sacase Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle5627634.ece Two children should be limit, says green guru 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. ------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 :doh: While I understand the logic, :doh: for the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Look at the bright side, That is exactly one more child than communist China allows! Just like the fact that we have just one more real political party than them too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Works for China. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Not saying it should be mandated, but it should undoubtedly be highly recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 yeah, so we can be like Japan, Italy, and bunch of other industrialized countries which can't even hit the "replacement rate" in terms of birth rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 My three kids all say **** You Jonathon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 yeah, so we can be like Japan, Italy, and bunch of other industrialized countries which can't even hit the "replacement rate" in terms of birth rate. Meh, population is overrated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Interesting idea I guess...in some ways he's right, the earth really can sustain only so many people. Perhaps instead of instituting a child limit for all couples, they could focus on educating people who can't afford/support or don't want kids on how to avoid having them and/or then abandoning them. Besides, how are they going to enforce something like this? Mandatory vasectomies or tube ties for couples that have their second kid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 they could focus on educating people who can't afford/support or don't want kids on how to avoid having them and/or then abandoning them. Seriously, the birth rate among lower income people is so ridiculously scary. We are seeing what is often the worst genes in the human gene pool being passed on at something like 2.5x the rate that the highest quality genes are. In 1,000 years, if the Earth can sustain us for that long, we could actually see 2 separate species begin to emerge. btw: definitely NOT saying that all lower income people have crappy genes. Many have excellent genes and are victims of circumstance. However, there are MANY examples of people having a lot of kids that REALLY shouldn't be reproducing.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Seriously, the birth rate among lower income people is so ridiculously scary. We are seeing what is often the worst genes in the human gene pool being passed on at something like 2.5x the rate that the highest quality genes are. In 1,000 years, if the Earth can sustain us for that long, we could actually see 2 separate species begin to emerge. btw: definitely NOT saying that all lower income people have crappy genes. Many have excellent genes and are victims of circumstance. However, there are MANY examples of people having a lot of kids that REALLY shouldn't be reproducing.:2cents: The movie Idiocracy comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 The movie Idiocracy comes to mind. Never seen it... Any good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Never seen it... Any good? It's entertaining. It is about exactly what you wrote above though. It's worth a watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'KanSkinFan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Better tell the Mom with 14 kids and has never been married this That's fine; 2 is a good number, 3 "not outrageous"- as long as you can support them without government supplement; but we have people who do "nothing" for entertainment but procreate; seriously~ whether it be a budget money issue~ that is what they do, and this "deed" is done without any thought process of what could happen after the act. This act then has created government supported children and families. All I want to know~ can I take them as aa deduction? this year? I pay my taxes, but am looking for any deductions I can get~ but I want them to be legit deductions:D Responsibility comes at a cost; educate them; however, even with education the numbers keep growing............ Propulation is truly getting out of hand in this country and other countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 It's entertaining. It is about exactly what you wrote above though.It's worth a watch. Cool. Personally, I'm glad I'm alive and in my prime now and not 100 years later. The future could be scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chachie Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 No offense intended toward any parent here with a lot of kids but this guy is totally correct. Earth's human population is way, WAY out of control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Screw that noise, this is just another step closer to becoming China. I really hate our Government and the idiots running it sometimes. Who the hell cares how the enviroment is affected? We are the rulers over this planet. We should use it how we damn well want to and then move to another planet when its all screwed up and not give a damn about this place. But this douchebage would probably be against space exploration because that sucks to them too I'll have as many kids as I want to and I hope you all do too. These hippy green thumb up there butts douchebags can all eat me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Seriously, the birth rate among lower income people is so ridiculously scary. We are seeing what is often the worst genes in the human gene pool being passed on at something like 2.5x the rate that the highest quality genes are. In 1,000 years, if the Earth can sustain us for that long, we could actually see 2 separate species begin to emerge. btw: definitely NOT saying that all lower income people have crappy genes. Many have excellent genes and are victims of circumstance. However, there are MANY examples of people having a lot of kids that REALLY shouldn't be reproducing.:2cents: Ah and Eugenics rears its ugly head. Ironically it is actually the upper crust that have the most genetic problems (in breeding will do that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Screw that noise, this is just another step closer to becoming China. I really hate our Government and the idiots running it sometimes. Who the hell cares how the enviroment is affected? We are the rulers over this planet. We should use it how we damn well want to and then move to another planet when its all screwed up and not give a damn about this place. But this douchebage would probably be against space exploration because that sucks to them too I'll have as many kids as I want to and I hope you all do too. These hippy green thumb up there butts douchebags can all eat me. Hmm... so what planet do you suggest we move to when we **** the Earth all to **** in the next 100 years? Because no matter how much $ we give NASA, we sure ain't getting the technology to travel to another solar system in that time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 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. Abortion should not be a means of birth control to promote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Ah and Eugenics rears its ugly head. Ironically it is actually the upper crust that have the most genetic problems (in breeding will do that). Absolutely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Hmm... so what planet do you suggest we move to when we **** the Earth all to **** in the next 100 years? Because no matter how much $ we give NASA, we sure ain't getting the technology to travel to another solar system in that time frame. Who says? You say, but that doesn't make it so. I believe we need to be looking for a new place to stay instead of doing donkey ass stupid things like telling people to not have kids. If you don't want them so be it. Why does everyone like to think they know whats best for everyone else? People need to stop trying to tell everyone what they thinks best and mind there own business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forehead Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Who the hell cares how the enviroment is affected? We are the rulers over this planet. We should use it how we damn well want to and then move to another planet when its all screwed up and not give a damn about this place. But this douchebage would probably be against space exploration because that sucks to them too I'll have as many kids as I want to and I hope you all do too. These hippy green thumb up there butts douchebags can all eat me. How old are you, 12? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.