: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:13 pm  

Stealth Comic wrote:

You wouldn't because funnily enough only women can have kids.

Yes, but without men it would currently be tricky (though seemingly not impossible) to create them in the first place!

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:23 pm  

Stealth Comic wrote:

I just wish that polititians would stop pussyfooting around this issue.

The reason we have this problem is because the world has far too many people and not enough resources.

The only way we're ever going sort climate change out is to get a worldwide agreement on curbing population growth, which globally is expected to 9 billion by 2050.

This may sound drastic but I'd start by sterilising women after they have a second child.

You have a very good point, but its no good controling population if we don't also change our behaviour.

Its interesting that "big business" including oil companies, not only denied climate change existed but "paid" scientists to say so.

Its even more interesting that now they have been backed into a corner they try to gain favour by developing Bio fuels and probably making a lot of money out of doing so. If they could get away with charging 50p or even a pound more per litre of petrol they would do. As someone has said, some businesses are just greedy and appear to feel very little moral obligation (until they are exposed).

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:29 pm  

StephanieM wrote:

Yes, but without men it would currently be tricky (though seemingly not impossible) to create them in the first place!

If every woman in the world only gave birth to 2 kids the world's population would eventually fall (unless infant mortality rates were zero).

The only part men are involved with is sleeping with a woman and getting her pregnant (and hopefully doing the honourable thing and looking after her and the kids which we all know some bast*rds don't do).

Even if some men were complete ars*holes and had 10 kids to 5 different women all it wouldn't contribute to an overall population growth. Which is why Men wouldn't need the snip.

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:49 pm  

Dreamer wrote:

You have a very good point, but its no good controling population if we don't also change our behaviour.

Its interesting that "big business" including oil companies, not only denied climate change existed but "paid" scientists to say so.

Its even more interesting that now they have been backed into a corner they try to gain favour by developing Bio fuels and probably making a lot of money out of doing so. If they could get away with charging 50p or even a pound more per litre of petrol they would do. As someone has said, some businesses are just greedy and appear to feel very little moral obligation (until they are exposed).

Attitudes do need to change.

As individuals we have an awful lot more power than we think we have in order to change things.

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:10 pm  

Stealth Comic I agree with your idea that as individuals we have power but not as much as would change things dramatically.

When you see these protesters at for example the present summit or g20 the idiots with only violence in mind undermine the rest to the point of being sterile.

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:13 pm  

Stealth Comic wrote:

If every woman in the world only gave birth to 2 kids the world's population would eventually fall (unless infant mortality rates were zero).

The only part men are involved with is sleeping with a woman and getting her pregnant (and hopefully doing the honourable thing and looking after her and the kids which we all know some bast*rds don't do).

Even if some men were complete ars*holes and had 10 kids to 5 different women all it wouldn't contribute to an overall population growth. Which is why Men wouldn't need the snip.

Dont get me wrong, because more than a number of women around my area of Huddy have had my 2 (which thankfully I never did) and a few others as well!

I think for some the trouble is it comes back to the only way to get cheap accomodation from the council nowadays is if you produce kids, so youngsters will get pregnant for that reason alone. Fine if they stopped at one, but how often do they?

So dont get me wrong, I like the idea of sterilisation after so many kids, just think men might think about the matter of putting 'buns in ovens' more if they were only allowed so many as well!

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:15 pm  

Give all teenagers till at least 18 chastity belts

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:17 pm  

Stealth Comic wrote: You wouldn't because funnily enough only women can have kids. You need to smell the coffee

Stealth Comic wrote: You wouldn't because funnily enough only women can have kids. You need to smell the coffee

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:13 pm  

guess who wrote: You need to smell the coffee Old Skool Hip Hop, Quality.

guess who wrote: You need to smell the coffee Old Skool Hip Hop, Quality.

: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:27 pm  

girl power wrote:

Stealth Comic I agree with your idea that as individuals we have power but not as much as would change things dramatically.

When you see these protesters at for example the present summit or g20 the idiots with only violence in mind undermine the rest to the point of being sterile.

Change can be more subtle than protesting.

If a large corporation uses unethical practices, don't buy their products or use their services. If enough people agree and it hurts their bottom line they'll either stop or go under.

A lot of it is down to apathy. The one that springs to mind is the old "why should I bother putting energy saving bulbs in when China's opening a new coal power station every month.?"

A single individual can only make a small change, but if many individuals all make the same small change it can make a massive change.

It's what free market economics and democracy are all about, we've just got to use it properly.