The West Doesn't Need Anymore People

[Nuggets Mahoney]

"Our particular social and economic structure which brings a lot of material wealth begets fewer children" would be a statement I would accept...but to call that "prosperity" doesn't sit well, and reeks of an Orwellian abuse of language.

I wouldn't argue with that. Still not sure I can think of a word that covers it

[Executive Sadman]

Yup its a pretty simple paradigm. The more people there are, the less there is to go around, no matter what pretty economics terms you sugarcoat it with, Its far better to be 'resource rich, people poor' than the other way round. Its why Norway and Saudi are rich, and we aren't. They have masses of resources and small populations.,

Of course, when your economy, all the political parties and the media are controlled by speculator interests, namely the banking cabal. Population growth is indeed desirable to them.

[Nuggets Mahoney]

Yup its a pretty simple paradigm. The more people there are, the less there is to go around, no matter what pretty economics terms you sugarcoat it with, Its far better to be 'resource rich, people poor' than the other way round. Its why Norway and Saudi are rich, and we aren't. They have masses of resources and small populations.,

Hong Kong?

Singapore?

The Netherlands?

Switzerland?

Luxembourg?

[chris25]

so why does each country still encourage us all to get married and make more humans.

What exactly are all these babies going to do in the future, as we don't have enough to go round as it is (jobs/resources etc)??

Couldn't agree more.

I'm in my 20's and can say things are really bad for my generation. Low wages, debt, unemployment and underemployment is rife. But we are living in a time with plentiful oil supply and food supply, what will happen as this starts to diminish?

What will happen as commodities continue to creep up? Demand is going to fall off a cliff. People will loose all their disposable income as food and fuel increase. The service industry is going to collapse. This is the next wave of this economic catastrophe.

People are going to go back to subsistence living. Food, fuel, shelter and scavenging. The nu-lab service non-jobs of now and the past are going to disappear. In 10 years time there will be no such thing as a career in "nail manicure".

I will not be having kids knowing this. To see them brought up in a world of diminishing opportunities, unemployment, decline and hunger frightens the sh!t out of me. It is worse enough for my generation, but for people in 20 years time? Forget it, there is no chance.

[Asheron]

Couldn't agree more.

I'm in my 20's and can say things are really bad for my generation. Low wages, debt, unemployment and underemployment is rife. But we are living in a time with plentiful oil supply and food supply, what will happen as this starts to diminish?

What will happen as commodities continue to creep up? Demand is going to fall off a cliff. People will loose all their disposable income as food and fuel increase. The service industry is going to collapse. This is the next wave of this economic catastrophe.

People are going to go back to subsistence living. Food, fuel, shelter and scavenging. The nu-lab service non-jobs of now and the past are going to disappear. In 10 years time there will be no such thing as a career in "nail manicure".

I will not be having kids knowing this. To see them brought up in a world of diminishing opportunities, unemployment, decline and hunger frightens the sh!t out of me. It is worse enough for my generation, but for people in 20 years time? Forget it, there is no chance.

You fool, that's exactly what the government wants you to do.......

and think....

Just proves their Propaganda works perfect.

[Asheron]

Does it not make you mad that the elite few have 7 or 8 kids, and they engineered all this crisis ? lol

To say you won't have any kids is dumb.

It's your god given right to have children. And as many as you want. Regardless of being poor or rich.

[concerned_money]

so why does each country still encourage us all to get married and make more humans.

What exactly are all these babies going to do in the future, as we don't have enough to go round as it is (jobs/resources etc)??

This man has talked about these issues but the nay sayers call him nasty names for it - 7mins in pop density

Edited April 27, 2012 by concerned_money

[vzzzbx]

I might amend that it's your right to have children, but only if you have sufficient means to provide for them. Whatever fancy technologies we use, more population is always going to mean more demands on food, fuel, jobs etc. Eventually we reach a point where the planet simply cannot support any more people.

My personal view is that child benefit should only apply to the first 2 children, if at all. You'd be free to have more, but if you do so you'd be on your own financially. This would put an end to those families who seem to have kids only to get more benefits and a bigger council house all paid for by the taxpayer.

[stoobs]

This man has talked about these issues but the nay sayers call him nasty names for it - 7mins in pop density

That was quite interesting until he revealed himself to be a white supremacist nutter.

[concerned_money]

That was quite interesting until he revealed himself to be a white supremacist nutter.

Content not ideology is the important issue.

Motivation is unimportant, just the end result.

Nutter or not, I'll take his vision over the current reality.

Illogical to reject good stuff cause you don't like someone eh?

let the name calling commence

[stoobs]

Content not ideology is the important issue.

Motivation is unimportant, just the end result.

Nutter or not, I'll take his vision over the current reality.

Illogical to reject good stuff cause you don't like someone eh?

let the name calling commence

I'm not rejecting "good stuff", I'm rejecting his proposal that the continent of Europe should be ethnically cleansed. Someone started a large scale project to achieve that 70 years ago and it's generally accepted that it wasn't a work of genius.

[Britney's Piers]

I might amend that it's your right to have children, but only if you have sufficient means to provide for them.

This has never been the case in the whole of human history. The normal human way of reproducing was to have many children in the hope that at least 1 or 2 would survive to adulthood. The notion that all children are special darlings who will all be successful in life is a consequence of affluence. If it is true that a resource crisis is our future, humans in the west will just have to revert to the normal way of reproducing.

[Rare Bear]

Yup its a pretty simple paradigm. The more people there are, the less there is to go around, no matter what pretty economics terms you sugarcoat it with, Its far better to be 'resource rich, people poor' than the other way round. Its why Norway and Saudi are rich, and we aren't. They have masses of resources and small populations.,

Of course, when your economy, all the political parties and the media are controlled by speculator interests, namely the banking cabal. Population growth is indeed desirable to them.

Well, once upon a time a country needed a large population to be wealthy. There were large scale wars between major powers every generation or so. These needed cannon fodder. hence the state needed a large population. Not so since the 6th of august 1945. Wars between major powers became a non starter. Sure, lots of proxy wars since then but no large scale ones between major powers. The state just has not realised that it does not need a large population for it's security but who said that politicians were intelligent

The state also needed lots of labour to produce goods but the combination of the rise in automation and the increased real cost of employing labour has reduced that need.

The other force for big populations is/was religions. Any serious religion has a need to become the universal religion, the one true religion. Hence the anti birth control attitude of real religions. They are engaged in continuous demographic warfare..

The argument that you need a larger young population to finance the older population is just another ponzi argument. The young will become old in turn and need financed.

What matters is real wealth per head of population. That is all.

[vzzzbx]

This has never been the case in the whole of human history. The normal human way of reproducing was to have many children in the hope that at least 1 or 2 would survive to adulthood. The notion that all children are special darlings who will all be successful in life is a consequence of affluence. If it is true that a resource crisis is our future, humans in the west will just have to revert to the normal way of reproducing.

Perhaps I was being a bit too inflammatory there. The point I was trying to make is that we can't keep on having the birth rate higher than the death rate indefinitely. One of two things must happen; either we all take personal responsibility for not breeding too much, or we don't - with the inevitable result that eventually we exceed the ability of the planet to support us all. This is where it gets really messy (starvation, wars, fighting over scarce resources etc.).

Personally I'd rather have people have a smaller number of children with a high survival rate than have people go through all the heartache of having lots of kids where lots of them die or are killed in wars over the planet's scarce resources.

I'd also like to see green groups making the point that the most eco-friendly thing you can do is have less children.

[winkie]

The west does need more people, more people create more a demand, a demand for fast food outlets, a demand for health and education a demand for housing and resources........only thing is the more people there are the less there will be to share between them...we all carry on spending but are growing far poorer for it.....the ones to benefit will be the energy cos the multi national consumer manufacturers and corporates the elite in control that know we will have no choice but to purchase their stuff......the more we can learn to live without them the better standard of future living we will have.......otherwise they will catch you by the short and curlies.

Edited April 27, 2012 by winkie