Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


'Remarkable' decline in fertility rates

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

Diggs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:54 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you define 'indigenous'?
____________________
Now - Speed Triple, old ratty GS550, GSXR750M
Gone (in order of ownership) - Raleigh Runabout, AP50, KH125, GP125, KH250, CBX550, Z400, CB750FII, 250LC, GS550, ZXR750H1, Guzzi Targa, GSX750F, KH250 x2, Bimota SB6R and counting...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:53 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

mpd72 CPT wrote:
I'm talking all housing including private. Supply is struggling to meet demand. The town I live in is being destroyed because the government are bribing the local council to approve any development put in for planning. Even their draft budget states something along the lines of "we know that people don't want all these developments, but the government has been throwing cash at us and we've already budgeted for this bribe, so tough shit buttercup, suck it up. This makes a mockery of the consultation process for each development and they go through the process, with no intention of listening to concerns. Where the roads cant cope as they are, they get around planning rules by creating a park and ride. The problem is that the roads are not wide enough for bus lanes, so the bus will sit in the same traffic as the twice the amount of cars. Who's going to use a park and ride to be stuck in the same traffic on a bus as they would in their own car?

It's doubled in size and the infrastructure can't cope.
Where do you think these extra 20,000 people a year are coming from? It's not improving the life for local residents, it's making the quality of life worse.
A quick walk around the town during normal working hours soon tells you. This is why I want control over immigration.

I understand people in other areas probably don't experience what some of us in the South East are seeing, but believe me, if you think the official immigration stats are anywhere near accurate, you're living in a dreamworld.

Of course they don't, any new housing is devaluing theirs. My point was more developers will never meet demand. This (hopefully) illustrates my point:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/mdQHj.gif

Without the government also building houses you're never going to meet demand. It's nothing to do with getting a 'free house', it's about not inflating the rental market and house prices. Obviously too many politicians and influential people have a vested interest to address the issue.

I agree the official immigration stats show an increase from 1998 (iirc) and they've been massaging them down ever since.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:55 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

The UK government does not officially recognise any indigenous peoples within the country.

They can't though, it would fuck up all of their immigration plans if certain people had indigenous rights.

AND, what's the point in wiping out the locals if you then have to be nice to them. It what I tell the jocks, when you can beat us on Culloden Moor you can have wee Kranky ru(i)n your country.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

Diggs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 15:51 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

You do know that in 10 years time, that definition will include half of Cleckhudderbradfax, don't you? Isn't that going to make it difficult to argue the 'indigenous' angle?
____________________
Now - Speed Triple, old ratty GS550, GSXR750M
Gone (in order of ownership) - Raleigh Runabout, AP50, KH125, GP125, KH250, CBX550, Z400, CB750FII, 250LC, GS550, ZXR750H1, Guzzi Targa, GSX750F, KH250 x2, Bimota SB6R and counting...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.

Im-a-Ridah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:27 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Polarbear wrote:
The UK government does not officially recognise any indigenous peoples within the country.

They can't though, it would fuck up all of their immigration plans if certain people had indigenous rights.

AND, what's the point in wiping out the locals if you then have to be nice to them. It what I tell the jocks, when you can beat us on Culloden Moor you can have wee Kranky ru(i)n your country.


Whatever approach used it should be consistent. So if British people don't get special indigenous rights then nor should the Maori in New Zealand, the Aboriginals in Australia and the Indians in the USA. Similarly if those other groups get those rights then so should the Brits. I'm not arguing for or against the indigenous rights, only that it be applied consistently.

Diggs wrote:
You do know that in 10 years time, that definition will include half of Cleckhudderbradfax, don't you? Isn't that going to make it difficult to argue the 'indigenous' angle?


If someone calls themselves a British Pakistani or speaks Urdu at home then no, they aren't British. The statement literally reads "I'm British-Not British", or alternatively that they live here but have a cultural allegiance to a foreign power. It's like if your girlfriend says she wants to marry you, and bring up a family together, but Dave (pictured below) is the only one who can have sex with her and make her pregnant Wink

https://previews.123rf.com/images/paiken/paiken1701/paiken170100049/99202287-handsome-muscular-arabic-black-man-removing-a-leather-coat-showing-six-pack-abs-and-black-under-wear.jpg
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Mart_er6
Nitrous Nuisance



Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:45 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was shouting at the radio when the BBC presenter was stating to an expert that surely reduced global population was a bad thing. Actually it's not and other species on Earth would thank us if we ever manage to reign in our expanding population.

And talking about the UK, despite this story, the ONS predicts UK population is growing by millions for the forseeable future. So this lack of 'fertility' is not impacting UK population growth (unfortunately) which is largely thanks to.. yep, immigration.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections

Also although it's true that developing countries have higher birth rates, it's also true that developed countries produce the most waste that damages the environement - for example the consumption of one US citizen on average is many times the average consumption of a person from some other countries. So it's not as simple as just reducing population, it's reducing consumption and population (especially in developed countries).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita#/media/File:Energy_Use_per_Capita.png

Then there's economic growth which is not as easy to achieve without ever increasing biological work units (people); need to find a way to satisfy increasing GDP (keeps economists happy) whilst not increasing the number of humans significantly anymore.

Oh, and I would guess the reduced 'fertility' is not related to 'fertility' at all but due to improved female education whereby better educated women are choosing to enjoy themselves during more of their life than going through the hazard and hassle of having lots of babies..

Rant over.
____________________
Honda Varadero XL125 "Vara" > Kawasaki ER6F "Smerf" > Triumph Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:40 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mart_er6 wrote:
Oh, and I would guess the reduced 'fertility' is not related to 'fertility' at all but due to improved female education whereby better educated women are choosing to enjoy themselves during more of their life than going through the hazard and hassle of having lots of babies..

Also access to birth control.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mart_er6
Nitrous Nuisance



Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:59 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="M.C"]
Mart_er6 wrote:

Also access to birth control.


Yes, which is requested after education..
____________________
Honda Varadero XL125 "Vara" > Kawasaki ER6F "Smerf" > Triumph Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:04 - 12 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Assuming it's available.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 05:21 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Think I've said it a few times on here now - A mate of mine studied a masters in this sort of thing. It was something to do with human geography and sustainability. He reckons humans can 'comfortably sustain' about 11 billion people. After that, we'll start to have water wars, food rations, fuel rations, or a no-alternative change to veganism for the average prole.

Adding to what grrrrrr said, I don't think there's much wrong with deciding to not have kids. In fact I tend to justify my no-children decision specifically on that basis that there are enough humans on earth already.

As for Itchy's point about pensions and retirement being a blip in the path of 'normal' society, I would like to refute that a wee bit. Sure, it's not 'natural' to promise state-backed freebies to old folk when they get too frail to earn for themselves, but then it's not natural offer state-backed education to every child up to 16 years old either. A lot of fairly new social systems are proving to be quite effective. I don't see why old-age care necessarily needs to be given the boot, out of all the things that could be given the boot.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mart_er6
Nitrous Nuisance



Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:48 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Percy wrote:
Think I've said it a few times on here now - A mate of mine studied a masters in this sort of thing. It was something to do with human geography and sustainability.He reckons humans can 'comfortably sustain' about 11 billion people.


I think he was wrong about 'comfortably sustain'. Unless there's more progress on renewable energy implementation(maybe even fusion!), 11 billion would be an utter ecological disaster (ie. Uncontrollable Global warming and destruction of non-human ecosystem).

I'd say we need an order of magnitude less people; perhaps 1 billion max. Then maybe there could be a better balance between us and everything else and even allow that 1 billion (or less) to have a better quality of life.
____________________
Honda Varadero XL125 "Vara" > Kawasaki ER6F "Smerf" > Triumph Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Diggs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:24 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have stated this opinion before and been poo-poo'd, however I am convinced that the world's population will decrease dramatically in the mid term. We rely upon oil to transport food presently and this fuel will become uneconomic for anything but low volume, high price goods in the near future. This means that our purchase patterns will change dramatically as we will be forced towards a subsistence economy based upon the resurgence of market towns and a form of feudalism. Those presently living near land that can grow food will survive, whereas those living in cities may not.

This is beginning in Britain already with the upsurge of people growing their own veg and fruit in the countryside, and a poor urban population becoming reliant upon food banks.

Membership of the EU will become an irrelevance, as will our trading status with the rest of the worls because the ships we currently use to transport high volume products such as wheat will disappear, to be replaced with sail and solar-powered coastal, river and canal vessels transporting the sorts of things we used to do in the C19, i.e. coal, bricks, seasonal produce etc.

I would say 'watch this space', but this space will no longer exist for ordinary people....


Just my thoughts.
____________________
Now - Speed Triple, old ratty GS550, GSXR750M
Gone (in order of ownership) - Raleigh Runabout, AP50, KH125, GP125, KH250, CBX550, Z400, CB750FII, 250LC, GS550, ZXR750H1, Guzzi Targa, GSX750F, KH250 x2, Bimota SB6R and counting...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mart_er6
Nitrous Nuisance



Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:38 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diggs wrote:
I have stated this opinion before and been poo-poo'd, however I am convinced that the world's population will decrease dramatically in the mid term. We rely upon oil to transport food presently and this fuel will become uneconomic for anything but low volume, high price goods in the near future. ... Just my thoughts.


If the population were to be reduced before the peak-oil apocalypse then the oil remaining would last much longer allowing time for replacements to be sorted out..
____________________
Honda Varadero XL125 "Vara" > Kawasaki ER6F "Smerf" > Triumph Sprint ST 1050
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:58 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Diggs wrote:

Membership of the EU will become an irrelevance, as will our trading status with the rest of the worls because the ships we currently use to transport high volume products such as wheat will disappear, to be replaced with sail and solar-powered coastal, river and canal vessels transporting the sorts of things we used to do in the C19, i.e. coal, bricks, seasonal produce etc.

I would say 'watch this space', but this space will no longer exist for ordinary people....


Just my thoughts.


Very interesting Karma

However. It could actually be a very good thing for the UK in the long term.

If/when fossil fuel power becomes unviable for anything but the most important of freight tasks, much of the world will be reduced to naff electric stuff which will only ever be good for shorter distances.

Meanwhile the UK as an island nation will be able to steam ahead with its sea ports and merchant navy. Ships will use nuclear fuel generators, as is the case for submarines and aircraft carriers already.

I guess nuclear powered locomotives may be possible too. Nuclear shipping technology is already quite advanced though, whereas nobody has ever made a nuclear train.

UK with its ports and shipyards could well become a very special place, in the distant oil-less future. Landlocked nations will be the most fucked. Germany may yet lose the war for Europe. Tally ho, rule Britannia, etc.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:13 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Percy wrote:
As for Itchy's point about pensions and retirement being a blip in the path of 'normal' society, I would like to refute that a wee bit. Sure, it's not 'natural' to promise state-backed freebies to old folk when they get too frail to earn for themselves, but then it's not natural offer state-backed education to every child up to 16 years old either. A lot of fairly new social systems are proving to be quite effective. I don't see why old-age care necessarily needs to be given the boot, out of all the things that could be given the boot.

What would you give the boot?

https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/the_220_billion_welfare_budget1.png

It's why I don't understand the great minds of BCF always blaming gimmedats.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:15 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
What would you give the boot?


Free TV license for old people.
JSA.
Child benefit.
Oh, and Val.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:32 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
M.C wrote:
What would you give the boot?


Free TV license for old people.
JSA.
Child benefit.
Oh, and Val.

7% of the Welfare budget then? Confused Not sure about the TV licensing subsidy, which it sounds like might go anyway. Wouldn't that only help the BBC? I'm counting down the days until they go bust, as I assume are you with your pile of letters Wink
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:50 - 13 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Every letter they post helps keep Royal Mail going. Thumbs Up

Getting rid of the free tv license of old people would be a social experiment rather than directly being about money saving. Will old people start rioting? Who will they direct their anger at? How does the rest of the electorate react to the cost of old people being cut?

From the results of that experiment, we'd have some indication of what might happen if the state pension were to be reduced and how to mitigate the risks posed by angry old people.

Removing JSA and child benefit would just be to distract people from what's going to happen after taking away OAPs TV licenses.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

M.C
Super Spammer



Joined: 29 Sep 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 00:16 - 14 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

You've got this worked out on a level I can't even begin to comprehend. Ste for President Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Lord Percy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 03:14 - 14 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

M.C wrote:
Lord Percy wrote:
As for Itchy's point about pensions and retirement being a blip in the path of 'normal' society, I would like to refute that a wee bit. Sure, it's not 'natural' to promise state-backed freebies to old folk when they get too frail to earn for themselves, but then it's not natural offer state-backed education to every child up to 16 years old either. A lot of fairly new social systems are proving to be quite effective. I don't see why old-age care necessarily needs to be given the boot, out of all the things that could be given the boot.

What would you give the boot?

https://fullfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/the_220_billion_welfare_budget1.png

It's why I don't understand the great minds of BCF always blaming gimmedats.


Agreed, blaming dole grabbers for national woes is total nonsense.

As for the pie chart, here's another one showing the entire general budget:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/UK-Government-Expenditure-2016-17.jpg/1920px-UK-Government-Expenditure-2016-17.jpg


Also have a go on this website: https://app.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/bubbletree-map.html . It's loading pretty slow for me over in chinachianchina at the moment, but from what I remember it's quite informative.


I think the best way to save money without causing immediate problems for anyone would be to say new families are only allowed tax credits and housing welfare (whatever it's called) for having up to two children. Any more than that and you can sort yourself out.

There would need to be an increase in funding for sex ed and abortion clinics though, otherwise the country would end up with a festering mess of more-than-two-child family areas which would turn into slum-like ghettos.

I'd also axe trident.

I find it odd how Daily Mail types often look at India and ask, "Why does India receive aid, while at the same time its government can afford a space and nuclear program?" The same applies to the UK: Why does the UK government have to enact a harsh austerity agenda, while at the same time affording a multi billion pound nuclear submarine program?

At the very least, India is in constant direct conflict with Pakistan, a nuclear armed nation, over the Kashmir region, so nukes and satellites are quite well justified. UK however has nothing but a willy to wave. So for the sake of austerity I would put the trident nuke program on hold. Any sane society would agree with this (the Daily Mail even says so! See previous paragraph). The only reason it's such a toxic conversation is because rabid right wing media outlets love to convince people that nukes are necessary, "For R proteckshun!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:24 - 14 Nov 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find it rather ironic that the government do what is deemed illegal for anyone else to do, spend pension contributions on anything other than pensions.

If they had invested the contributions we wouldn't be in the situation we are now.

Anyway, if I'm being totally selfish, I've given the government a damn site more in contributions than I'll ever get back. If I had invested that in a personal pension I'd be rolling in it.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
- This post is not being displayed because the poster has bad karma. Unhide this post / all posts.
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 5 years, 136 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.22 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 149.35 Kb