Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As we are an over populated country should we

> adopt the same ideas on population control as

> China, one family one child?


I'm not sure about that one - seems a bit drastic...what if a second child were conceived, would the Government order it's abortion...as they have done in China?


However, I do not think that it is right that when couples have children that support for that child should come out of the public purse (child credits etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should I start a separate thread?).

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes I think it would be a good idea . One family

> two children . No one needs more than two unless

> its for organs . People generally have more to

> 'fill a gap' or because the two they have are the

> same gender .


If you agree why are you contradicting the opening remark?

I spoke to some-one from Bejing recently who told me they have whole hospitals set up just for abortions. I got the impression from her , although hardly representative, that among city dwellers one or no children were the norm. Although this was not the case in the villages where perhaps children were needed for economic reasons such as farming.


Also , I wonder what our society would be like if we were all only children? No doubt there are forumites without siblings. No doubt most are well adjusted individuals, but what would our world as a whole be like if that was the case?

I don't think 'our' birthrate is the problem...gestimating but isn't a sustainable birth rate something above 2 or you get a population decline in the long term? increased life expectancy is what is largely to explain for the UK's increase in population. Globally the problem is 3rd world birthrates...historically the way to reduce birthrate is by taking people out of poverty. Simple.

There is a problem with questions like this SteveT and the problem is people are not prepared to address the serious implications of what is being asked.


The population question is without doubt an easy target - with the argument that too many people means too much pressure on (limited) resources.


1. I don't agree England is an over-populated country. By what measurement etc?


2. China is now asking some of it's population to have more than one child. It's limited to booming cities such as Shanghai etc at the moment but the reason is China's one child per family policy is now starting to backfire with too few young people bearing the burden of maintaining an older population who are living longer. The western world is also waking up to this problem (increase the age before you get your pension, too many old people putting a burden on the NHS and too few young people generating the taxes to pay for it etc)


If you are suggesting 'over-population' is a bad thing (whatever over-population means) then consider the following and some possible solutions:


Have a look at Global Footprint Network (globalfootprintnetwork.org) among others, a serious scientific attempt to establish and monitor our impact on the environment (carbon footprint). Not only does the organisation say that

it rejects suggestions that reducing the size of the Earth's human population would help the environment, claiming this focus is a critical distraction from tackling over-consumption in wealthy countries but it also points out that one person in the US will, by 4am on the morning of 2 January, already have been responsible for emitting as much carbon as someone living in Tanzania would generate in an entire year.


It says that a UK citizen would reach the same position by 7pm on 4 January.


There is a simplistic quiz for all to take part in, with a serious scientific purpose behind it, that told me that if everyone in the world had my life-style (admittedly an American bias) we would need 4.6 earths to sustain such lifestyles. Questions asked (among others) were; do you live in a house/apartment, does it have water/number of bathrooms, do you drive a car/take public transport, how much meat do you eat a week? etc


So before we start dictating to people how many children they should or should not have (and children are the future) let's see what else we can do.


a) Why not ban all pets - dogs, cats, guinea pigs, budgies, goldfish etc, put them all to sleep. All these parasites need feeding and contribute nothing to mankind. By all means keep beasts of burden.


b) Bring in compulsory euthanasia for everyone over 65. Thus no pension burden for old wrinklies who contribute little to society and burden our health facilities and more room for people to have more children that may make more of a contribution to society.


c) Bring back a form of rationing cards so no one person can eat more than one pound (500g) of meat a week, can use no more than 50 gallons of water a week for drinking, washing, bathing etc


Okay, we can get as silly as we like but I object to the perennial bleat of 'over-population' which often means no more than 'I and people like me are in danger of losing our way of life if more people have children who also want a way of life like mine'

'over-population' which often means no more than 'I and people like me are in danger of losing our way of life if more people have children who also want a way of life like mine'


Some splendid nails, hitting and heads there!


I think that legislating on reproduction asks some very serious questions about what it means to be human.


I do think that we shouldn't be bankrolling them out of the public purse. Crazy idea this 'child support'. If you can't afford them or provide for them, don't have them.

The Chinese government is not asking families to have more children, however, in wealthy cities such as Beijing or Shanghai, wealthy couples are paying the penalty fees and having more than one child. Also in cities such as Shanghai, these only children go on to higher education as they had all resources available to them, and in the end achieve high paying jobs and would rather work and make money than have to raise children (one child even). In Shanghai, the financial capital of China, it's all about the money.


After some thirty years of 'one child' China's society is lopsided with the inverted pyramid effect where one child has to support two parents and four grand parents. They now realise that producing one (preferred) male heir and spoiling him rotten because he is the only one creates the little emperor who becomes self centred and has no interest in helping/supporting anyone, but himself. Furthermore, the little emperor has no hope in hell in finding a little empress as they don't exist or exist in very little numbers. It's a social disaster in Chinese society although Beijing will never admit to it nor will they change it overnight as it would be admitting fault and losing face.


Ann is right, the one child policy did not apply to those in rural areas for labour purposes and does not apply to ethnic minorities (although China is doing its best in limiting these numbers in other ways). And you do hear horror stories of the abortion squads that would drive around in rural areas checking on people and forcing them to have abortions. I believe the rules are you must be married and 21 years of age to have children.


One of the saddest things (among the many) about 'one child' is that the Chinese language has specific names for elder brother, younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, paternal and maternal aunts, uncles, cousins and grand parents and now there is a whole generation of people who will never have to use these terms.

However, I do not think that it is right that when couples have children that support for that child should come out of the public purse (child credits etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should I start a separate thread?).


Start a new thread please!

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, I do not think that it is right that when

> couples have children that support for that child

> should come out of the public purse (child credits

> etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should

> I start a separate thread?).

>

> Start a new thread please!




OK - cheers!

Ann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I spoke to some-one from Bejing recently who told

> me they have whole hospitals set up just for

> abortions.



Yes, that's the reality in China - rather Barbaric to my mind.



>

Also , I wonder what our society would be like if

> we were all only children? No doubt there are

> forumites without siblings. No doubt most are well

> adjusted individuals, but what would our world as

> a whole be like if that was the case?



An interesting thought Ann.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...