Well done Kent Police

[Marco]

Lol - you're lucky it tackles one of my pet hates!

Marco.

[Tim]

Guys you are looking at this the wrong way, the bigger picture is different IMO. We shouldn't be thinking of restricting the numbers of cars, cars themselves aren't the problem . . . we are. We should be restricting the number of babies, as ultimately that's the real problem, over-population.

The biggest threat to the continued existence of the human race is us. We are not sustainable, not the planet, the planet would do very nicely without us thank-you, in fact it would thrive. A rather drastic solution? . . . absolutely . . . and in reality it's never going to happen, unless nature or disease culls us. But that's the only real answer, less people.

I'll get my coat . . . .

[struth]

Indeed, humans, especially in areas of globe where surviving is difficult are having continued population explosions, partly due to better medicines etc but still a shortage of food and water.
Countries like UK requires immigration to keep population at a stable size and age. We here breed less but live too long in general.
It's quite complex and no simple idea will fix it

[Joe]

But that's the only real answer, less people.

I'll get my coat . . . .

I should think so, too. Less people indeed. Fewer people, surely? Anyway, I've added two, won't be adding more, so fair play to me.

[Marco]

Guys you are looking at this the wrong way, the bigger picture is different IMO. We shouldn't be thinking of restricting the numbers of cars, cars themselves aren't the problem . . . we are. We should be restricting the number of babies, as ultimately that's the real problem, over-population.

The biggest threat to the continued existence of the human race is us. We are not sustainable, not the planet, the planet would do very nicely without us thank-you, in fact it would thrive. A rather drastic solution? . . . absolutely . . . and in reality it's never going to happen, unless nature or disease culls us. But that's the only real answer, less people.

I'll get my coat . . . .

You forgot to answer post 80, daftee!

Aside from that, I sympathise with what you've just written. Consider this, however: how do we improve the quality of the gene pool, not simply reduce the human population, as it often seems that the biggest idiots/knuckle-draggers have the most kids? Why is that?

They seem to think that popping out sprogs is their only purpose in life... If they showed a little more 'imagination', things could be different!

<Discuss>

Marco.

P.S I'll join you behind that sofa!

[Gaz]

You forgot to answer post 80, daftee!

Aside from that, I sympathise with what you've just written. Consider this, however: how do we improve the quality of the gene pool, not simply reduce the human population, as it often seems that the biggest idiots/knuckle-draggers have the most kids? Why is that?

They seem to think that popping out sprogs is their only purpose in life... If they showed a little more 'imagination' things could be different!

<Discuss>

Marco.

P.S I'll join you behind that sofa!

That'll be because they get financially rewarded for it, more kids equals more benefits.

[Joe]

That'll be because they get financially rewarded for it, more kids equals more benefits.

The cost of raising children far exceeds the amount of benefits each additional child attracts, so they're not being rewarded in net financial terms. It's basically an educational 'thing'; in developed countries, on average, the more educated people are, the fewer children they are likely to have, and the longer they delay before starting families. Over time, such countries may then face the problems arising from an ageing population with too few younger people to support it. In poorer countries, more children equal more wealth, because they are put to work at a very early age (as they were in this country until the late 19th century).

As for 'improving the gene pool', that's impossible to do, because it's unknowable how the combination of any two sets of genes will work out. The Hapsburg royal family refused to marry anyone they considered inferior, with terrible problems resulting from inter-breeding. Mix-and-match is best; mongrels are usually healthier than thoroughbreds.

[struth]

you get £13.70 for each additional kid after first. if you can bring a kid up on that and also live the fat life, good on you

[Marco]

So if it's not for financial reward, why the obsession with popping out sprogs in large numbers, in our supposedly 'developed' country? I'm tempted to say, as per the proposed cars-per-houshold rule, 'two is plenty'...

Marco.

[mikmas]

So if it's not for financial reward, why the obsession with popping out sprogs in large numbers, in our supposedly 'developed' country? I'm tempted to say, as per the proposed cars-per-houshold rule, 'two is plenty'...

Marco.

You'll be pleased to hear that your target has already been well met:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42110846

Contrary to populist belief, the number of children per family in the UK has been steadily declining for decades now - and the number of single person households significantly increasing.
Households with more than two children form a significant minority by a long chalk:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ouseholds/2017

One of the reasons why we are so dependent on immigrant labour to fulfil our economic needs