We're screwed, aren't we?

[DCBassman]

I wonder what impact a "1 child per family" law would have? For example, if a lady or a couple had 1 child already and then the lady became pregnant, how would that work? Could you force someone to have a termination (I would say no, ethically). Would you fine the lady/couple? What if they couldn't pay? Would you impose a law that states when you've had 1 child then you must be sterilised? What if you had the operation and then (god forbid) you lost your child?

In theory it's an ok law, but millions of people would suffer heartbreak. And probably just as many would be broke, which would then increase the homeless population....

No easy answers...

 

[HMS_Dave]

Are you in power?

Your ire appears to directed far more one way than the other. This is where you started;

That doesn't suggest the concern for population control you are expressing now, only whether the individual is rich or not.

@Mugshot Do me a big favour and explain your animosity.

These conversations are always divisive. Im new to Cyclechat but not new to forums or internet chats of similar ilk. One thing i have learned is to have your say and walk. People see things differently from one another all the time and there always appears to be a need to 'win over' the arguments at all costs despite both sides having perfectly valid arguments but also both have holes which unfortunately leads to an endless back and forth which inevitably goes on until mere cinders are all that is left after descending into minor nuances and sometimes downright petty hole picking and then a moderator has to clear it up and then what? I fully respect both sides of this particular topic and both have made themselves fully understood, none of which have changed my personal thoughts but are interesting contributions nonetheless. Much respect ladies and gents...

 

[swansonj]

DCBassman: I don't want to play games, I just want to understand.

From your first post, I understood you to be taking a straightforward position: that people should not have either children at all or more than two if they cannot afford them; it gets your goat when people have children then expect the state to look after them; but if you can afford it, feel free to have as many as you want. That would be a view I personally would have problems with, but it would be a perfectly consistent view, nothing specifically to do with global overpopulation, all to do with a moral view of parenthood and the role of the state versus the individual.

Then, when challenged, you seemed to change tack, and say that it is really all about global overpopulation, and we all (i.e. whether able to afford it or not, and whether partnered or single) should have fewer children. That again is perfectly consistent with itself.

My problem if that you have said both things, they seem different things to me, and I am genuinely confused by which you actually mean.

 

[Mo1959]

@Mugshot , basically all I've said is to agree with @Mo1959 , and add in a bit about population in general. Kindly spread your ire more generally, or answer my previous post. Thank you.

Some folk on here just can’t accept other people have different views to them, so I haven’t felt the need to justify my statement and still stand by it in very many cases. Better just to let it go methinks.

 

[DCBassman]

Some folk on here just can’t accept other people have different views to them, so I haven’t felt the need to justify my statement and still stand by it in very many cases. Better just to let it go methinks.

Agreed.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I very rarely stray from the purely cycling related bits of CC. I never go into the politics and shouting forum - I'm not even sure if it still exists.

I do, however, occasionally pop into the Cafe. On even rarer occasions I stray away from the safety of the Fray Bentos thread into the Cafe at large, and sometimes I regret it.

This is one of those times.

 

[colly]

Globally we've got temperatures rising, we've got sea levels rising, we've got plants and animals going extinct and we've got a population that is already too large and is growing quickly, and the Amazon is on fire, to an extent that scientists are saying may be critical.

Nationally we've got a nation divided over membership of the EU and a government that seems hell bent on delivering the absolute worst case resolution that we were promised would never happen.

I'm kind of wondering what the point is, to be honest. We're killing off life on earth globally, and the UK government seems to want to turn us into a banana republic that can't import bananas. I can't see it ending well in the short term, the medium term or the long term. And it's raining.

How do fellow CCers feel about the state of things?

'Things are never as bad as they seem nor are they ever as good as they seem' I think it was Willy Whitelaw who said that about politics.

The same can be said for the state of the world. We as a species do need to change our ways, that much is obvious. We simply can not carry on polluting en masse like we have done in the past and it has to be said countries are making big steps in that regard.
No, it's far from perfect, and we can point to many instances where companies/industries pay little or no heed to the environment, but the overall tenor of the issue is weighted more in favour of anti than pro pollution. Legislation is what is required and almost all govenments have ducked their responsibility.
I feel the biggest issue is population as has been said, but who is going to grasp that nettle in a sane and acceptable way? We are what ? 7 billion now, and increasing. Some 'experts' suggest it will top out at 10 or 11 billion. Well I hope they are right but really? 11 billion is way too many bodies on the planet.
So who is going to volunteer to die to save the rest or even accept that having children can only be done under licence. Of course 11 billion living on 2 or 3 dollars a day would be ok wouldn't it? No, don't think so. We either accept globally that numbers need to be controlled or we suffer, as a species, the consequences.
As for the nation divided over the EU. Well it's actually always been that way, it's just nobody took the trouble to ask before 2016. But ask they did and the answer was not was expected, hence the past 3 years of pathetic shenanigans. Leaver or Remainer it doesn't really matter, we as a people should expect more from our elected representatives. Most people see them as little more than a shower of shoot, they have indeed confirmed the belief.
It's not all bad, if we leave, Remainers will shout and stamp their feet and things will be rocky for a while and then a new 'normal' will pertain. If we stay, well Leavers will shout and stamp their feet and won't give up the call, but again a new 'normal' will come around. We will still be divided just as before.
Either way the world will not stop spinning around the sun and we will carry on.

Look back 70 years to the 1940's. Half of the world was intent on slaughtering the other half, night after night high explosives were raining down on civilian populations, unspeakable attrocities were being committed daily on truly innocent victims. Vast swathes of Europe were battle grounds and beautiful cities were blasted apart along with their inhabitants. Weapons capable of destroying the planet were developed.
The people alive then must have truly thought it was the end of times. But these things pass, time passes, the madness ceases, people move on, people re-group and reorganise.....until the next crisis.

Climate change may be the fly in the ointment but it's becoming increasingly obvious that all the claims about CO2 are not quite what they seem.
Almost daily genuine independent studies are questioning the 'accepted wisdom' of doom and destruction that is promised.

So I'm not down about the future, far from it. Of course there will be massive challenges ahead and there will be problems that may seem insurmountable (even in the area of climate change) but solutions will be found.

We live longer now than ever before, we live healthier than ever before, we have secure food and water supplies, settled safe societies are more common than not. This is true for more and more people.
It goes without saying that of course, there are many, many people in the world that can not claim any of those privileges but those numbers are dwindling.

So FFS cheer up !

 

[Mugshot]

@Mugshot Do me a big favour and explain your animosity.

Kindly spread your ire more generally

There's no animosity or ire on my part @DCBassman , only one of us has been typing in caps about any individual or group.
As I said up thread, your position appears to have changed from one where the size of your family should be directly related to the size of your bank balance to one of general population control when you were asked a question about your original posts.
At the risk of repeating myself, for decades there has been every effort made to demonise groups that have far less ability or means to defend themselves, whether that be single mothers, disabled people, immigrants, asylum seekers or whoever, whereas the facts are that whilst there may well be wrong-uns amongst all those groups the problems with funding or housing or health or social care and so on, are not caused by those at the bottom of the ladder, but by those at the top. But it is far easier to punch down than up.

@Mugshot , basically all I've said is to agree with @Mo1959 , and add in a bit about population in general.

I may have been getting round to this, duty calls sometimes though.

there seems to be an abundance of single mothers with several children who seem to expect to get handouts for everything for their kids and themselves.

Do you have any figures for this? Do you know if the rate of single mothers or teenage pregnancy has increased over the past 4 or 5 decades? What information do you have for the "abundance" of single mothers, are they divorcees, widowed, abandoned or simply irresponsible? How much are they costing the benefits system?

Some folk on here just can’t accept other people have different views to them

This is a little disingenuous. Asking questions concerning someones views is not an indication that people holding different views cannot be accepted, however, suggesting that your own or others views should not be questioned is.

 

[DCBassman]

There's no animosity or ire on my part @DCBassman , only one of us has been typing in caps about any individual or group.
As I said up thread, your position appears to have changed from one where the size of your family should be directly related to the size of your bank balance to one of general population control when you were asked a question about your original posts.
At the risk of repeating myself, for decades there has been every effort made to demonise groups that have far less ability or means to defend themselves, whether that be single mothers, disabled people, immigrants, asylum seekers or whoever, whereas the facts are that whilst there may well be wrong-uns amongst all those groups the problems with funding or housing or health or social care and so on, are not caused by those at the bottom of the ladder, but by those at the top. But it is far easier to punch down than up.

I may have been getting round to this, duty calls sometimes though.

Do you have any figures for this? Do you know if the rate of single mothers or teenage pregnancy has increased over the past 4 or 5 decades? What information do you have for the "abundance" of single mothers, are they divorcees, widowed, abandoned or simply irresponsible? How much are they costing the benefits system?

This is a little disingenuous. Asking questions concerning someones views is not an indication that people holding different views cannot be accepted, however, suggesting that your own or others views should not be questioned is.

No, I'm sorry, this is you picking holes needlessly. Society is required to help those who "have far less ability or means to defend themselves, whether that be single mothers, disabled people, immigrants, asylum seekers or whoever", your words, but society is not in any way wharever required to give them free reign in any way whatever. I am not remotely at the top of any ladder.

This is a little disingenuous. Asking questions concerning someones views is not an indication that people holding different views cannot be accepted, however, suggesting that your own or others views should not be questioned is.

Then it would be nice if you would express your own views as I have done and not resort merely to relentless picking apart of someone else's opinion.
@Moderators , I would ask that this be closed, it's going nowhere good, and apologies to all concerned that it has descended to this level.

 

[Mugshot]

Then it would be nice if you would express your own views as I have done and not resort merely to relentless picking apart of someone else's opinion.

If you don't think that this is expressing my views then I don't know what to tell you.

At the risk of repeating myself, for decades there has been every effort made to demonise groups that have far less ability or means to defend themselves, whether that be single mothers, disabled people, immigrants, asylum seekers or whoever, whereas the facts are that whilst there may well be wrong-uns amongst all those groups the problems with funding or housing or health or social care and so on, are not caused by those at the bottom of the ladder, but by those at the top. But it is far easier to punch down than up.

 

[Moderators]

Mod note: thread closed as it has descended into a spat and is now going nowhere.