National average is what 23-25k? so you earn 70k+ and think you can only afford 1 kid!?
Well, you either have expensive tastes, or no clue.
How long before a limit is put in place?
- Thread starter Lysander
- Start date
National average is what 23-25k? so you earn 70k+ and think you can only afford 1 kid!?
Well, you either have expensive tastes, or no clue.
UK fertility rate is 1.9 so without immigration we would have a falling population so controls don't really seem warranted.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
For some yes, I'd say 2-3 tops. Not far down the road from where I live, in a less better off area, they are literally hundreds of women who just keep popping out kids for the dole money. Although I'm pretty sure they're capping the limit they pay for kids now?
This was an interesting concept. The guy did a follow-up post where he dealt with the land/resource requirements of such a city.
http://persquaremile.com/2012/08/08/if-the-worlds-population-lived-like/
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 1,555
- Location
- Pontefract, W.Yorks
They'll have to make use of the deserts 
.
.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It's not about land area, it's about resources.
50 secs
David Attenbrough did a show on Humans a while back in which he claimed if everyone were to consume the Earth's resources at the same rate as the average American the world could only sustain 1 billion people (see image posted a few posts above).
I live in London. A nice part. Enough said.
Well, only for the next month anyway. Who knows after that what I can and can't afford.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Insufficient in terms of what?
The current fertility rate in the UK is ~1.9 which means that, without taking immigration into account, the size of the population is actually falling. Also, the figure is this high only due to significant Govt. grants and higher birth rates from recently arrived immigrants.
The idea of setting up a limit is inane as the Govt. can decrease the grants and/or curb immigration should overpopulation ever become a problem, which is very unlikely.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 631
- Location
- Back O'Bourke
Population growth is declining rapidly around the world.
Death rates decline before birth rates, as seen in 19th century Europe and post WW2 developing world, leading to dramatic increases in population.
Birth rates do eventually decline leading to roughly stable population levels. This has already occured in western countries and increasingly happening in the developing world; where average fertility has declined from a peak of 6 per woman in the 60s to less than 4 now.
Death rates decline before birth rates, as seen in 19th century Europe and post WW2 developing world, leading to dramatic increases in population.
Birth rates do eventually decline leading to roughly stable population levels. This has already occured in western countries and increasingly happening in the developing world; where average fertility has declined from a peak of 6 per woman in the 60s to less than 4 now.
Of course it will. Populations always level off. Doesn't matter if it's the human race or a petri dish of nematodes. Things get to a point where there is either no more physical room or no more resources to support the population.
How exactly did you work that one out?
Precisely this.
In b4 someone posts that bloody George Carlin video.
Last edited:
The state should not fund children and people should not automatically have the right to have them. I think people should have to pass tests to have children.
In nature there is a balance between predator and prey which works but humans are more like a bacteria multiplying unchecked and the way its going we're going to need something to happen to get some kind of balance back. Maybe it'll be antibiotic resistant bacteria or something else but eventually something has to happen to curtail us.
In nature there is a balance between predator and prey which works but humans are more like a bacteria multiplying unchecked and the way its going we're going to need something to happen to get some kind of balance back. Maybe it'll be antibiotic resistant bacteria or something else but eventually something has to happen to curtail us.
It does matter if it's the human race. The population in the developed world is stagnating (or even decreasing) right now and it's not due to lack of resources. We have (or can afford buying) plenty of those to support much higher levels of fertility so the stagnation has completely different causes (educational, cultural etc).
That's an easy one, overpopulation is not an issue. You have it backwards as, in most developed nations, the issue is insufficient population growth and the steadily decreasing ratio between working adults and the elderly who need support.
I used to be on your side of the fence and went round telling people that overpopulation is not an issue. But there's a difference between saying it's
not an issue and that it's never an issue.
As far as I see it, all I see is landspace diminishing and diminishing, with more buildings contructed and less and less natural land remaining. But you can't say the two are not connected. There would not be more and more properties built if there were no people to live in them.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
This makes an enormous amount of sense.
It would also ensure that the population becomes cleverer over time, not stupider as is happening now.
Interesting idea. Means or merits tests, or both? What kinds of questions or topics would you propose?
I can't see this working in reality though. The "it's my right to have kids" backlash would be insufferable.