Tuesday, Nov 03, 2009
A new UK?
Times Online: UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.
Posted by crunchy @ 12:48 AM (2098 views) Add Comment
66 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. little professor said...
Stop it now, malct
2. crunchy said...
Check my ip address conspiraloon and allow me to post my first article.
Are Barratt houses looking larger now?
3. crunchy said...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4424856/Government-green-guru-Sir-Jonathon-Porritt-calls-for-two-child-limit.html
Let me flesh this out with other Sir Jonathon Porritt mainstream article. If that's ok with you LP. Free speech!
4. Ndg said...
Nice one crunchy.
Here's another example of clear government policy:
09.11.02
Alan Johnson (“home” secretary) has fired UK chief drugs adviser Prof David Nutt.
"He (Prof Nutt) cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy".
Beautiful. As per population control this really captures the true spirit of our times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8337185.stm
5. d'oh said...
Yep, the elephant in the sitting room. Either it is dealt with relatively humanely (preferably 50 years ago when the demographic problem would have been manageable), or nature takes its course at some time in the future. I suspect it is too late and political will will be too little to do something about it. There are too many of us on this planet. Not eating meat, reducing our energy needs per capita etc., only delay the resource crisis that must occur at some stage if populations continue to grow, and the only reason that populations will stop growing will be due to resource deprevation. On average, people like having big families. Millions of years of evolution have seen to that. At some stage we either use our frontal lobes and restrain ourselves as a species or it will be very, very nasty for many, many people.
6. Ndg said...
WHO already have their plans. More at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PelTWCUmTsU
7. rotten tomato said...
@ d'oh
I would agree with you if I believed that we were no better than animals and unable to use our powers of reason and scientific research to make up for lost resources or discover new ones.
8. Macca said...
I'd gladly support a taxpayer bailout of the aviation industry to fly all of the illegals out asap.
9. seanb303 said...
http://dieoff.org/
10. happy mondays said...
Read Straw dogs by John Grey... A Plague of humans!
Nice..
11. Robh said...
The first problem with resources is that they are consumed
The second problem with resources is that they require energy to obtain
Increasing rate of these combined with increase in population equals problems ahead
@lp I think not malct. There are glimpses of style that are more like S2R1 or planningforacrash. But you are certainly right; there is nothing new under the sun
12. will said...
A nasty dose of Swine flu should do it.
13. crunchy said...
A referendum for our population and a valid reason to vote at the next election would be very unscientific.
Nice..
14. greenmind said...
We're on curved part of the hockey stick as Chris Matrensen pointed out.
15. happy mondays said...
We could do a cull, or a Battle Royale type plot.. Bankers , Mp's,etc, small % but a good start...
16. crunchy said...
11. happy mondays
Maybe the generations bailout will not run into double figures, whatever that is..
Very nice..
17. D'oh said...
rotten tomato - Ah, the human capital fallacy. This has been used against Malthus for a couple of centuries. However, if the human population keeps increasing, in the absurd limit, we must eventually end up standing on each others shoulders. No amount of new technology will solve that problem. Either at some stage there is zero population growth (or a declining population) or we end up literally knee deep in human beings. It is a physical impossibility for any other outcome. So, do we restrict our population to a reasonable size so everyone has space and we don't completely destroy the environment, or do we go on until nature stops us? I suspect it will be the latter as no politician will want to deal with the issue until everything is so cacked up that it will be too late...must have a bulging young demographic or we won't be able to compete economically with other countries etc. etc. etc.
Of course technology has solved the human population problem temporarily and with some sacrifices we may be able to carry an even larger population on the planet for a few hundred years, however to do this, so far, we have been utilising resources that cannot be easily replenished (fossil fuels etc., especially in fertilizers) and doing great harm to others (water tables, topsoil, oceans etc.)
18. d'oh said...
rotten tomato - Ah, the human capital fallacy. This has been used against Malthus for a couple of centuries. However, if the human population keeps increasing, in the absurd limit, we must eventually end up standing on each others shoulders. No amount of new technology will solve that problem. Either at some stage there is zero population growth (or a declining population) or we end up literally knee deep in human beings. It is a physical impossibility for any other outcome. So, do we restrict our population to a reasonable size so everyone has space and we don't completely destroy the environment, or do we go on until nature stops us? I suspect it will be the latter as no politician will want to deal with the issue until everything is so cacked up that it will be too late...must have a bulging young demographic or we won't be able to compete economically with other countries etc. etc. etc.
Of course technology has solved the human population problem temporarily and with some sacrifices we may be able to carry an even larger population on the planet for a few hundred years, however to do this, so far, we have been utilising resources that cannot be easily replenished (fossil fuels etc., especially in fertilizers) and doing great harm to others (water tables, topsoil, oceans etc.)
19. holding out said...
We're a bit like a plague of locusts. Just over a longer time scale. They eventually destroy what they need to sustain them and I'm sure we'll do the same. Still on the plus side I think we'll get away with it pity the future generations.
20. General Belgrano said...
Golgafrinchans, just like in The Hitch hikers Guide. We could send all the banker, estate agents, diversity facilitators to mars.
21. crunchy said...
A global non sovereign society does ease the moral dilemma somewhat, but would a big war not be easier.
Sorry to be crass.
22. crunchy said...
Perhaps we need both......
The double whammy? : (
23. p. doff said...
Wars are so 'last year'. Just make houses so expensive that by the time people can afford one and start a family their fertility has gone to pot - simples.
Nah, that won't work, the Jeremy Kyle brigade will carry on reproducing exponentially no matter what, happy in the knowledge that some other suckers will collectively pay for their offspring.
Actually, joking apart, China supports it's baby rationing programme with a policy of making older parenthood more socially acceptable. Single mothers are, I'm told, financially disadvantaged (not rewarded with housing and benefits) and are therefore scarce.
24. crunchy said...
"ORDER"
Definition:
Conformity with law or decorum; freedom from disturbance; general tranquillity; public quiet; as, to preserve order in a community or an assembly.
A would buy that one in an ideal world.
25. a saver said...
Think most Britons are having very small families or none at all! At least the ones I know.
But can't we stop importing people? We've got enough problems of our own!
26. crunchy said...
17. p. doff
Is China not a mans world. They started off with birth taxation, but most women did not approve on the later stages of law and order.
There are many definitions to the word "order". The word can be quiet deceptive. Thanks for your input.
27. Ndg said...
cunchy, we don't need either.
28. crunchy said...
19. a saver
I think you will find after some research that this a "global" problem.
29. gone-to-colombia said...
The final fascist argument of the green zealots.
Just another faith, a millenniaist religion, with Porritt its high priest.
Let them be the first sacrifice in the rush for human population reduction.
30. greenmind said...
@22 blaming it on the "green zealots" is just shooting the messenger. Faith in the business as usual growth based economic system is putting your head in the sand. Don't blame the greens when it goes tits-up.
31. braindeed said...
rotten tomato said...@5
I would agree with you if I believed that we were no better than animals and unable to use our powers of reason and scientific research to make up for lost resources or discover new ones.
Ve haf decided zat all ve need is lebensraum......oops tried that.
Have I ever refered to the thin veneer of civilisation in here....oops tried that
Then again its not all bad, at it's worst the multi-cultural element would help......anyone fancy an Indian, or shall we have the fool English?
32. crunchy said...
24. braindeed
The Fool Continental is much more filling.
While the menu doesn’t include mimosas and Eggs Benedict, most agree that a continental breakfast is convenient and appreciated.
Originally this simple morning meal was only offered by a few elite chains, but now it is more commonplace.
33. Bear said...
The overpopulation falacy is untrue. The entire global population could fit into the State of Texas at lower density than New York City, and Britain, the third most populace country in the world is self sufficient in milk production, pays farmers set-aside so as to not overproduce, and still dumps excess grains to the third world and burns them in petrol. Porrit wants populations lower, because a large population is hard to manage for a socialist regime. Reduce taxes and regulations and we can regulate ourselves, but this is not the agenda of the political class.
34. gone-to-colombia said...
24.......well, according to your logic we need to do something very soon?
Let's start the culling.
My head is not in the sand, my eyes are observing the green fascists.
35. braindeed said...
The Fool Continental ?
One assumes it to be full of garlic and prone to easily boiling over......and I think mostly I prefer to eat at home - have an old friend round for tea.
36. Hbsource said...
The leader in this week's Economist is about this subject. It's pointless to link to it because you need to be a subscriber to see the article. Basically, what a few people in this thread have said is the absolute opposite if what actually happens. When the people get richer they have fewer babies, not more.
Quote:
"As industrialisation swept through what is now the developed world, fertility fell sharply, first in France, then in Britain, then throughout Europe and America. When people got richer, families got smaller; and as families got smaller, people got richer.
Now, something similar is happening in developing countries. Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children."
37. mander said...
At 30 million population a house will cost £ 1,000. What would happen to the housing shortage then?
38. crunchy said...
22. gone-to-colombia
The Green Manalishi
Now when the day goes to sleep and the full moon looks
And the night is so black that the darkness cooks
And you come creeping around, making me do things I don't want to do
Can't believe that she needs my love so bad
Come sneaking around, trying to drive me mad
Busting in all my dreams, making me see things I don't want to see
'cause you're the green manalishi with the two-pronged crown
All night dragging us up, or you're bringing us down
Just taking my love, and slip away
Leaving me here, trying to keep from following you
The judas priest version rocks. Are we not wonderful at our own compositions without judgement.
39. braindeed said...
Munchy
Well on the way,
Head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hear him,
or the sound he appears to make,
and he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.
And nobody seems to like him,
they can tell what he wants to do,
and he never shows his feelings,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round.
We're ah doomed
40. crunchy said...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaFlMEM3uIM
Long live people power.
41. crunchy said...
30. braindeed
Not just yet on this one. We still have a narrowing window.
42. braindeed said...
Don't know about you - I'm too old for the barricades......I blame the reduced sperm count for youth inaction
In the meantime - get off my land
43. crunchy said...
33. braindeed, There are growing numbers of fools on hills, but it is a shame that "Youth is wasted on the young." Oscar Wilde.
44. rumble said...
@d'oh: "must have a bulging young demographic"
Exactly, how do resolve reducing population size with the top heavy aging population?
@saver: true. Agnostic westerners prioritise their career, lifestyle, sex for pleasure over procreation. Hence top heavy population needing support at the bottom by immigration of people who want families.
@gone-to-columbia: the alternative?
Reminded of someone's comment last week that global warming is natural. So what? You're burning to death, it's a natural fire, not a man made laser, so no need for the extinguisher, sit back and relax?
@crunchy:manalishi, priest.. nice.
45. braindeed said...
The young need to stop playing the game, and find some nuts. Old soft middle-aged geezers will take every advantage they can - the rise in houseprices crushes the young’s expectations most.
So the old bring in coolies to dampen down the young’s ardour and elbow room....and all the time they're getting pissed up until their thirties in damp rented basements (and seemingly telling themselves 'they're 'aving it large') - when will they get some spirit of 81?
46. crunchy said...
I've asked the question time and time again
Why is there so little of a moment
Oh, what is life, how do we live
What should we take and how much should we give
That is the point..... But you can have the last word tech, or shall we leave it the wise old spirit of braindeed.
47. crunchy said...
Are you there tech 36. and 37 lad.
Sorry to confuse your little head!
48. crunchy said...
1,518 views so far and that was my first and last article. Some interesting comments too. Well done people.
35. rumble.......glad you liked it! please listen again sometime.
49. braindeed said...
I've always rated that as their best song - after Peter Green....downhill
Com'on grandad - here's one from Goldman Sachs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEOAK_Dapic
I hope your brushes are staying wet.
50. letsgetreadytotumble said...
Anthrax spores in the Giro cheque envelopes (or is it all electronic these days)
51. crunchy said...
40. braindeed said...I've always rated that as their best song - after Peter Green....downhill
hey, we did have Lindsay she was a stunner. : )
I am happy that some could keep up braindeadly, My brushes are dry, oiled and packed for a return flight into a painters light.
Is it just me or has it got 20% darker in the UK over the years!!?? give me unscientific any day.
Munchy.
52. braindeed said...
Had your cataracts checked recently, Edvard?
53. crunchy said...
43. braindeed
Monet was always a big influence, but not that much. Mine are OK!
It's teatime.
54. braindeed said...
felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas
55. shipbuilder said...
Crunchy - weren't you arguing a few days ago that loose immigration policy and increasing population was the goal of the 'internationalists'?
56. shipbuilder said...
"3. crunchy said...
No matter how much “fiscal stimulus" Brown allocates to housing and infrastructure it will be cancelled out by future "immigration stimulas"
No wonder BNP gets such a hard time.
Free speech!
Sunday, November 1, 2009 09:58AM"
Did I misinterpret this?
57. clockslinger said...
More shit. Remember Prescott and sustainable transport? We couldn't even get that together so what chance of discussing controlling population...even immigration. But what really does my head in is that this topic has generated 46 responses here so far including my own, and only few on topic at all...It seems to me the elephant in the room is that we got it very wrong in the bear camp on HPI "so far" but no one is admitting it much. I suppose if this topic wasn't on here there would only be a bloody great big SUDOKU on this site these days...so never mind then.
58. crunchy said...
Yes shippy the point I was making is that the two party system was blocking BNP I beleive that in a free society they should be allowed a
voice. I back no political party myself, I am too individual. Immigration has been rife and I do not see this ending any time soon.
Just to get the brainwashed PC thing out of the way I am not a racist or a nazi lover as most people should know by now,
I have no problem with immigration so long as the infrastructure is there and in the worse case senario I would rather leave the country
which I am doing again next week. Sorry for the spelling, speed typing.
59. shipbuilder said...
Crunchy - the point I was making was not about your thoughts on the BNP, but that in the previous thread you seemed to allude that the 'internationalist' government's policy was purposefully loose on immigration, yet in this thread the allusion is that policy is population reduction, presumably accordance with the NWO. So which is it?
60. rumble said...
crunchy, it's been on my playlist for many a moon.
There's been mention on this site of a non-party political system but never got into any depth.
lol@clockslinger. You're saying it's all over? I quite liked the idea of a Soylent Green scenario, an interesting experience and change. Reckon I'm out of luck.
61. crunchy said...
46. ship more time now. Internationalists yes, but only in as far as getting countries conditioned into a non soverign mindset in preparation
for a global society. Now don't get me wrong here, a global society "as one" on the face of it sounds like a great idea. However I have
doubts that the advantages will come to fruition. So I would be pro soverign anti EU because of this doubt alone. Please don't ask why as
I have had a skin full already today. Today the referendum comes to an end, just heard it on the TV. BULSHIT. BULSHIT. Slim chance
now!
That's why I worry. Watch Fall of the Republic again.
62. crunchy said...
50. shipbuilder
Agree or not.. Immigration has been encouraged to fuel the property boom (BTL) That bubble has happened and busted and bailouts have
followed mission acheived. Now we are on the back foot getting more reliant on the banks and government. The next step now is to move
on with the next stage which is happening now, (no promised referendum). Population control will come later when we are weak and easy
to control totally. They only wanted to over populate for their own short term ends. Sorry a bit numb with drink.
63. crunchy said...
Everything I have learnt is falling into place one by one with no let up not even a blip.
64. crunchy said...
60. rumble said...crunchy, it's been on my playlist for many a moon.
There's been mention on this site of a non-party political system but never got into any depth.
Ron Paul may run in 2012, in a way I hope things get bad enough for the Americans that they finally kick out Obama and vote for an
independent. Ron Paul does have a strong loyal following it just needs to grow now. It all has to start in America first.
rumble- Fall of the Republic is new. are you referring to end game?
65. crunchy said...
ship you asked an overly smart question about tower 7.
If you watch those two video links and still are in doubt you are wasting my time and I don't have much of that left, before I move on.
66. crunchy said...
Too drunk now. OUT