Electricity Up

[ai_Droid]

Pah! So all your ramblings about saving the planet, all your ramblings about the savings in emissions you hope to make, are just to get your family back to the levels produced by a two child family - especially when you consider what that third child will go on to produce in terms of emissions.

 

You eco-criminal you. Whilst all the time the best thing to control your 'emissions' has been available in chemists or via a simple operation on the NHS.

 

Or alternatively, I'd rather my son and sustainable living than a dirty polluted shithole and a rubber johnny.

[Lee54]

It would be intersting to know from the forum members what their bills are and work out the average.

Our lowest bill during the past 12 months was £147.45 and the highest £312.10

[Mission]

Mine's around £1 per day.

[Albert Tatlock]

Pah! So all your ramblings about saving the planet, all your ramblings about the savings in emissions you hope to make, are just to get your family back to the levels produced by a two child family - especially when you consider what that third child will go on to produce in terms of emissions.

 

You eco-criminal you. Whilst all the time the best thing to control your 'emissions' has been available in chemists or via a simple operation on the NHS.

 

Or alternatively, I'd rather my son and sustainable living than a dirty polluted shithole and a rubber johnny.

That's the whole point you people miss - 30 years time will result in a dirty polluted shithole with too many people - all down to that third, fourth and fifth child. I'd rather two kids - i.e. the right to self-replacement - and not have to make sacrifices for the other 8 billion sperm, thanks. Why should people like me have to make additional sacrifices just because you can't keep it in your pants?

[Slim]

That's the whole point you people miss - 30 years time will result in a dirty polluted shithole with too many people - all down to that third, fourth and fifth child. I'd rather two kids - i.e. the right to self-replacement - and not have to make sacrifices for the other 8 billion sperm, thanks. Why should people like me have to make additional sacrifices just because you can't keep it in your pants?

 

That's the whole point you people miss, overpopulation isn't about birth rates, it's about death rates. If you'd have the good manners to pop your clocks ten years earlier, people like me wouldn't have to worry either.

[triskelion]

That's the whole point you people miss - 30 years time will result in a dirty polluted shithole with too many people - all down to that third, fourth and fifth child. I'd rather two kids - i.e. the right to self-replacement - and not have to make sacrifices for the other 8 billion sperm, thanks. Why should people like me have to make additional sacrifices just because you can't keep it in your pants?

 

That's the whole point you people miss, overpopulation isn't about birth rates, it's about death rates. If you'd have the good manners to pop your clocks ten years earlier, people like me wouldn't have to worry either.

Hear hear.

 

In 30 years time, droid's kids will be productive members of society, working, spending, contributing etc.

 

Its older people, with their dependence on benefits, miniscule spending power, zero productivity and astronomical healthcare bills that represent the real problem with population growth.

 

Indeed, I would probably guess that there are fewer births in the British Isles now than ever before (per 1000 people). What has predominantly caused population growth is people living longer.

[Albert Tatlock]

That's the whole point you people miss - 30 years time will result in a dirty polluted shithole with too many people - all down to that third, fourth and fifth child. I'd rather two kids - i.e. the right to self-replacement - and not have to make sacrifices for the other 8 billion sperm, thanks. Why should people like me have to make additional sacrifices just because you can't keep it in your pants?

 

That's the whole point you people miss, overpopulation isn't about birth rates, it's about death rates. If you'd have the good manners to pop your clocks ten years earlier, people like me wouldn't have to worry either.

Hear hear.

 

In 30 years time, droid's kids will be productive members of society, working, spending, contributing etc.

 

Its older people, with their dependence on benefits, miniscule spending power, zero productivity and astronomical healthcare bills that represent the real problem with population growth.

 

Indeed, I would probably guess that there are fewer births in the British Isles now than ever before (per 1000 people). What has predominantly caused population growth is people living longer.

Your model is flawed from the outset - additional births to produce 'productive members of society, working, spending, contributing etc.' to solve the challenge of ageing populations cannot ever be realised by perpetual population growth. Perpetual population growth is not possible in a finite world with already stretched and finite resources, and with current population levels already claimed to be damaging the atmosphere.

 

The answer is to come up with solutions now on how to deal with the fact that people live longer e.g. to force people to put more away for retirement via the tax and/or private pension system, and raising the pension age in line with life expectancy, and to also look more at other groups in society that do not contribute etc. Your model of simply producing more people to pay for the problem simply puts answering these questions off until 1. the atmosphere is damaged beyond repair, or 2. we end up with major resource wars, of course not forgetting with your model in the future, that these same people themselves will need even more 'productive members of society, working, spending, contributing etc.' to 'look after them' when they themselves become old and live for even longer.

 

This year the birth rate in the UK hit a 26 year high, mostly from immigrants who tend to have larger families.

[Gladys]

Factor in the medical advances that allow us all to live so much longer. Too much fiddling, IMHO, far too much.

[Mission]

I like what you did there.

 

Oh, and without the need to quote half the thread too, well done you *gold star*

 

[triskelion]

Your model is flawed from the outset - additional births to produce 'productive members of society, working, spending, contributing etc.' to solve the challenge of ageing populations cannot ever be realised by perpetual population growth. Perpetual population growth is not possible in a finite world with already stretched and finite resources, and with current population levels already claimed to be damaging the atmosphere.

 

The answer is to come up with solutions now on how to deal with the fact that people live longer e.g. to force people to put more away for retirement via the tax and/or private pension system, and raising the pension age in line with life expectancy, and to also look more at other groups in society that do not contribute etc. Your model of simply producing more people to pay for the problem simply puts answering these questions off until 1. the atmosphere is damaged beyond repair, or 2. we end up with major resource wars, of course not forgetting with your model in the future, that these same people themselves will need even more 'productive members of society, working, spending, contributing etc.' to 'look after them' when they themselves become old and live for even longer.

 

This year the birth rate in the UK hit a 26 year high, mostly from immigrants who tend to have larger families.

To be honest, I don't disagree with most of this, and I especially like the idea of linking the retirement age to life expectancy.

 

I don't believe I advocated producing (or importing) more people to pay for the problem, and if I implied it it was only accidentally. I just don't accept that the problems we now face are either caused by a growing population, or will be solved by reducing it. The problem lies with lifestyles and the means through which those lifestyles are supported. For example, if the population collapsed to 2 billion tomorrow, but those two billion lived the lives of your average Westerner, then we would still effectively be in the same boat. I realise the flaws in this example, I'm just trying to convey my general view.