rule, of the remaining 50% another 70% don't want children and another 20% struggle.
Now I am not too hot at the math, but it won't take long before there is a critical mass of decline.
6ish billion (and growing) isn't sustainable as a worldwide population.
60ish million (and growing) isn't sustainable as a uk population.
a reduction is inevitable, this growth cannot continue forever, we can choose to control this ourselves, or wait for natural pressures to do it for us (famine/ war/ disease).
this guy is very wise:
[url=
Bartlett knows the score[/url]
But if there is a control on procreation there will eventually be a steady decline...
A steady decline of population for a few generations would actually be a GOOD thing - even at the extreme levels you are talking about.
[img] 
[/img]
Big picture - aside from the environment sustainability isssues, who would not like the whole of Britan to have the population density of Scotland across the whole of the UK (Scotland less than a sixth the density of England and a quarter of the UK as a whole)? I can imagine it would be a far more pleasant place to live for all of us (that were left!).
Only read the 1st and last pages of this thread, but my neighbor is on her 5th kid (devout catholics). I wouldn't normally have a problem, but they are making noises about extending above their garage to make another bedroom. This is going to completely block my view of the water and rolling hills. I may have to object to their planning permission, if that will even make any difference. ❓
Scotland less than a sixth the density of England and a quarter of the UK as a whole
thats down to the better education system 😯
This is going to completely block my view of the water and rolling hills. I may have to object to their planning permission, if that will even make any difference.
Unfortunately you have no right to a view (I say unfortunately but in our case we blocked our neighbour's view towards Stainburn Edge and the edge of the Yorkshire Dales when we built our extension) 😉
Unfortunately you have no right to a view (I say unfortunately but in our case we blocked our neighbour's view towards Stainburn Edge and the edge of the Yorkshire Dales when we built our extension)
😆 ... 🙄
just been reading about the bloke in the paper..........
i think i agree with him now, and cos i have two kids, i think i am now a selfish sad f*uck.......... 😉
and i am on the lookout for a brompton.
Welcome back the melee Ton!
or, as FKN news puts it:
"the planet is fine, WE 're fncked, it's our fault, and it's getting worse. have a nice day"
