Protect the green belt (From York Press)

Except the crises in the economy and the environment are not caused by there being too many people.

They're caused by the insatiable greed of the people who rule over us.

Trying to reduce the population would make things worse, not better.

Zetkin wrote:
Except the crises in the economy and the environment are not caused by there being too many people.

They're caused by the insatiable greed of the people who rule over us.

Trying to reduce the population would make things worse, not better.

The current economic crisis may have very little to do with population, but the environmental problems clearly do. There are limited resources on the planet. Technology allows for increased efficiency of resources, but when the population is growing faster than the increase in efficiency, then the environment will suffer.

Of course, if we *all* tried to use fewer resources, or sought to promote technologies that are most efficient, then the rate of destruction would slow. One fairly easy way to reduce resource use is change to a vegetarian diet. Everyone needs to take some responsibility and not just pass on the blame to those 'who rule over us'.

I agree with John Ward's point re limiting child benefit, though believe any savings made should be used to increase the benefit of the first born. I suspect it's easy to initially underestimate the cost of raising a child, but once parents have a good idea how much things cost, they should not expect the state to bail them out if they have loads of kids.

Crisis at the moment is a result of what happens when you pray too often to the God Capitalism. When you give the keys of social justice to those who are only motivated by profit.

We have reached a situation where not only banks can go bust, but whole countries. And not the 'usual suspects' - but nations such as Greece, Spain, Italy and hold your breath, even France (just wait).

I am NOT a communist, or an anti-Tory raver, I'm someone who is genuinely frightened to be living through the start of something that will be so clearly a revolution - albeit an economic revolution. I don't doubt good will come from these changes, but the transition will be painful. Very painful. Osborne hasn't a clue.

The suggestion for everybody to become vegitarians to reduce environmental destruction is a bit odd... as that would mean more plants being eaten, so more fields would be artifically managed to grow only certain plants. In addition, vegitarians **** more than carnivores, so more methane going into the atmosphere! Also, God made us with teeth designed for ripping meat (Incisors).

--

The key problem with regards to green belt encroachment is housing for those reliant on benefits. Yes there are a lot of people who do require council houses for whatever reason... but there are also those who, upon getting a house and benefits, realsie they're onto a good thing and just keep on popping the sprogs out to get more benefits, whilst others do that so as to be moved up the priority list for housing. Personally in the current climate I think it would be an idea to introduce a restriction whereby if a person or couple are claiming benefits they are not allowed to have any further children without a benefits sanction unless the child is put up for adoption. It sounds incredibly harsh, though not quite as bad as communist China's policies whereby if a person cann't pay the child tax they are forced to abort the baby, but without such desperate measures combined with a review on immigration then our population will just keep growing and we'll run out of resources. People may want to move to this country to escape overpopulation where they are, but if everybody did that then we'd be overpopulated like India!

I think it would be an idea to introduce a restriction whereby if a person or couple are claiming benefits they are not allowed to have any further children without a benefits sanction unless the child is put up for adoption.

I've heard it all now.

Some good comments on this one although I believe zetkin has lost the plot.
Just building more houses will encourage a higher still population, exactly the same argument the Greens use against new road building. (Encouraging more vehicles) The difference is that if you have a reducing population then you are not likely to see more traffic and with that the use of Earths' resources.
It is strange that there is no limit on population, such as the Bulgarian man and his girlfriend, a family of nine on the front page of one news paper here to sponge off our welfare state. (An example of immigration Matt) Or Mick Philpott whose offspring goes into double digits! However, just think of all the choices taken away from our people, such as the choice of analogue TV and the continued use of the VCR, finding a decent light bulb that does not take an age to light up, finding petrol that is not laced with dangerous and highly subsidised Ethanol contaminating our petrol or the choice not to pay the hidden Green charges on one's energy bills. Lets face it, we don't have much say in matters these days and don't be surprised to see the Green belt covered in housing and stupid highly subsidised wind farms. BTW, the fastest growing population on Earth is the Gaza Strip, followed by Bangladesh. But India is closing in on China's 1.2+ Billion people. China's population is stabilising because of the one child policy but also as a result of mass emigration.

Re Magicman.

In fact, far less land is needed to grow plants to feed vegetarians. Why? Because if you eat meat, you have to grow crops to feed the animals in the first place.It's an extra step in the food chain. Far less land would be used on a vegetarian/vegan diet because you wouldn't need to grow stuff to feed farm animals.

And just because we have teeth that means we can eat meat, doesn't mean we must eat meat. Just because we physically can kill babies, doesn't mean we should kill babies...