Davy Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Came across this article this morning. Appeared in a couple of UK newspapers, but we get the full hit in the Mirror version: http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/04/05/tv-host-chris-packham-my-really-wild-idea-to-tax-all-kids-115875-23038207/ Personally, I'm all for lower taxes! :D Davy Link to post Share on other sites
JJButterworth Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 Interesting. Might actually work. Never going to happen, who wants to be the politician that proposes this tax? Link to post Share on other sites
Goldfish Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 This is a terrible idea. Kids cost enough as it is. And you know what, some people really can't afford good organic food, okay? Some people have to choose between the best food and a house. I don't think he's a bad guy, but he has so much unexamined privilege. Link to post Share on other sites
sinisterporpoise Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 I'm often convinced that "organic" food is nothing more than a clever way to separate people from their money under a clever marketing guise. Remember that the packages for organic food were an American idea. Americans are good at marketing. We convinced everyone bottled water was a good idea. Never mind that water is the most abundant resource on the planet. Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 Great idea..will never happen the same a you should only have kids if you could afford them..might stop millions dying certianly the idea of..have as many kids as you like and expect others to pay for it either directly or subsidised services is one that is gaining ground as a no he has an opinion..it will make sense to many Link to post Share on other sites
Human Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 This is a terrible idea. Kids cost enough as it is. No one's forcing anyone to make babies. Besides, there's far too many humans on earth even now, making more kids is basically a crime against the whole ecosystem. Link to post Share on other sites
Tanwen Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 And just who do you think is going to pay future taxes to pay for all the things you expect the Government to provide? Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 No one's forcing anyone to make babies. Besides, there's far too many humans on earth even now, making more kids is basically a crime against the whole ecosystem. could you provide me with figures to substantiate this? I ask because simply..I feel that's incorrect imagine if you told your parents that having you was a crime..how do you think they would feel? weird that having kids is against the eco system but using plastic things like mobile phones, ipods, laptops, flat screen tv's..are all okay..who knew??? Link to post Share on other sites
Human Posted April 9, 2011 Share Posted April 9, 2011 No one's forcing anyone to make babies. Besides, there's far too many humans on earth even now, making more kids is basically a crime against the whole ecosystem. could you provide me with figures to substantiate this? I ask because simply..I feel that's incorrect imagine if you told your parents that having you was a crime..how do you think they would feel? weird that having kids is against the eco system but using plastic things like mobile phones, ipods, laptops, flat screen tv's..are all okay..who knew??? I actually told my parents that. They were somewhat angry and confused, but when i explained why i have that opinion they understood the logic behind it. But they themselves don't see it as a crime, they merely respect my opinion on the subject. And using plastic things and polluting the enviroment isn't good to the enviroment either. I never said they were a good thing. I just see having kids as even worse. EDIT: About the fact that there are too many humans: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html Yes i know it's only approximation, but still. Nearly 7 billion humans. I think that qualifies as too many. Link to post Share on other sites
Herr Joseph von Löthing Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 It's not UK population growth we have to worry about - http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+population+growth#met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR The only way to slow population growth is to teach about contraception in developing nations. 100 years ago, a woman would have 6, maybe 8 children, and only 2 or 3 would make it to adulthood. In the last 50 years, the spread of medical technology means that the children of those women are having the same number of children as their parents had, only they all make it to adulthood, hence the huge population growth in other parts of the world. (Yes, there was a NatGeo article on it a few months ago. Why do you ask? :lol:) Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 I find the claim a bit odd... As to the clock thing.. Pure hokum and speculation When I was a kid the average kids were 3-4 per family.. Much these days tend to be 1-2 if at all And if you believe half of those in here ... That number will drop to zero Link to post Share on other sites
Human Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 It's not UK population growth we have to worry about - http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+population+growth#met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR The only way to slow population growth is to teach about contraception in developing nations. 100 years ago, a woman would have 6, maybe 8 children, and only 2 or 3 would make it to adulthood. In the last 50 years, the spread of medical technology means that the children of those women are having the same number of children as their parents had, only they all make it to adulthood, hence the huge population growth in other parts of the world. (Yes, there was a NatGeo article on it a few months ago. Why do you ask? :lol:) A new human is a new human, whether it's in UK or in developing world. We're not talking about population of single countries, but of the whole planet. EDIT: Just to be clear, it's true that teaching about contraception in developing nations is the best way to decrease population growth, but i'm still saying that as the problem is global we all can do something about it by having no children. I find the claim a bit odd... As to the clock thing.. Pure hokum and speculation When I was a kid the average kids were 3-4 per family.. Much these days tend to be 1-2 if at all And if you believe half of those in here ... That number will drop to zero The clock ticks, yes, because it's only an approximation. It's impossible to know exact number of humans on this planet since many countries don't even have records for some of their population. But as an approximation that nearly seven billion doesn't sound too much: Remember that China and India both have population of over one billion, and there are many more countries with huge populations. But as i said, the population growth is a global problem, so it doesn't matter where the new humans are born: One human more is one human more regardless of it's place of birth. On the bright side, some countries like russia have basically zero population growth and many western nations are approaching that. Link to post Share on other sites
Herr Joseph von Löthing Posted April 10, 2011 Share Posted April 10, 2011 It's not UK population growth we have to worry about - http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk+population+growth#met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:GBR The only way to slow population growth is to teach about contraception in developing nations. 100 years ago, a woman would have 6, maybe 8 children, and only 2 or 3 would make it to adulthood. In the last 50 years, the spread of medical technology means that the children of those women are having the same number of children as their parents had, only they all make it to adulthood, hence the huge population growth in other parts of the world. (Yes, there was a NatGeo article on it a few months ago. Why do you ask? :lol:) A new human is a new human, whether it's in UK or in developing world. We're not talking about population of single countries, but of the whole planet. EDIT: Just to be clear, it's true that teaching about contraception in developing nations is the best way to decrease population growth, but i'm still saying that as the problem is global we all can do something about it by having no children. The thing is, you can't offset population growth in the developing world by having a shrinking population in developed nations. Population growth in Europe as a whole is most probably below 1%, which is pretty stable. Ideally we want 0% all over the world, so we don't have so much work to do in Europe as we do elsewhere XD Link to post Share on other sites
. . .but there are sounds Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Population growth (from reproduction--Canada at least remains positive when immigration is taken into account) in most European nations, in Canada (but not the US), and in Japan is negative. The problem with population growth is resource consumption. The fact of the matter is that resources are not distributed evenly. Most developed areas are also areas that have (or have had until recently) an abundance of resources. It is not the case that all underdeveloped nations operate on a deficit of resources, but it is the case in many of them. In developed nations, the problem is NOT that we need fewer people, it is that we need to consume less per person. For those underdeveloped nations that have the resources, what they need more than anything is the infrastructure to use those resources efficiently, that is way more important than population reduction. It is in the nations that have both too few resources and insufficient development (and the somewhat ironic corresponding large populations) that population reduction plans would be effective. In developed areas, we are used to thinking in terms of carrying capacity in terms of the planet, but individual areas can be described in the same way. It is these areas that simply cannot support their populations where reduction will have a useful impact. Link to post Share on other sites
Face Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Demographics make more of a difference to the economy than most people think. Contrast China where a population with few children to support and an average age of 27 coming up to the peak in their productive life is booming, while the arab world with 60% of the population below 21 has an excess of young jobless males who have nothing better to do than protest and fight. Very smart those chinese leaders! Also contrast Thailand, that had a family planning push a few years ago, with the otherwise similar Philippines that listens to the pope's anti-contraception crap and you'll see Thais gaining a much higher standard of living. If we could get that message out we'd be much better off. Condoms = Peace and Prosperity! Link to post Share on other sites
Tigoness Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 This is a terrible idea. Kids cost enough as it is. No one's forcing anyone to make babies. Besides, there's far too many humans on earth even now, making more kids is basically a crime against the whole ecosystem. AGREED! I could not possably agree more with this statement! The world population NEEDS reducing, not helped to grow! Stop paying people to add more consumers to the human race! Link to post Share on other sites
RandomDent Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 Actually I think the UK birth numbers balances quite well. You'll get some people who don't know when to stop, true. But more and more couples are staying childless, or just having one child later in life. Our population isn't actually growing that much, birth-wise. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts