Thread: Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born-BBC

Most people are having 1 maybe 2 children, that's it. School's are closing no wonder. Who can afford to have more kids in this bad economy especially here in the west.
Over in Saudi people are still having 5 or 6 kids, because they obviously can afford it.

As the article says, there will be more of an older population, and who is going to take care of the old folks? Many are opting to get care at home and over here there is a huge shortage of healthcare workers. More kids will have to take care of their parents or more long term care homes will need to be built.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Most people are having 1 maybe 2 children, that's it. School's are closing no wonder. Who can afford to have more kids in this bad economy especially here in the west.
Over in Saudi people are still having 5 or 6 kids, because they obviously can afford it.

And it's not going to be long before many of them are climate refugees.

They're mostly not oil millionaires.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Most people are having 1 maybe 2 children, that's it. School's are closing no wonder. Who can afford to have more kids in this bad economy especially here in the west.
Over in Saudi people are still having 5 or 6 kids, because they obviously can afford it.

That's right. It's mostly economics. There's been more debt than ever. For education or shelter. It's a debtors prison

Living the neo Malthusian dream.

Estimates Show Slowest Growth on Record for the Nation’s Population

Originally Posted by baldrick

So my sister who had a baby 2 weeks ago and told me that the hospital was struggling to find space for her in the maternity section was just telling me a Welsh fantasy story ?

Th Knobin Maggie again a classics on par with mahabarat ,HarryPotterPBUH, The Kevalaa ad teh Red Cow

Mabinogion - Wikipedia

I esp like the bits wiv Ivor the Engine Noggin the Nog



Happy yuletide Balders Nogbad a biggun with yer de luxe turnip

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

As the article says, there will be more of an older population, and who is going to take care of the old folks? Many are opting to get care at home and over here there is a huge shortage of healthcare workers. More kids will have to take care of their parents or more long term care homes will need to be built.

1. Family planning reflects nature! When resources are scarce, animal and plant communities slow down, or stop breeding. Western cultures follow a similar path.

2. Backward civilisations, like those in more radical Muslim populations, and the Chinese, Indian and Nigerian populations will eventually catch on to this, and with the emancipation of females, populations will eventually experience lower growth.

3. By the end of this century, the fecund female will not only be a prize asset, they will lead the most successful countries on the planet. (A little bit of forward thinking for SoCal).

Originally Posted by Switch

1. Family planning reflects nature! When resources are scarce, animal and plant communities slow down, or stop breeding. Western cultures follow a similar path.

2. Backward civilisations, like those in more radical Muslim populations, and the Chinese, Indian and Nigerian populations will eventually catch on to this, and with the emancipation of females, populations will eventually experience lower growth.

3. By the end of this century, the fecund female will not only be a prize asset, they will lead the most successful countries on the planet. (A little bit of forward thinking for SoCal).

This isnt even about why it's happening. It's about greentards saying that the world is one second to midnight from a doomsday over population disaster.

The facts are , it is not. And the greentards are full of shit

Originally Posted by Backspin

This isnt even about why it's happening. It's about greentards saying that the world is one second to midnight from a doomsday over population disaster.

The facts are , it is not. And the greentards are full of shit

Contemporary populations are scared by the possibilities of a dystopian future, a view encouraged by people who believe what they misinterpret from google misinformation.

The explanation already exists in the natural world, so that might be a more appropriate lesson to follow. My extrapolation shown above is not a flight of fancy, but follows the trends currently sweeping the worlds population centers.

Women are gradually getting a higher standard of education, and thanks to enlightened programmes in countries like Bangladesh, they can envision a future where there is no longer the need for large families to take care of them in old age. Child mortality rates led a predictable increase in family sizes. Giving half the worlds population access to family planning can easily reverse that trend.

Nothing to do with Malhusian theory which as dated as his philosophy, and certainly nothing to do with greentard, whatever that might be?

Your body is that of an adult. High time your brain functions caught up with it!

Nice one. In response to my post rubbishing your theory, you have cut and pasted an article about armed conflict.
That might carry some appeal in N America, but the only tenuous connection between me and Malthus is the we were both born in UK.

Trying to connect my position on Malthus via contraception does not work. Family planning is just one benefit in educating the female population. It must hurt you, just knowing that even uneducated females are smarter than you.

NB contraception in the Malthusian period probably consisted of the woman holding a farthing between her knees.
Almost as primitive as your lack of understanding.

Originally Posted by Backspin

But regardless of what the data says , regardless of what reality shows , we are one minute from midnight from a global population catastrophe right ? Yeah.

Your birth was one too many

Originally Posted by Backspin

If you cant see the Malthusian sentiment of todays environmental movement then you are blind.

And then he cut and pastes another screaming headline.

Originally Posted by Backspin

This time is different! Or is it? NeoMalthusians and environmental optimists in the age of climate change

:facepalm:

Originally Posted by DrWilly

And then he cut and pastes another screaming headline.





:facepalm:

DrFrilly's retort to an academic paper by Nils Petter Gleditsch is a facepalm. You show 'em Willy.

Nils Petter Gleditsch (born 17 July 1942 in Sutton, Surrey, Great Britain) is a Norwegian sociologist and political scientist. He is Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). In 2009, Nils Petter Gleditsch was awarded the annual Award for Outstanding Research by the Research Council of Norway.^[1] He won the Norwegian Sociological Association's Lifetime Achievement Award in 2018.

Good god, you are an idiot.

If you are really worried about a population crash, you shouldn't be. While numbers Europeans, Aussies, Russians and USAians are declining, the Somalis, Afghans, and Nigerians are carrying on the torch of population growth. If you feel that your neighborhood is not crowded enough, I'm sure that they will be happy to move in next door to you.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Good god, you are an idiot.

Some more insightful input.

Originally Posted by qwerty

If you are really worried about a population crash, you shouldn't be. While numbers Europeans, Aussies, Russians and USAians are declining, the Somalis, Afghans, and Nigerians are carrying on the torch of population growth. If you feel that your neighborhood is not crowded enough, I'm sure that they will be happy to move in next door to you.

Who the hell said I was worried about a population crash ? Not at all. It wouldn't bother me one bit if an asteroid the size of Toronto hit the earth tomorrow. I am simply just pointing out that the Malthusians claim that an out of control population is destroying the planet is a bunch of garbage propaganda nonsense.

the Somalis, Afghans, and Nigerians

Yeah. Now we are hearing all of these forecasts about African population growth by 2050. The same ppl making these far out predictions were wrong about everywhere else. So they will be wrong about this one too.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Yeah. Now we are hearing all of these forecasts about African population growth by 2050. The same ppl making these far out predictions were wrong about everywhere else.

The only thing predictions are constantly wrong is that the worlds population growth will stop "SOON". It stops only in some countries but not world wide.

Originally Posted by Backspin

DrFrilly's retort to an academic paper by Nils Petter Gleditsch is a facepalm. You show 'em Willy.

No, my faceplam was for you. Obviously.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Who the hell said I was worried about a population crash ? Not at all. It wouldn't bother me one bit if an asteroid the size of Toronto hit the earth tomorrow. I am simply just pointing out that the Malthusians claim that an out of control population is destroying the planet is a bunch of garbage propaganda nonsense.



Yeah. Now we are hearing all of these forecasts about African population growth by 2050. The same ppl making these far out predictions were wrong about everywhere else. So they will be wrong about this one too.

You are the one who posted the headline; Alarming crash in birth rate, the produced some nonsense to explain or excuse it, by blaming others.
That failed, so you moved the goalposts. Usual SoCal faux trickery, and a further loss of credibility, not that you had much in the first place.

Im more alarmed by your tendency to follow a broken philosophy from 200 years ago. If something is plainly lost, broken or ridiculed, you are sure to follow it.
Thats amusing, up to a point, but it has become clear that you are lost broken and ridiculed too.

Harry and Meghan: ambassadors for population control

Harry and Meghan: ambassadors for population control - spiked

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, have been given a ‘special award’ for choosing not to have any more children. Population-control pressure group Population Matters has awarded the couple £500, to be donated to a charity of their choice, for taking the ‘enlightened decision’ to have no more than two children, following the recent birth of their daughter, Lilibet Diana.

Harry and Meghan have previously framed their family planning in environmental terms. In a 2019 interview with primatologist Jane Goodall in British Vogue (guest edited by Meghan), Harry assured Goodall that he was not planning on having ‘too many’ kids. The royal couple’s support for ‘two maximum’ was greeted with widespread support, as proof of their environmental credentials. Their hypocrisy – boasting their green moralism while jetting around on private planes – seems to have been forgotten. Instead, the Sussexes’ decision to create a family of an ‘enlightened’ size is welcomed as an example for the pesky, procreating masses to follow.


Today’s fanaticism about climate change has rehabilitated lots of reactionary ideas. Keeping houses and people warm is now seen as an indulgence rather than a necessity; cars are treated like evil machines instead of tools for human mobility; and children are seen as a burden instead of a blessing. Harry and Meghan have essentially lent a fashionable, progressive rebrand to Malthusian ideology.





The idea that women’s decisions about pregnancy should be curtailed for environmental reasons is now widespread. If the Sussexes had simply decided to stick to two kids because that is what suits them best, that would be one thing. But linking these kinds of personal decisions to the fate of the planet suggests that women with large families are unenlightened. The implication is that if you (purposefully or by accident) end up with more than two children, you are to blame for rising sea levels, plastic in the ocean and every other evil afflicting the Earth.


For all their posturing over institutional racism, Harry and Meghan seem blind to the problems with their support for Malthusian principles. Population Matters has patrons including Goodall and the sainted David Attenborough. Discussing the perceived need for population control in a 2011 interview, Attenborough ruminated on the ‘slums in South America, India, Africa’, a problem that would be solved by there being ‘less people’. It’s hard not to hear echoes of eugenicist Marie Stopes’ desire to sterilise the ‘hopelessly rotten and racially diseased’ in East London in the early 20th century. Forget the snubs from royal aides – this is the kind of racism that the Sussexes should go on Oprah to talk about.



While the Sussexes are getting awards for limiting their offspring, Population Matters’ website makes clear that it mainly wants to prevent births in the developing world. Alongside pictures of black and Asian girls, the website calls for campaigns to support ‘female empowerment’ in the form of education and birth control. The emphasis is clear: women should have access to contraception, not because their freedom to make family-planning decisions is important, but in order that they might be encouraged to stop populating the planet.


What about the women in the developing world who want to have children, but can’t? While family planning in the West can encompass both birth control and fertility treatment, there is no clamour from ‘family planning’ advocates for the latter to be extended to the world’s poorest. For instance, Family Planning 2020, an umbrella campaign group partnered with the UN, the Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, explains why it is advocating for family planning: because it is a ‘cost-effective approach to climate change’. Such a cold, inhuman way of talking about women’s bodies and choices should make even the most ardent eco-warrior nervous.





We must challenge the regressive notion that people are the cause, not the solution, to the problems we face. The lesson of the Covid pandemic is surely that human ingenuity and innovation can lead us out of serious crises.


Laying the burden of planetary survival at women’s wombs is regressive. Meghan and Harry can have as many kids as they want. But the rest of us shouldn’t be expected to applaud their anti-human views.

Yes, yes, yes you are still a thick, bone headed imposter, pretending to understand something that you clearly do not even grasp the basics of. Youth is definitely wasted on the young in your case.

When you are losing, keep moving the goalposts. Simple innit.

Originally Posted by Switch

Yes, yes, yes you are still a thick, bone headed imposter, pretending to understand something that you clearly do not even grasp the basics of. Youth is definitely wasted on the young in your case.

When you are losing, keep moving the goalposts. Simple innit.

I've honestly never seen someone more incapable of debate than you. Like playing checkers with a pigeon.