|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 8, 2023 15:33:20 GMT
How many fewer Africans would remove the carbon footprint of one fat westerner? It's around 15 I believe. British women used to have an average of 2.6 children. Now it is fewer than 1.6. For the first time ever last year, half of women reached their 30th birthday without having a child. The fertility rate in the UK is now well below replacement rate and it continues to fall, meanwhile... The populations of more than half of Africa's 54 nations will double – or more – by 2050, the product of sustained high fertility and improving mortality rates. The continent will then be home to at least 25% of the world's population, compared with less than 10% in 1950. The combined population of both China and India are estimated to be over 2.8 billion people as of 2022. Asia's population is projected to grow to 5.25 billion by 2055, or about 54% of projected world population at that time. It would of course be racist to suggest that anyone with dark skin should have fewar babies. In the UK equality and equal opportunities happened. Simple as that. Things moved quickly from giving women choice to brainwashing them to believe that somehow being a fulltime homemaker and mother diminishes them. At the same time the economics moved it from being a choice to being a necessity. Finally the costs associated with having someone else raise your children while you work went through the roof. Having children has become cost prohibitive particularly for those just starting to build their careers in their 20s Is it any wonder people wait until later in life, and then have fewer children - Of course not. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 9, 2023 7:22:03 GMT
On the Brightside they have proven on the whole you are just pointless entities while you can be locked up at will and have no point in society. Society can be run by a very few people while the rest of you can be kept as pets. Or not as the case might be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 9, 2023 8:17:11 GMT
British women used to have an average of 2.6 children. Now it is fewer than 1.6. For the first time ever last year, half of women reached their 30th birthday without having a child. The fertility rate in the UK is now well below replacement rate and it continues to fall, meanwhile... The populations of more than half of Africa's 54 nations will double – or more – by 2050, the product of sustained high fertility and improving mortality rates. The continent will then be home to at least 25% of the world's population, compared with less than 10% in 1950. The combined population of both China and India are estimated to be over 2.8 billion people as of 2022. Asia's population is projected to grow to 5.25 billion by 2055, or about 54% of projected world population at that time. It would of course be racist to suggest that anyone with dark skin should have fewar babies. In the UK equality and equal opportunities happened. Simple as that. Things moved quickly from giving women choice to brainwashing them to believe that somehow being a fulltime homemaker and mother diminishes them. At the same time the economics moved it from being a choice to being a necessity. Finally the costs associated with having someone else raise your children while you work went through the roof. Having children has become cost prohibitive particularly for those just starting to build their careers in their 20s Is it any wonder people wait until later in life, and then have fewer children - Of course not. That doesn't explain or excuse the population explosion in Africa and Asia. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 9, 2023 8:44:47 GMT
In the UK equality and equal opportunities happened. Simple as that. Things moved quickly from giving women choice to brainwashing them to believe that somehow being a fulltime homemaker and mother diminishes them. At the same time the economics moved it from being a choice to being a necessity. Finally the costs associated with having someone else raise your children while you work went through the roof. Having children has become cost prohibitive particularly for those just starting to build their careers in their 20s Is it any wonder people wait until later in life, and then have fewer children - Of course not. That doesn't explain or excuse the population explosion in Africa and Asia. Or the one in England for that matter.
In less than 25 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 9, 2023 11:27:54 GMT
In the UK equality and equal opportunities happened. Simple as that. Things moved quickly from giving women choice to brainwashing them to believe that somehow being a fulltime homemaker and mother diminishes them. At the same time the economics moved it from being a choice to being a necessity. Finally the costs associated with having someone else raise your children while you work went through the roof. Having children has become cost prohibitive particularly for those just starting to build their careers in their 20s Is it any wonder people wait until later in life, and then have fewer children - Of course not. That doesn't explain or excuse the population explosion in Africa and Asia. I wasn't trying to. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 9, 2023 11:31:56 GMT
That doesn't explain or excuse the population explosion in Africa and Asia. Or the one in England for that matter.
In less than 25 years.
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 9, 2023 11:33:37 GMT
Or the one in England for that matter.
In less than 25 years.
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. We don't rely on it, that is complete lies. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 9, 2023 11:41:40 GMT
Or the one in England for that matter.
In less than 25 years.
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. I thought that the inability of the British government to monitor and control immigration was one of the principal, if not the principal, reason for leaving the EU.
So how come seven years after the vote they still can't get round to doing it?
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 9, 2023 12:48:58 GMT
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. I thought that the inability of the British government to monitor and control immigration was one of the principal, if not the principal, reason for leaving the EU.
So how come seven years after the vote they still can't get round to doing it?
I don't know what the principle reason for leaving the EU was. I know there were lots of slogans bandied about by campaigners - 'We want our sovereignty back, free movement of people, trade deals, lets fund our NHS instead' etc etc. As to why people voted the way they did I've no idea. I'm sure every individual voter had one or more reasons for their voting choice, but i wouldn't presume to tread voters of either side with contempt by presuming they were one homologous group or that their individual decision making process hinged on one issue or soundbite. As to why the government hasn't managed to do anything yet you'd have to ask them. For illegal immigration, the government appears on the face of it to finally be doing something via the illegal immigration bill that would give them powers, that if exercised effectively, might have an impact. For legal migration, they've introduced a points based system to attempt to make sure that those coming in are those that are needed and/or would provide a benefit to the UK. As to why that control hasn't seen a significant reduction in overall numbers of legal migrants again you'd need to ask them. My own suspicion is that for various reasons, the UK needs (or at least the government believes the UK needs) those that are being admitted, and therefore they are stuck with 'do we let in the people that are needed, or cause / exacerbate problem(s) that would have other detrimental effects' and which option does the most harm One would think that if reduction in legal migration would be popular, a vote winner, if there were no barriers to making it happen overnight the government would make it happen overnight because it is in their own self interest. When all is said and done MPs are all shallow vote grabbers driven to retain their positions in Parliament. That it isn't happening suggests there is something else at play that is stopping them. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 9, 2023 12:52:43 GMT
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. We don't rely on it, that is complete lies. 1.) Prove it 2.) If that were true, why wouldn't the government reduce it dramatically. It would be an easy vote winner for them and politicians love easy vote winners. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jun 9, 2023 12:55:04 GMT
We don't rely on it, that is complete lies. 1.) Prove it 2.) If that were true, why wouldn't the government reduce it dramatically. It would be an easy vote winner for them and politicians love easy vote winners. One word for you, lockdown. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 9, 2023 13:12:15 GMT
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. I thought that the inability of the British government to monitor and control immigration was one of the principal, if not the principal, reason for leaving the EU.
So how come seven years after the vote they still can't get round to doing it?
Because every government is useless, incapable of doing anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 9, 2023 13:32:10 GMT
I thought that the inability of the British government to monitor and control immigration was one of the principal, if not the principal, reason for leaving the EU.
. ... One would think that if reduction in legal migration would be popular, a vote winner, if there were no barriers to making it happen overnight the government would make it happen overnight because it is in their own self interest. When all is said and done MPs are all shallow vote grabbers driven to retain their positions in Parliament. That it isn't happening suggests there is something else at play that is stopping them.
I don't believe there is a single poll or survey on record anywhere - and they started doing them in the late 50s - confirming that the public want more immigration rather than less. So why hasn't any political faction ever capitalised on the obvious electoral advantage this presents?
In fact on those rare occasions when a non-mainstream faction like the BNP, or early-stage UKIP, has attempted to do so the mainstream political class along with its close allies in the opinion-forming class always close ranks to prevent the heterodox notion from gaining traction with the voting public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 9, 2023 13:54:43 GMT
... One would think that if reduction in legal migration would be popular, a vote winner, if there were no barriers to making it happen overnight the government would make it happen overnight because it is in their own self interest. When all is said and done MPs are all shallow vote grabbers driven to retain their positions in Parliament. That it isn't happening suggests there is something else at play that is stopping them.
I don't believe there is a single poll or survey on record anywhere - and they started doing them in the late 50s - confirming that the public want more immigration rather than less. So why hasn't any political faction ever capitalised on the obvious electoral advantage this presents?
In fact on those rare occasions when a non-mainstream faction like the BNP, or early-stage UKIP, has attempted to do so the mainstream political class along with its close allies in the opinion-forming class always close ranks to prevent the heterodox notion from gaining traction with the voting public.
They don't need to be close allies, their aim is to preserve the mainstream monopoly at any cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 9, 2023 16:52:25 GMT
It could, which is why it should be monitored and controlled, and ensuring their is no reliance on it that prevents sensible control of it. I thought that the inability of the British government to monitor and control immigration was one of the principal, if not the principal, reason for leaving the EU.
So how come seven years after the vote they still can't get round to doing it?
Excellent question. |
|
