World food crisis? Stop having kids.

[Easy 10]

OI the people in Somalia are glad they don't have to live in Croydon

True.
And the Croydon slags probably account for about 25% of the starving underclass in this world on their own.

 

[steward 433]

True.
And the Croydon slags probably account for about 25% of the starving underclass in this world on their own.

Only if 25% is measured in waist size inches

 

[Easy 10]

Oi.
I'm a 36.

 

[steward 433]

Oi.
I'm a 36.

And in Croydump you would be classed as a stick insect (I am a 34" if that makes you feel better)

Croydump slags measure their waists in metres anyway!!!

 

[John Bumlick]

Anal sex is the answer

Thought i would get that one in first

actually, you should probably get that in second or it may lead to a urinary tract infection.

 

[defrocked priest]

there's no dark side of the moon. in fact it's all dark.

 

[1234andcounting]

So there is a world food crisis.

Not bloody surprising. This planet cannot sustain the present population let alone the forecast future increase.

And yet we're constantly asked to help feed the poor in third world countries. Why should we? If they're too poor to feed themselves they should not be having kids. We send them food, they get healthier ... then what do they do ... have more f***ing kids ... then there's a drought ... they ask for more food ... they have more kids.

The third world is the problem because they do not have the ability to feed themselves. If the people had half a brain between them they'd put their energy into sorting out their problems, not reproducing.

My message:
Sort out your backward mess of a country, then think about maybe having a couple of kids to keep your population at a steady level.
Under no circumstances think about coming to Britain for a "better life". We worked bloody hard to create this "better life" for ourselves, not to give it away to lazy foreigners. And anyway, THE UK IS FULL! We don't want or need any more people. You will not be welcome here. Do not even think about coming.

Rant over .... for the moment.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The hoary old 'over-population' chestnut. At what precise point in time did Britain become over-populated. Perhaps 1851, which was the first census to reveal that more of our population lived in urban than rural areas. And is our living standard lower now than in 1851 - I think not. Population growth per se is usually an engine for economic growth, all other things being equal.

As to whether or not 'we' (are you including yourself) worked hard for a 'better life', well, there is a good case to say that the capital used to drive industrialisation in Britain from the early 18th century onwards came from two sources: the slave trade; and stealing from the Spanish gold they had stolen from the Americas. No doubt this was hard work, but I doubt very much if that is what you had in mind. We (Britain, that is) then subsequently reinforced our dominant economic position through an imperial mode (both formal - the annexation of land as colonies, and informal through the domination of either the political or economic power) through the 19th century. This power only receded when challenged by particularly the US and Germany.

Several posters have already pointed out the relationship between procreation and poverty. Family size in this country has reduced significantly as prosperity has increased over the past 100-150 years; the question to answer is what is cause and what is effect. Time lag would suggest that improved prosperity - the certainty for example that your children will survive - drives lower populations rather than the other way around.

In agriculturally based economies it makes sense to have a relatively large number of children as they can be economically productive from an early stage (far earlier than in industrial or post-industrial economies, where some element of schooling is required) through the minding of animals or the collection of firewood or water.

As to whether or not there is a point beyond which the earth cannot sustain a human population - very probably so, although how close we are to that point currently I don't think anyone is sure. We could carry on doing what we are doing, which is to destroy the habitats of just about every other living creature in order to grow food and produce all the other products we take for granted.

Is this driving the current food crisis? It may have more to do with the adjustments required from growing prosperity in countries suchas India and China and the increasing expectations which arise. This was predictable and indeed predicted by agro-economists (not people who study the relationship between football violence and the performance of the economy btw) at least as long ago as the 1970s.

Anyway, the 'food crisis' is probably just a media creation, to go with the credit crunch. I am not saying that there aren't issues; just that the media (both electronic and print, tabloid and broadsheet) tend to present complex issues in highly simplistic forms.

Finally, I would post your 'keep out' sign on chat rooms other than one for Brighton and Hove Albion. I honestly don't believe that it is likely to be too widely read in Nouakchott, Dakar, Addis Ababa, Phnom Penh or Quito.

 

[1234andcounting]

So there is a world food crisis.

Not bloody surprising. This planet cannot sustain the present population let alone the forecast future increase.

And yet we're constantly asked to help feed the poor in third world countries. Why should we? If they're too poor to feed themselves they should not be having kids. We send them food, they get healthier ... then what do they do ... have more f***ing kids ... then there's a drought ... they ask for more food ... they have more kids.

The third world is the problem because they do not have the ability to feed themselves. If the people had half a brain between them they'd put their energy into sorting out their problems, not reproducing.

My message:
Sort out your backward mess of a country, then think about maybe having a couple of kids to keep your population at a steady level.
Under no circumstances think about coming to Britain for a "better life". We worked bloody hard to create this "better life" for ourselves, not to give it away to lazy foreigners. And anyway, THE UK IS FULL! We don't want or need any more people. You will not be welcome here. Do not even think about coming.

Rant over .... for the moment.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The hoary old 'over-population' chestnut. At what precise point in time did Britain become over-populated. Perhaps 1851, which was the first census to reveal that more of our population lived in urban than rural areas. And is our living standard lower now than in 1851 - I think not. Population growth per se is usually an engine for economic growth, all other things being equal.

As to whether or not 'we' (are you including yourself) worked hard for a 'better life', well, there is a good case to say that the capital used to drive industrialisation in Britain from the early 18th century onwards came from two sources: the slave trade; and stealing from the Spanish gold they had stolen from the Americas. No doubt this was hard work, but I doubt very much if that is what you had in mind. We (Britain, that is) then subsequently reinforced our dominant economic position through an imperial mode (both formal - the annexation of land as colonies, and informal through the domination of either the political or economic power) through the 19th century. This power only receded when challenged by particularly the US and Germany.

Several posters have already pointed out the relationship between procreation and poverty. Family size in this country has reduced significantly as prosperity has increased over the past 100-150 years; the question to answer is what is cause and what is effect. Time lag would suggest that improved prosperity - the certainty for example that your children will survive - drives lower populations rather than the other way around.

In agriculturally based economies it makes sense to have a relatively large number of children as they can be economically productive from an early stage (far earlier than in industrial or post-industrial economies, where some element of schooling is required) through the minding of animals or the collection of firewood or water.

As to whether or not there is a point beyond which the earth cannot sustain a human population - very probably so, although how close we are to that point currently I don't think anyone is sure. We could carry on doing what we are doing, which is to destroy the habitats of just about every other living creature in order to grow food and produce all the other products we take for granted.

Is this driving the current food crisis? It may have more to do with the adjustments required from growing prosperity in countries suchas India and China and the increasing expectations which arise. This was predictable and indeed predicted by agro-economists (not people who study the relationship between football violence and the performance of the economy btw) at least as long ago as the 1970s.

Anyway, the 'food crisis' is probably just a media creation, to go with the credit crunch. I am not saying that there aren't issues; just that the media (both electronic and print, tabloid and broadsheet) tend to present complex issues in highly simplistic forms.

Finally, I would post your 'keep out' sign on chat rooms other than one for Brighton and Hove Albion. I honestly don't believe that it is likely to be too widely read in Nouakchott, Dakar, Addis Ababa, Phnom Penh or Quito.

 

[e77]

there's no dark side of the moon.

Yes there is, I saw Roger Waters do it at the O2 the other week.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Someone sent them Aids instead of aid,thats helping a bit.

 

[che]

Having kids is wonderfull.You live for your kids.That's natural.
As for World food crisis: STOP WAR.!! Spend the war money on food and education

 

[e77]

Put the American population on a diet and send the food they don't eat to the third world.

World hunger sorted (so long as they don't mind eating Denny's left overs).

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Ah yes, the old "why should we help people like that" argument, about stopping UK government aid to other countries.

Using similar logic then, why should we pay child benefit in this country? As someone who doesn't have kids at this point in time, as I'm sure is the case for many posters on here: why should our taxes fund those of you who do? Do you work harder? Are you more deserving? Britain is a rich country by most standards, surely paying child benefits, and tax credits etc is just encouraging parents not to work as hard?

You chose to have the kids, therefore why shouldn't you pay for them? If you can't afford them, you know what to do.

 

[British Bulldog]

You chose to have the kids, therefore why shouldn't you pay for them? If you can't afford them, you know what to do.

Yeah send em out on the streets to keep people like you in a job!

 

[goldstone]

Ah yes, the old "why should we help people like that" argument, about stopping UK government aid to other countries.

Using similar logic then, why should we pay child benefit in this country? As someone who doesn't have kids at this point in time, as I'm sure is the case for many posters on here: why should our taxes fund those of you who do? Do you work harder? Are you more deserving? Britain is a rich country by most standards, surely paying child benefits, and tax credits etc is just encouraging parents not to work as hard?

You chose to have the kids, therefore why shouldn't you pay for them? If you can't afford them, you know what to do.

Too right!

First time I've agreed with you on anything, I believe!!

 

[goldstone]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The hoary old 'over-population' chestnut. At what precise point in time did Britain become over-populated. Perhaps 1851, which was the first census to reveal that more of our population lived in urban than rural areas. And is our living standard lower now than in 1851 - I think not. Population growth per se is usually an engine for economic growth, all other things being equal.

As to whether or not 'we' (are you including yourself) worked hard for a 'better life', well, there is a good case to say that the capital used to drive industrialisation in Britain from the early 18th century onwards came from two sources: the slave trade; and stealing from the Spanish gold they had stolen from the Americas. No doubt this was hard work, but I doubt very much if that is what you had in mind. We (Britain, that is) then subsequently reinforced our dominant economic position through an imperial mode (both formal - the annexation of land as colonies, and informal through the domination of either the political or economic power) through the 19th century. This power only receded when challenged by particularly the US and Germany.

Several posters have already pointed out the relationship between procreation and poverty. Family size in this country has reduced significantly as prosperity has increased over the past 100-150 years; the question to answer is what is cause and what is effect. Time lag would suggest that improved prosperity - the certainty for example that your children will survive - drives lower populations rather than the other way around.

In agriculturally based economies it makes sense to have a relatively large number of children as they can be economically productive from an early stage (far earlier than in industrial or post-industrial economies, where some element of schooling is required) through the minding of animals or the collection of firewood or water.

As to whether or not there is a point beyond which the earth cannot sustain a human population - very probably so, although how close we are to that point currently I don't think anyone is sure. We could carry on doing what we are doing, which is to destroy the habitats of just about every other living creature in order to grow food and produce all the other products we take for granted.

Is this driving the current food crisis? It may have more to do with the adjustments required from growing prosperity in countries suchas India and China and the increasing expectations which arise. This was predictable and indeed predicted by agro-economists (not people who study the relationship between football violence and the performance of the economy btw) at least as long ago as the 1970s.

Anyway, the 'food crisis' is probably just a media creation, to go with the credit crunch. I am not saying that there aren't issues; just that the media (both electronic and print, tabloid and broadsheet) tend to present complex issues in highly simplistic forms.

Finally, I would post your 'keep out' sign on chat rooms other than one for Brighton and Hove Albion. I honestly don't believe that it is likely to be too widely read in Nouakchott, Dakar, Addis Ababa, Phnom Penh or Quito.

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

You must be a scoolteacher or similar. How can anyone be so bloody boring ... and to post the same thing twice too!

There is no doubt the world is overcrowded. Fact.

There is no doubt that Britain is overcrowded. Fact. Just look at the traffic levels.

How to solve the first problem? Drastically reduce the birthrate.

How to solve the second problem? Slam the door on further immigration and encourage those already here to go home.

 

[Robbie G]

There is no doubt the world is overcrowded. Fact.

Not really. There are vast areas of land which are unhabited. Admittedly a lot of places are overcrowded, but the world as a whole is far from overcrowded.

 

[1066familyman]

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

You must be a scoolteacher or similar. How can anyone be so bloody boring ... and to post the same thing twice too!

There is no doubt the world is overcrowded. Fact.

There is no doubt that Britain is overcrowded. Fact. Just look at the traffic levels.

How to solve the first problem? Drastically reduce the birthrate.

How to solve the second problem? Slam the door on further immigration and encourage those already here to go home.

Yes, I can imagine that debate grounded in history, logic and thorough research is rather boring to you. It don't half make the poor old brain hurt don't it.

Note I neglect to use the word, fact. I'll leave that to the really exciting people who get their facts from The Sun & Daily Mail

And, the four points.....sorry, two of 'em are facts..... you mention above are complete and utter bollocks of the highest order ( except for the second one, which may have an element of subjective truth in it ).