UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt

[Antaletriangle]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5950442.ece

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.

Related Links
The fight to get aboard Lifeboat UK
Shockwaves are the stock in trade of this father of the apocalypse
“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

“We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder,” he said.

Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.

Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”

The Tory leader, David Cameron, has also suggested Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.

Despite these comments, however, government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy. ”

[Steve_A]

Hi Antaletriangle,

It's about time somebody spoke out. I was a little suprised to see the article in The Times, a mainstream media outlet.

People in the 70's criticized Kissinger for his take on the worlds' population calling for population reduction and control back then:

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/foo...m_jb_1995.html

The Porritt now calls for a reduction of over 50% of the population of the UK. That's a lot of corpses to dispose of. How can get so many corpses? With a good old war:

http://www.projectcamelot.org/Report...n_Mountain.pdf

Let's wait and see.

Best regards,

Steve

Originally Posted by Antaletriangle

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5950442.ece

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.

Related Links
The fight to get aboard Lifeboat UK
Shockwaves are the stock in trade of this father of the apocalypse
“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

“We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder,” he said.

Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.

Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”

The Tory leader, David Cameron, has also suggested Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.

Despite these comments, however, government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy. ”

[Antaletriangle]

Yeah Steve it concocts loads of ideas and viewpoints these type of statements-the U.K. is massively overpopulated per head per acre.There must be 70 million in the U.K. presently.The census figures are easily outstripped month to month besides the immigrants that do actually get through without any documentation.It does need to be addressed-the monies spent on war could easily go into other resources such as developing islands with sustainable energy systems etc to help and dissipate the population more.Just ideas i put forward instead of the war scenario which should be very outdated in a supposed spiritually civilised society.

[She-Ra]

Yep we've taken over and pushed the envrionment back and other species out.

They could do it cumulatively as it appears they are doing e.g. war (international and civil), pestilence, food/water/energy shortages, currency failure and relying on import for food and manufacturing. But a question is - surely they've got an idea (whether the published figure is really reflective or not) of how many people they want left, but how will they discriminate the 'types' of people they want i.e. how will they be able to keep the workforce they want in a society with so many work sectors? They'll want people to clear up the mess, physical and otherwise, but what else will they want them for?

[Jacqui D]

Surely this is a worldwide problem, our little isles may not be so over populated if the government in the first place didn't open our borders to so many other countries for assylam.
We know the agenda is de population now they are clawing at ways of pushing this.
Another war would do it i guess, or a pandemic, or carry on with the recession i expect there hoping for a few suicides next.
But it's ludicrus saying this when the government themselves brought about this problem in the Uk.
It's laughable really

[She-Ra]

I think the main competing factor of over population is breeding - not or not only movement of people. Britain as unified country didn't open its borders, it realised that it had made an empire and had the ability to spread its core base to wherever it wanted to and then had to allow its other subjects to move within its empire as well. That then spread to refugees/asylum seekers and rich immigrants from other areas where Britain didn't have overt control over but usually had a financial influence with (there are plenty of areas that don't get such opportunity but Britain doesn't have a hand in the pocket so why bother?). British people are themselves a mix of races with very few 'pure' indigineous people left and those few and their later mixed children were travellers - and it has to be acknowledged that just because you go to a country doesn't mean you can lock the door behind you. Immigrants from the last 'settled'/accepted group of British people considered to be British e.g. Victorian thereabouts (and not including those who became or were born citizens afterwards), are still a tiny percentage of the overall population but their numbers with the accepted British people have over bred and sexuality glamourised without responsibility and practicality of what having children really entails to the individuals involved, society and the surrounding enviroment. Over breeding is an age old problem preceding governments 'allowing' immigration and has caused the same scenario in most reasonably habitable places worldwide.

Note - it's interesting that people more readily accept conqeured and hence the mixed breeding that follows as an accepted race of a country moreso than people who come after.

[Jacqui D]

I can see what you are saying SHE RA, yes i have to agree that there are a lot of young British girls who find that a good way of getting a pretty easy life is becoming pregnant and then falling on the state for handouts, it has been made very easy for them.
Morality has gone i feel and once where you were frowned upon finding yourself in such a position today it is just another way of making money.
But i still stand my ground and say that there are still many asylam seekers who feel this is the land of plenty and in a way it is for some.
Whilst British people have been known to have large families such as they did in the Victorian days it is known that at a lot of the eastern block countries seem to have larger ones.
I hope i haven't offended anyone here but i still say the problem with this country is the easy access of these countries coming through.

[alyscat]

I've often hear that theory stated in the US, re: people having children to live on the dole, but I will tell you, the amount of money someone gets for AFDC per child is WAY below the poverty line, and it comes with a limited time and work requirement. Don't know about the UK.
alys

[Steve_A]

Hi She-Ra,

Pestilence and shortages of food, water & energy are a consequence of over population, which naturally will control to a certain degree populations.

The political problem is that expansion or growth has always been seen as something of success and hs always been encouraged.

The economical stress now is caused by the fact that consumption has all but stopped growing and in some cases is receeding.

As a solution for population growth, I can only see systems like the Chinese are imposing, which is ironic as China is the most highly populated country in the world at the moment.

I have been thinking a great deal about this and am currently searching for a peaceful way of reducing the population, however, my opinion would be deemed by the Catholic church as obscene. I would encourage women and men (especially the men) after their first child to steralization until the population is reduced to a more manageable number.

With less people on the planet there will be more resources for the world, everybody could die naturally in peace and there would be less need for war.

As for what type of people they wish to remain after reduction I would imagine that people who contribute something will be those who are spared, for example, great minds, intellects, younger, stronger people preferably actively employed so thay can show immediately their talent.

Those people who are of low intelligence, who suck the system rather than contribute to the system can be sacrificed. I also think that the elderly will be spared out of respect of their contribution to society during their 'active' era of their lives.

It's a great topic for discussion.

Best regards,

Steve

Best regards,

Steve

Originally Posted by She-Ra

Yep we've taken over and pushed the envrionment back and other species out.

They could do it cumulatively as it appears they are doing e.g. war (international and civil), pestilence, food/water/energy shortages, currency failure and relying on import for food and manufacturing. But a question is - surely they've got an idea (whether the published figure is really reflective or not) of how many people they want left, but how will they discriminate the 'types' of people they want i.e. how will they be able to keep the workforce they want in a society with so many work sectors? They'll want people to clear up the mess, physical and otherwise, but what else will they want them for?

[She-Ra]

I don't agree in the slightest that it's easy for girls to get pregnant and leave easily on welfare - they don't get pregnant by themselves, welfare is not much to live on as a single person let alone with children and it's not free money - those (with the allowance of exceptions, but they are exceptions not the general) who have an 'easy life' that way usually have some other income as well, legal or otherwise.

You don't have to have large families to have over breeding - individuals and couples as small units can have 1 or few children but all those small units and lack of sustainability for those units adds up to over breeding just as people having lots of children does.

Easy access? I've been wanting to marry my partner for 6 years but he's a US citizen and I'm a UK citizen and it isn't 'easy' at all, not unless you want to get married without asking the authorities first and even then can be separated or putting th cart before th horse and having children in order to be allowed to be together rather than the other way round and what if you don't want children yet or at all? It's only 'easy' for those who know how to work the system, and that minority is given all the highlight and hence undue proportion in the perception of immigration.

[She-Ra]

Originally Posted by Steve_A

Hi She-Ra,

Pestilence and shortages of food, water & energy are a consequence of over population, which naturally will control to a certain degree populations.

The political problem is that expansion or growth has always been seen as something of success and hs always been encouraged.

The economical stress now is caused by the fact that consumption has all but stopped growing and in some cases is receeding.

As a solution for population growth, I can only see systems like the Chinese are imposing, which is ironic as China is the most highly populated country in the world at the moment.

I have been thinking a great deal about this and am currently searching for a peaceful way of reducing the population, however, my opinion would be deemed by the Catholic church as obscene. I would encourage women and men (especially the men) after their first child to steralization until the population is reduced to a more manageable number.

With less people on the planet there will be more resources for the world, everybody could die naturally in peace and there would be less need for war.

As for what type of people they wish to remain after reduction I would imagine that people who contribute something will be those who are spared, for example, great minds, intellects, younger, stronger people preferably actively employed so thay can show immediately their talent.

Those people who are of low intelligence, who suck the system rather than contribute to the system can be sacrificed. I also think that the elderly will be spared out of respect of their contribution to society during their 'active' era of their lives.

It's a great topic for discussion.

Best regards,

Steve

Best regards,

Steve

I agree Steve, I was going to mention China too and that at the moment is seems our governing bodies might not want to place overt stipulations in that way. I also agree on people thinking more about whether they can and should reproduce and that contraception (including reversible vasectomies) is much easier and safer for men biologically than for women but unfortunately the question of trust comes into that which is why many advisors put the onus on the female. Then there is society's attitude towards females and maternity in general which does not help.

What you have said in regards to the people who would be chosen or left is interesting - I suppose I'm wondering if complex social structure fits into the planning at all or if many of us will be looked upon as a base labour force perhaps regardless of intelligence or ability, physical or mental. I'm wondering about that in part because I don't believe that live in a meritocratic society and that many people end up in jobs or professions that they aren't primarily 'suited' to or would have chosen for themselves, they may be good at what they do but also have skills and knowledge elsewhere. But if mass culling were to take place it would seem too much bother to discriminate and find who would be best for what on an individual basis and irrespective of what they were currently doing - it would seem more efficient to just take the 'best and brightest' of the professions they want, from manual labour to doctors, based on who is in the field already?

[Jacqui D]

I'm sorry i have to disagree with you about it not being easy to a flat, or help with child care and financial help with that childs needs.
It has become to easy for them, i know many teenage girls my own daughters friends who have milked the situation i don't think it is a minority at all.
It seems the done thing these days.
These girls have multiple partners most of the time with little or no help from the fathers again and again these girls come another statistic.
They have free nursery places when the children are of age giving the mother help to return to work also something we never had in my days we had to pay for nursery care.
Yes i agree benefit is no substantial amount to live on and you are living on the poverty line as i have known to well, i care for my husband who has himself health problems so i know what that feels like.
No it's this continuing way of thinking by some of the young not all i know there are many out there who do not have this mindset.
But there is still this few be it a very large few who think they are owed something in this life before it has even began.

When a good night out drinking and money spent on cigarettes come first for these girls i have to wonder if the childs needs are put first in many cases it isn't.

[burgundia]

Free contraception pills to people in poor countries, before we come up with something else on a large scale.

[She-Ra]

I agree more with that post Jacqui D, it seems to contradict the original one I disagreed with because it explains that it's not a money making life since yes it's on the poverty line and it's brought on by lack of responsible parenting, education and social attitude/advertising. They do indeed become another statistic and they need help and a lot more in my opinion because they are little more than children themselves and yes it's not a good situation for them or their children who are also perhaps unwanted. But obviously, prevention is needed far more but the cure i.e. the social support has to be available for when it's too late.

I stated that those with the easy life on benefits, pertaining to single young mothers, are in the minority because like you said, they are living on the poverty line. As you've know it's not easy, and for them in particular raising children and them being so immature is not easy either. Also, since the female is usually left carrying the baby, the lack of mutual help and growth from the fathers makes it worse, single mothers still far vastly outnumber single fathers. The lazy attitude of those people who think they are owed a living is definitely not helped by this because at that point they are trapped in circle, especially if they become lazy parents or parents without enough access to assistance. There are very few places in England for example that are able to offer thorough pre and post natal educational, mental and physical support let alone support throughout the pregnancy or birth with many women left alone and scared. There is more assistance available than before but surely that's a good thing and it's the past wasn't entirely harder than now for example, mothers were not pressured into work until their children were 16-18 previously.

I agree that laziness, apathy and egocentric concern amongst the children to approx 26-28 year olds has increased and that they associate a disproportionate amount of reward for action and that if there is no reward why bother?

Burgundia - one major problem with that, if by poor countries you mean 'third world' and developing countries is that the religious bodies in many such places are very much against contraception/birth control and abortion and there is still a lot of stigma against girls who are unwed and pregnant and even those who miscarry, wed or not.

[Egg]

They will have their reduction by winter 2011, if not sooner. Thats if the writing on the wall is even half correct.

[Swanny]

Career babies are the fashion these days in UK
They don't give a monkeys who the father is he's not part of the plan

[Humble Janitor]

Geez, I'm against population reduction unless it's done by means of birth control and education (see Kerala, India for an example of a society with 0 population growth and an literacy rate of 88% for both men and women).

The more they talk about it, the more they seem to have something planned. We shouldn't go along with it. It's a trap.