Humans breeding out of control

[Lee Winger]

As a younger parent in my time, I had and have no regrets. We had the youthful energy to put into our family. My wife's role was that of a homemaker/housewife or whatever you call it, my role was chief breadwinner and general dogsbody. Yes money could be tight, but I had time for my kids, we had time for our kids. When they fell ill at school, their mother was there to answer the phone and bring them home, and care for them. This modern parenting is all well and good, but the parents cannot afford the time off from important business meetings to care for their own child, and I know several where this applies. Latchkey society is no good for the wellbeing and upbringing of the child, nor does spending five minutes just before bedtime reading because that's all you can spare. If you want kids, at any age, you have make sacrifices, the wealth, the nights out, the nice cars and fancy holidays, after all there is actually a lot more wealth in spending time with your kids. I work for some really wealthy people, who shower their kids with everything, yet might see them for a couple of hours on a Sunday, I'd rather not have kids if that was my life.

 

:thumbup1:

[Rob D]

Biggest load of tosh I've read in my life, Educated people wait until they are older to have kids people have kids later in life because they live pathetic selfish lifestyles, I say ban IVF then we'll see how many people wait until they are late 30's early 40's to have kids, if you ask me there's something rather unnatural about a person especially a women having a first child when they should be getting close to becoming a grandparent and I think its especially unfair on the child

 

 

 

 

And ironically this post is the biggest load of tosh I've read in my life!

 

 

 

 

[teepeeat]

As an older parent married to an even older partner (ex career woman turned stay at home mum) I do wonder about the whole question of older/younger parents. No regrets - we met late in life, but only time will tell which is best, if any, as it is a relatively new phenomenon. (Nature does seem to go with younger parenting though??)

Only down side I am finding with a very lively 7 year old boy is having to be a bit careful I dont damage something throwing him around and I run out of puff a bit sooner than I'd like

I think the biggest problem is the society we have evolved which puts very un-natural pressures on us.

If Big J and his missus lived in any one of the majority of countries in the world regarded as 'developing', his wife would quite naturally have been able to combine house building with child care. Training is on the job and local. Who needs sky scrapers and business parks really.

Of course other societies have their problems as well, but I think we have veered off on a very self-destructive route since at least the start of the industrial revolution - perhaps a topic for a new thread?

Edited October 16, 2012 by teepeeat

[Andy Collins]

IMHO, I don't think the age thing is the recipe for successful parenting, but the make up of each couple. as I said, I married young, had kids young, did the right thing and still do 25 years on, others won't. With age can come certain advantages, obviously more money behind you, maybe more content with your lot, done the flirting and messing about and got it out of your system before settling down. But there are exceptions to all, irresponsible types in all age groups which will be cited as society gone bad. I'm now a (young) grandad, hopefully I'll be able to enjoy grandchildren until they too reach maturity, something older parents will not be able to do, except from a retirement home.

[freddie the shed]

yes we used to be almost self sufficient in the war years with the germans stopping all our imports we had to dig for victory . i dont think this government gives an iota about the green belt with all the proposed planning changes, we need land

[difflock]

No!

We need fewer people.

Simples.

[Treewolf]

There's clearly a lot of emotion and feeling in this thread, and some very polarised views!

 

I think that there is unquestionably a problem brewing with the uncontrolled expansion of the world's population, and I don't understand how anyone can fail to see this. I can understand why no-one (especially politicians) talk about it, after all it is hardly a vote-winner. We can't solve our own national problems, and if you look round the world as a whole there is zero chance of a global agreement on population control.

 

It is also easy to understand how unwittingly it has come about. In the hunter-gatherer days we ran after our food or collected it, and if we failed we died. There were (probably) no fat people, they died (or more likely couldn't get fat in the first place). There were no seriously ill, or crippled people (at least not for long), they died. If there was a famine, everyone died! Tough, but entirely natural. It had the effect of meaning that the healthiest people, the successful hunter-gatherers, bred, thus making it likely that the next generation was healthy. Strong babies grew up strong, weak babies died. All very tough and unfair, but nature's way. (A few years ago I watched a female wolf give birth to a litter of pups. She then moved one pup across the den away from the other and left it. She knew it was weak and wouldn't survive, so there was no point expending any effort on it. Very sensible, but the cold logic is unacceptable to humans. We did, incidentally take the pup to try to save it but were unable to and it did die, the other grew up strong and healthy). This is how nature works.

 

As we have evolved and become "superior" to other creatures we have changed. We no longer need to be fit nor healthy, and are now able to cure diseases that would once have killed us, save babies that would once have died, and so on. People who would never have survived into adulthood now not only do so but can breed effectively (and often with a disproportionate vigour). We can feed ourselves and our families without any problems, and without any physical effort or fitness. Fat people can live as effectively as skinnies. We have removed most dangers and hardships from our lives, so stupid people no longer kill themselves in bizarre accidents. We reward profligacy and idleness to the extent that there is no longer any incentive to work. We have transport infrastructure to mean that there is great mobility of people and produce, so that natural disasters like famine, flood, and earthquakes do not have the same mortality rates as they once would. We also use teechnology and mechanisation to means that fewer people are needed to support society, so more people can sit at home, watch daytime TV and have unintentional pregnancies (which we then reward with more "benefit" payments)! The consequence is that the population is increasing rapidly at a time when the need for people is decreasing. Since bored people breed, the rate if increase is itself increasing.

 

We now have the means to implement huge changes to our environment if we think it will help us, whether it is building new roads, or more drastically altering nature in ways that bring consequences we cannot begin to predict. we think nothing of eliminating other species if we think they are a "problem", such as the extirpation of wolves in the wild (look at what happened post 1924 in Yellowstone), or the extirmination of badgers in the wild. We don't even know if badgers are the cause of bovine TB, and have no idea what the effect of having no badgers will be on the ecosystem, but what the hell, let's kill them all anyway! We eliminate smallpox only to find something worse then emerges. We dish out antibiotics like smarties only to find that we then have antibiotic-resistant infections. Wow, there's a surprise!

 

None of this is necessarily a bad thing (well, some of it is very bad), but with it comes responsibility, the responsibilty to see the problems that change will create and takes steps to prevent them.

 

In the past there have been many events both natural and man-made which have done something towards keeping things in check. Nature's way is famine and pestilence - the Black Death for example, Spanish Flu. Now we can react fast enough to produce vaccines for most things and limit the death toll. Nature's reaction to this is to evolve nasties which mutate faster and faster, like the Bird Flu. Or we have wars, like WWs 1 and 2, in which of course the people most likely to die are males of peak breeding age. Modern warfare (at least between advanced nations) increasingly will be fought by machines and technology and human casualties are likely to be reduced, however the likelihood of war between such is less than the likelihood of war between less advanced nations, which will most probably be more traditional.

 

Where will it end? My view is that most of the "green" things we are encouraged to do are actually pretty pointless, like peeing on a bonfire, unless we can agree a global strategy on populaton. I personally don't think that humans are capable of managing the human population of the planet (except through war) and ultimately are doomed to self destruction. War seems pretty probably, most likely a religious war (aren't they all). If we can't do it ourselves, then nature will wipe most of us out with a flu epidemic or similiar.

 

It is also worth remembering that there have been several mass extinctions in the millions of years before we evolved, and a meteorite strike could wipe us out tomorrow and there is absolutely nothing anyone could do about it.

 

Bottom line, the human race is doomed. Live for today, enjoy life while you can, don't take it too seriously, and when the time comes to pass on do it with grace, dignity, and gratitude for whatever you've had.

 

And please note that this post is not intended to offend anyone, it is just my foolish ramblings intended to stimulate hopefully constructive thought and debate.

[Le Sanglier]

All this hand wringing is doing no good, the question is "what are we as tree surgeons (the go-to group for all the world's problems") going to do about this?

I have the answer: if while quoting in a posh area with seemingly responsible middle class parents, one asks the client how many children they have, if in your opinion (as the arbiter of these things) they could improve the gene pool with another sprog, you offer a discount if he goes upstairs with the missus and has a go at another. (you will need to witness the act in order to ensure value for money) if he refuses or is "not in the mood" offer your own services and hey presto! another Toby or Jemima on the way.

Conversely whilst in Liverpool or somewhere dreadful like that ooop north, stop a Chav on the street and ask him how fertile him and Bianca/Jordan/Chelsea are. if in your opinion they are opossum like in their reproduction take your chainsaw and effect a quick sterilization, A few less Shakiras and Tysons.

Once again Arboriculturalists save the day!

Ps if you think this is a stupid post read some of the rest of the rot posted earlier

[Dean Lofthouse]

All we are is matter/ atoms/ energy, infact everything in the universe is.

 

We need energy to survive otherwise we become lifeless and we can only live if that energy is available to support us, at the moment it isn't, eventually we will reach a point where the energy available will not be enough to support life on earth.

 

However, we are on the verge of being able to create an unlimited energy source called fusion power, in other words making energy from Hydrogen atoms, the most abundant concentrated energy source in the universe.

 

When that happens, we will be able to cram as many humans on the planet as is possible, we may even have to move off this planet and inhabit other planets such as the moon. With this new found power supply we can do anything

 

In the mean time we will just have to leave it to nature and the next plague or virus to thin us out, because we cannot do it ourselves as a whole.

 

On the whole humans are by nature, selfish, arrogant and greedy, you only need to stand in the queue at Mc D,s to witness this

Edited October 17, 2012 by Dean Lofthouse

[difflock]

Sniff!

One does NOT queue in M'D's (Or perhaps that is some sort of medical surgery I am unaware of?)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

 

.

One queues at the bar in Weatherspoons however.

The White Monk, by Shepard Neame was particularly enjoyable.