Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by lapinrose, May 21, 2019.
Who are the people who 'should have children'?
What makes you jump to the conclusion that I was referring to the DUP and Free Presbyterian Church?
I get do tired of responding to such ill-informed posts as this.
Have a look at fertility rates across the planet and how they have changed over the last 50 years and where they are heading in the next 50.
The problem is rich westerners who have overexploited the resources of the planet to sustain their lifestyles.
I had this conversation with a Jewish work colleague. He thinks a laboratory grown meat would be a derivative product like cheese or yogurt so would be a kosher legitimate.
Ah, of course. Scratch a population control advocate and find a eugenicist underneath. Got to stop those "useless breeders", right?
Who are the rich, who are angsting about who'll look after them when they get old, to preach to the poor in developing countries about having children?
No-one is arguing for ''no children"... just in slowing down the rate of growth and maybe reducing the population through natural means [and not hyperbolic cries for mass murder]... yes the rate of growth is decreasing... but the impact of that many humans on one planet, especially as they aspire to an ever greater standard of living... is something we need to address.
The great thing about Jewish people is that they love to disagree with each other.
Yes, and as you say
That should continue.
The problem is more the level of consumption by the wealthy. It is way above that necessary for a comfortable and sustainable life. Yes, we need to reassess what we "need" and what is a "higher standard of living".
I think it just happens to be rich westerners and that a better label would be first advanced industrial societies. The Japanese caught up and the Chinese are doing the same.
Not for the first child.
The terms first, second and third world are somewhat redundant as there is a continuum with no discrete categorisation of countries possible.
Here's a good incentive-
In some pre-parenting circles, adoption is the new veganism.
That's pretty sound thinking.
Look at the link, take time to absorb what it is showing you, you only need to read a handful of actual words, and then you will want to take yet more time to absorb what is happening before your eyes.
Mathematical morals, it cannot get any better proven.
Mine never will _ will let you work out why.
I am not advocating nil children, What I am saying is that, other than homosexuals, most people want children(and even then such folks in a lifestyle choice still get someone else to help them get children). It is a normal human desire for whatever cultural or societal reason. Will you be content to have less in a society where children are your carers when you grow old or the workers on your farmstead.
We have to have less, the idea that things only work if we keep expanding is really stupid. There are finite resources!
All resources are finite, but not all are relevantly so. The question is whether we can use the near infinite ones to replace or recycle the non-infinite ones. So, for example, we currently use coke to produce steel. Iron ore is finite but we're not likely to run out of it soon. Coke, on the other hand is both finite and hugely environmentally harmful. We can certainly recycle a lot of steel, which helps, but can we make steel in, say, a solar furnace? Or, if renewable electricity becomes abundant and cheap enough, either produce steel by electrolysis or replace it with other materials that do rely on electricity.
The "global footprint" standard is instructive here. It suggests that at current technology the earth could support perhaps 2 billion at European standards of living. 50 years ago, despite lower consumption, that figure would likely have been lower, because technology was less efficient. There are two variable here - the number of people and the amount they consume. So long as the latter is falling faster than the former is growing we're moving towards sustainability. You don't need to reduce the former unless the latter is going to stand still or grow further.
Those who can afford to clothe, house and educate them.
Those who shouldn't are those who's children are all in care............and they seem to keep on reproducing in the hope they can keep at least one of their offspring. But they can't. and society and teachers have to pick up the pieces.
An ucomfortable truth........but the truth.
Where is the figure from? Many estimates of the carrying capacity of the Earth are higher than the population today at around 10 billion.