green guru Sir Jonathon Porritt calls for two-chil

[jesuitsdidit]

Government green guru Sir Jonathon Porritt calls for two-child limit

One of the Government's leading environmental advisers, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has called for British couples to have no more than two children to stop the planet becoming overpopulated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4424856/Government-green-guru-Sir-Jonathon-Porritt-calls-for-two-child-limit.html

02 Feb 2009

He accused parents with more than two offspring of being "irresponsible" and criticised green groups for shying away from the issue in debate.

But family campaigners likened his remarks to China's one-child policy and suggested they could encourage a further rise in abortions.

His comments were also dismissed as "absolutely barmy" by the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, who said that Britain's problem was not too many children but too few.

The former Green Party politician, who is now chairman of the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, accused other environmentalists of "betraying" their members by not openly voicing calls for people to limit the number of children.

"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," he said.

"I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.

"It is the ghost at the table, we have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don't really hear anyone say the "p" word," - a reference to population.

Pointing to the example of Singapore, where efforts to limit people to two children had to be abandoned, Miss Widdecombe said: "At a time when we have all the worries of too elderly a population, depending on fewer and fewer people of working age, it seems an absolutely ludicrous proposition."

Josephine Quintaville, founder of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Core), said that past efforts to limit the size of families had led to girls being ill-treated or abandoned.

"This seems to be the same old thing: save the world but kill a human."

She added: "As far as I understand it, it is the most affluent nations that are doing the most damage to the world, not the countries that have got the most children."

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth said: "It is the impact of the people who are alive today that will determine whether we can meet the immediate climate change challenge.

"There is a debate to be had about population - and Friends of the Earth is currently reviewing its position on this issue.

"We welcome Jonathon Porritt's contribution to this topic."

[jesuitsdidit]

did u hear them all slam Jonathan Porritt on his views on over-population on Question Time last week
he was interviewed on Newsnight the day b4

i would rather address the issue now as to whether unlimited growth is viable than keep our heads in the sand and wake up to a collapsing world in 20? yrs time wdnt u?

[jesuitsdidit]

dunno y the title got cut off..

[lightgiver]

If people were better educated at school(that's if some have a school to go to) then we would not be in the state we are in.
The education system is rubbish.

[meksar]

It's indoctrination, we are taught not to talk to strangers,drugs are bad,sex is for adults and knifes and guns are dangerous.The same people who control the education system are child abusers,drug barons,depraved sexual lunatics and have built a global empire by blades and bullets.

Now with regard to the Global Warming agenda it is again a massive mind control mission and they are targeting the kids with this crap full on.It does not take a genius to figure out theses bastards have shown no mercy to the environment to make their empires wealthier.The use of H.A.A.R.P is a fantastic tool for the elite because the whole threat of extreme weather is just really what they need to implement various aspects of the N.W.O.

[meksar]

The China one child policy will be adopted unless the masses see through the global warming garbage and understand that are various forms of free and safe energy sources.

[freedom_thoughts]

Personally I think we should all be allowed to have as many children as we like, BUT and this is a BIG BUT ... only as long as we c can personally support them, with no outside help with regards to food, clothing, shelter etc.

All these people in the world who go around having 3, 5, 7 children and then asking others to support them with regards to food, shelter, clothing etc are to me disgustingly narrow minded, selfish and one of the reasons behind our current civilization being unsustainable.

Sure accidents happen and I understand people have children because of this, but if that happens a few too many times and you start to struggle to sustain your family, then tie a knot in it, get it chopped off or do not copulate all together.

My partner and I have chosen the path of not having any children at all, simply because we choose to live a simple life of working less and living more, and we can just about sustain ourselves this way, let alone sustain a family.

Maybe one day if we get to a level of living that we have more food, shelter and clothing than we need for just the two of us, then we will think about having a child, but until that day comes we won't be having children.

And yes if my partner becomes pregnant we have discussed abortion too, and at the moment we are prepared to go through with it. Some might call us murderers, some might say it's wrong, but at the end of the day, our current lifestyle will not sustain a child, and we firmly believe that doing what is sustainable is the most important thing when living on this fragile planet.

[jesuitsdidit]

Personally I think we should all be allowed to have as many children as we like, BUT and this is a BIG BUT ... only as long as we c can personally support them, with no outside help with regards to food, clothing, shelter etc.

All these people in the world who go around having 3, 5, 7 children and then asking others to support them with regards to food, shelter, clothing etc are to me disgustingly narrow minded, selfish and one of the reasons behind our current civilization being unsustainable.

Sure accidents happen and I understand people have children because of this, but if that happens a few too many times and you start to struggle to sustain your family, then tie a knot in it, get it chopped off or do not copulate all together.

My partner and I have chosen the path of not having any children at all, simply because we choose to live a simple life of working less and living more, and we can just about sustain ourselves this way, let alone sustain a family.

Maybe one day if we get to a level of living that we have more food, shelter and clothing than we need for just the two of us, then we will think about having a child, but until that day comes we won't be having children.

And yes if my partner becomes pregnant we have discussed abortion too, and at the moment we are prepared to go through with it. Some might call us murderers, some might say it's wrong, but at the end of the day, our current lifestyle will not sustain a child, and we firmly believe that doing what is sustainable is the most important thing when living on this fragile planet.

so u think the planet can sustain unlimited human population?
if not wot do u tink t limit is?

[freedom_thoughts]

so u think the planet can sustain unlimited human population?
if not wot do u tink t limit is?

Nope, and thats not what I said, although I didn't say otherwise either, I should have made myself more clear...

It would be correct I think to assume that if we all lived naturally, then once the human population got to a certain level, of say 20 billion, and if the earth could no longer naturally sustain those population levels we would then begin to die off until the population reached a sustainable level.

As to your other comment, I don't know or think I know what the limit is to our population levels, and I could not even hazard a guess simple because we are not living on this planet sustainably.

If you want a population limit on the way we are currently living then I would say we passed that limit long ago.

[rhydra]

Once you get more people than can reasonably supported and kept alive with the finite resources there will be a die off. The die off won't be just those that the planet can't support but many more as resources are stretched to the limit the target population will be undershot. All it takes then is for some natural disaster or pandemic to coincide as these thing invariably do, a pandemic is more likely as many will end up being vulnerable though a weakened immune system though starvation etc.
There could then be a situation where the population reaches a level where it is near or on the brink of viability.

[jesuitsdidit]

Nope, and thats not what I said, although I didn't say otherwise either, I should have made myself more clear...

It would be correct I think to assume that if we all lived naturally, then once the human population got to a certain level, of say 20 billion, and if the earth could no longer naturally sustain those population levels we would then begin to die off until the population reached a sustainable level.

As to your other comment, I don't know or think I know what the limit is to our population levels, and I could not even hazard a guess simple because we are not living on this planet sustainably.

If you want a population limit on the way we are currently living then I would say we passed that limit long ago.

perhaps the way 2 work it out is calculate how much land is required to produce food n water 4 each person
calculate how much productive land there is,
divide the total by the amount - will give u number of humans that can be sustained??

[freedom_thoughts]

perhaps the way 2 work it out is calculate how much land is required to produce food n water 4 each person
calculate how much productive land there is,
divide the total by the amount - will give u number of humans that can be sustained??

If we did that that would mean we would be living on the land unnaturally. Just as we are now.

Forcing the land to grow something that was not already naturally there cannot be right.

Living off of the land with what it gives naturally is the only true way of living naturally on the earth.

Therefore meaning we can never know what amount of population the earth can sustainable handle without actually getting to that level.

[ginge51]

I agree that the world should have no more then 3 not 2 kids if you ask me.
I do not seriously see the problem here as this world is way over populated.

[steevo]

We should have as many kids as "god" blesses us with.

[jiffy]

It's not the number, it's how we live that's the problem. Materialism is the root of the problem, big business has been very good at manipulating the mass to believe there life would be "fuller" if only they had the next best thing.

Respect, education and most important distribution of wealth would do more for this planet that any "Environmental Plan"

[endlessvista]

Here is a deal we should make with the House of Lords. The 2 child policy gets implemented when the UK becomes a Constitutional Republic.

Fair Enough? Everyone has to give a take a little in this life...eh Lordy!

I am sure every last one of them would give up their Peer in order to save the world from Gobal Warming.

[jiffy]

Here is a deal we should make with the House of Lords. The 2 child policy gets implemented when the UK becomes a Constitutional Republic.

Fair Enough? Everyone has to give a take a little in this life...eh Lordy!

I am sure every last one of them would give up their Peer in order to save the world from Gobal Warming.

playing devils advocate:
Thank who ever u believe is your maker for the house of Lords otherwise we would be even further down the "Eroding liberty" path

[pri01]

There is absolutely no need to inflict a quota of offspring on the human population. The powers that be have over millenia inflicted war, famine, genocide and endless diseases with endless poisons in the guise of medicines, to control the population numbers to a sustainable quantity.

[jesuitsdidit]

If we did that that would mean we would be living on the land unnaturally. Just as we are now.

Forcing the land to grow something that was not already naturally there cannot be right.

Living off of the land with what it gives naturally is the only true way of living naturally on the earth.

Therefore meaning we can never know what amount of population the earth can sustainable handle without actually getting to that level.

well, i guarantee u 1 thing
if u follow that model, the numbers r gonna b even fewer..

[jesuitsdidit]

i dont understand the reluctance to address this issue
if u were stuck at sea u'd work out how much fuel u had when deciding which route to take or u might end up not making land
so why not work out how many beings the planet can support b4 just ploughing ahead with our eyes closed

plus, it gives the ptb some legitimacy in their depopulation plan bcoz they can say, 'well, at least we've looked into it' whereas u've just stuck yr heads in the sand..

hardly intelligent..

[titan]

Stuff like that just pushes me over the edge to have 3.

I have 1 right now and would like another.....andI don't work either....best job there is ..for me anyway...

Just think, If people never awaken I will have my own gang to protect me when I shout ''shut up and wake up, you muppet'' at anyone who gives me disapproving looks or comments when out.

Eugenics man...that's what they want.

[steevo]

well, i guarantee u 1 thing
if u follow that model, the numbers r gonna b even fewer..

How can you guarantee that ?

[informationx]

Government green guru Sir Jonathon Porritt calls for two-child limit

One of the Government's leading environmental advisers, Sir Jonathon Porritt, has called for British couples to have no more than two children to stop the planet becoming overpopulated.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4424856/Government-green-guru-Sir-Jonathon-Porritt-calls-for-two-child-limit.html

02 Feb 2009

He accused parents with more than two offspring of being "irresponsible" and criticised green groups for shying away from the issue in debate.

But family campaigners likened his remarks to China's one-child policy and suggested they could encourage a further rise in abortions.

His comments were also dismissed as "absolutely barmy" by the Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, who said that Britain's problem was not too many children but too few.

The former Green Party politician, who is now chairman of the Government's Sustainable Development Commission, accused other environmentalists of "betraying" their members by not openly voicing calls for people to limit the number of children.

"I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate," he said.

"I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible.

"It is the ghost at the table, we have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don't really hear anyone say the "p" word," - a reference to population.

Pointing to the example of Singapore, where efforts to limit people to two children had to be abandoned, Miss Widdecombe said: "At a time when we have all the worries of too elderly a population, depending on fewer and fewer people of working age, it seems an absolutely ludicrous proposition."

Josephine Quintaville, founder of the pro-life group Comment on Reproductive Ethics (Core), said that past efforts to limit the size of families had led to girls being ill-treated or abandoned.

"This seems to be the same old thing: save the world but kill a human."

She added: "As far as I understand it, it is the most affluent nations that are doing the most damage to the world, not the countries that have got the most children."

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth said: "It is the impact of the people who are alive today that will determine whether we can meet the immediate climate change challenge.

"There is a debate to be had about population - and Friends of the Earth is currently reviewing its position on this issue.

"We welcome Jonathon Porritt's contribution to this topic."

If hes so worried about global population, why doesnt he just kill himself lol.

[northern_light]

I'm for depopulation actually, but not if it's forced by killing and lawmaking. The best way to keep a balanced population level is to raise the overall quality of living, for all humans. The large majority of people who are reasonably well off and are more informed, have less children than those who are not. Just because the so-called elite supports something(with their own agenda in mind), doesn't inherintly make it evil and dangerous.

[jesuitsdidit]

the fact people arent willing to examine this issue means they arent willing to face the truth

if we r consuming 4.5 times the amount this planet can sustain then our consumption must decrease by 4.5 times

that means that we either individually consume 4.5 times less
or we decrease the population by 4.5 times
which wd be around the 1 billion mark

burying yr head in the sand will not make this problem disappear..

[dangermouse]

the fact people arent willing to examine this issue means they arent willing to face the truth

if we r consuming 4.5 times the amount this planet can sustain then our consumption must decrease by 4.5 times

that means that we either individually consume 4.5 times less
or we decrease the population by 4.5 times
which wd be around the 1 billion mark

burying yr head in the sand will not make this problem disappear..

but I dont think we should mention anything untill they on their way to the camps in the trains :rolleyes:

[jesuitsdidit]

the fact people arent willing to examine this issue means they arent willing to face the truth

if we r consuming 4.5 times the amount this planet can sustain then our consumption must decrease by 4.5 times

that means that we either individually consume 4.5 times less
or we decrease the population by 4.5 times
which wd be around the 1 billion mark

burying yr head in the sand will not make this problem disappear..

there is always a cost
more humans = less trees/other creatures
the question is, wot is the correct balance of humans/other creatures/plants
dont imagine there isnt a trade-off bcoz there always is..