Now they want less kids!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00pm
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

Full coverage: Climate change in-depth

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

The Sunday Times

These people are starting to get on my nerves! Last week it was cows farting that was producing to much CO2 gas. Now it's having to many kids. It's to the point now that I dont even listen to what they have to say. I just read and laugh.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[quade 4]

Quote

It's to the point now that I dont even listen to what they have to say. I just read and laugh.

It's a pity too, because they're actually right.

If you want to lessen the impact of humans on the planet, then make fewer humans. It's not like we actually NEED any more right now.

Further, this isn't a "Now they want less kids!" thing either, people have been saying this for several decades.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Further, this isn't a "Now they want less kids!" thing either,

Really? A group saying you should have less kids. Sounds like to me like they dont want that many around. I'm just waiting to see what they come up with next. Maybe people can but some bullshit carbon offsets for each kid. That can make them feel less guilty for having them.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Further, this isn't a "Now they want less kids!" thing either,

Really? A group saying you should have less kids. Sounds like to me like they dont want that many around. I'm just waiting to see what they come up with next. Maybe people can but some bullshit carbon offsets for each kid. That can make them feel less guilty for having them.

You missed the operative word in that phrase and the point of my sentance . . . it's not "now" . . . it's "have been saying for quite some time."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[labrys 0]

When to use less and when to use fewer? There’s an easy way to remember. If you can’t count it, use less. If you can count it, use fewer.

• Cain has less love in his heart than anyone else I know.

• Cain gives fewer hugs than anyone else I know.
You can’t count love, but you can count hugs.

Owned by Remi #?

[Andy9o8 2]

I propose turning excess children into Soylent Green. Feed the people. Hold the melamine.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Now it's having to many kids.

My question for you: how many people do you think the planet should have?

* Exactly the number we have now?
* More than we have now?
* Less than we have now?

What's the number?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 3,119]

>A group saying you should have less kids.

They want less _people._ Fewer people = less land needed = less oil needed etc. Barring mass executions, that means planning for the future by having fewer kids.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Now it's having to many kids.

My question for you: how many people do you think the planet should have?

* Exactly the number we have now?
* More than we have now?
* Less than we have now?

What's the number?

While asking these types of questions, why not answer them yourself?

How many? -- How the hell should I know? The population will continue to grow regardless. So, let it grow. Either the planet will sustain it or it won't. How we adapt to handle it is a far more important question.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>A group saying you should have less kids.

They want less _people._ Fewer people = less land needed = less oil needed etc. Barring mass executions, that means planning for the future by having fewer kids.

You know there is some kind of whacko out there who advocates a population reduction from the current 6B to about 1.5B...Glen Beck was ranting about it (it was funny to listen to) this morning.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,119]

>The population will continue to grow regardless.

Nope. Several societies have managed zero population growth. So it's clearly something we can control if we want to.

>Either the planet will sustain it or it won't.

That's sort of an odd take on things. I mean, either you'll die skydiving or you won't - so why bother with reserves, AAD's, RSL's and altimeters?

[Royd 0]

>The population will continue to grow regardless.

Quote

Nope. Several societies have managed zero population growth. So it's clearly something we can control if we want to.

Someone needs to get this message to the Muslims.

[billvon 3,119]

>Someone needs to get this message to the Muslims.

Actually the Middle East isn't growing fast at all, compared to Africa, India and China.

[micro 0]

HA! This fear mongering bullshit never ceases to amuse me. Our world can easily manage many more people than it currently has.

And my wife and I (who live almost completely off our own land, produce own own food, have begun to be almost entirely self-sustaining, and who live in a community that uses an ever increasing amount of ethanol and biodeisel) thumb our noses at these people who have their priorities completely out of wacked.

And we proudly announce that we are expecting our FIFTH child.

These chicken-little types can kiss my big, white, methane-producing ass.

So there.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[ExAFO 0]

We just need a good war to thin out our...wait, nevermind. Maybe a good disease to knock off a couple billion fat people. Yeah-that's the ticket.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[SpeedRacer 1]

It's the usual bullshit from the political hacks who view human beings as numbers.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,150]

For England:

the mid-2005 total fertility rate (TFR*) stood at 1.79 children per woman, up from a record low of 1.63 in 2001, and is below the replacement rate** of an average 2.1 children needed to keep our numbers stable. But the country's population is still growing. This is partly due to the 'momentum effect' of earlier natural increase (more births than deaths), partly due to the changing numbers of people of child-bearing age in the population, partly to lengthening life expectancy, but mainly due to high (net) inward migration.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

While asking these types of questions, why not answer them yourself?

Because answering a question while posing it proves that you're disingenuous in asking. One only does that if one's true motive is to broadcast their opinion. Whoop de do.

I ask to hear OTHER people's opinion. If someone wants mine they can ask me. But nobody asks around here. They're only output machines.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[shropshire 0]

So less kids would be smaller ones? I'll vote for that one.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

Now that's no way to run a socialist society!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

If someone wants mine they can ask me. But nobody asks around here. They're only output machines.

Well, if you didn't coat your answers in condescending sarcasm, maybe more people would ask your opinion.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[quade 4]

Quote

Now that's no way to run a socialist society!

You're right. The entire Republican Ponzi scheme falls apart if you don't have more and more people buying into the system. The AARP crumbles. The military/industrial complex crumbles. Total chaos.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andrewwhyte 1]

So if the US joins the Kyoto carbon credit trading scheme, do they get credit for all the people they kill in their various wars? I know here in Alberta we get blamed for all the CO2 created digging up the oil they use killing those people so it is only fair that we consider the net effect of the war and not just the gross effect.

[JackC 0]

They're right, the last thing this planet needs is more people. Having a large family is just plain irresponsible and selfish.

http://mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

[Tonto 1]

Quote

compared to Africa, India and China.

I'm always confused by Africa in these matters. Many people think that we will have an Aids induced population decline, (25 million infected in sub saharan Africa with aids related mortality at around 3.5 million a year, and infections growing) and others fear a population explosion. Both can't be right.

China had their population under control several years ago and had slipped below a billion last I heard.

India is growing and had exceeded a billion. (again, last I heard)

The US is growing too. You guys are over 300 million now, up from 260 odd some 15 years ago.

t

It's the year of the Pig.