Too many people?

[alan refail]

Now that David Attenborough has defied the taboo, it will be interesting to see where the discussion will lead.

[pongeroon]

It makes perfect sense to me....

[Geoff]

I have been saying this is the only truly environmental policy for years, it solves so many things at once. I think I have posted my views here before and got the usual response from the anti abortion brigade.
I watched a TV programme a few weeks ago about the Philippines and how the Catholic faith is destroying the place, made me want to blow up the Vatican and its medievalist contents, but then I could easily become a militant aetheist.

[Johnboy]

Hi Geoff,
I note what you have said but at present have no real comment to make
accept that in principle I am not against what you have said.
JB.

[alan refail]

Geoff

I expect David Attenborough will now be receiving yet more death threats from the fundamentalists.

[oldherbaceous]

I suppose that would be a start to world de-population.

[PLUMPUDDING]

I hadn't read about David Attenborough saying this, but I'm glad he has spoken out. I've been saying for years that the best thing for the earth would be far fewer people, and the Chinese have recognised the unsustainability of unhindered growth in population by trying to limit people to no more than two children.

The government should encourage people to have fewer children by only paying child benefit for the first two and nothing for any further children (phased in of course so existing children don't lose out). There should be sterilisation and vasectomies freely available too, birth control and abortion. At the other end, we shouldn't be keeping people alive who have no quality of life and have no awareness of anyone or anything. If they have no chance of recovery they should be allowed to die peacefully.

Not really anything to do with gardening, but it would go a long way to reducing pollution and our drain on the planet's resources.

Perhaps we won't have to do anything, nature has a way of reducing excessive populations by starvation or a pandemic or some other catastrophe.

Who started this topic? I was in quite a cheerful mood til I got started on this!!!

[oldherbaceous]

To be quite honest, i think we deserve a pat on the back, there are not many living things that kill each other off and any other living thing that doesn't suit, in such large numbers as ourselves.

Hooray for mankind.

[Primrose]

This does need saying. The human race is unbelievably selfish in the way it devours ever diminishing resources and is destroying the habitat of lesser species. We can't continue indefinitely the way we are going. It takes brave people to stand up and point out the inevitability of where we are going. Sadly I think few politicians will have the courage to do so because the topic is not necessarily a vote winner. Maybe one way of getting the message home would be by the rationing of all resources over a period time. . Each family unit gets a "X" allowance of gas, electricity, food and housing which has to be shared amongst its members. The more members you produce, the less of each resource you get. Probably not practical but we certainly need some tangible way of getting message across.

[Geoff]

Glad to see a much greater consensus than last time the subject came up. You missed one Plumpudding, remove fertility treatment from the NHS.

[KGAdmin]

This is a BIG personal annoyance for me. Population control seems to be one the big taboo subject that politicians are unwilling to talk about.

(I'm sure we've had this discussion before haven't we?)

As quoted in 'An inconvenient truth' - it took us a thousand generations to get to a population of 1 billion.

It took us ONE generation to get to a population of over SIX billion.
By 2030 it will be over NINE billion.

And still people will say that climate change is not down to man's influence?

J

[Monika]

Primrose, you realise, don't you, that your idea of everybody getting what they need and sharing things out has a whiff of the dreaded communism? I was educated under a communist system and, although there are lots of things wrong with it, its ideals are not bad and, I am afraid, a bit of it has still stuck with me. Why should somebody have a wardrobe full of dresses, for instance, when you can only wear one at a time? Why should people travel on their own in their own cars when a train or bus can can carry a multitude? Sorry, off my soap box now.

[PLUMPUDDING]

Free fertility treatment is also on my list Geoff, but I didn't want to upset too many people - I thought the euthanasia bit might start hate mail!

There seems to be a lot of agreement with David Attenborough from us gardeners. Are we more concerned about nature and what is happening to the planet than people who just buy things and don't think about where they come from?

[peter]

.....Are we more concerned about nature and what is happening to the planet than people who just buy things and don't think about where they come from?

No, we're just more likely to be grumpy old farts!

Isn't there an old saying about Young men cutting down forests and old men planting trees?

[Mike Vogel]

I've been saying this for the past 20 years. Even two is too many. I would start by abolishing child benefit for the third and subsequent children and hospitals emphatically offering sterilisation as a matter of course after 2 children. And that means for men as well as women.
mike