The reason for mandating a higher age is simple. When there aren't any mass extinction events or cornish flu depopulating macdonalds and primark, the population will rise generation after generation even with a one sprog only out policy, because with average life expectancy the break even age works out to be 28 point something. If people procreate any younger then the grandparents aren't passing on soon enough to make room for the grandchildren. It's maths, which is why in Logan's run they vaporised all the oldies, and in Soylent Green we ate all the oldies, so it's not actually a new idea.
Put the age higher then you can then achieve my goal of world population reduction, which is key to saving the environment. But people being the selfish stubborn shortsighted muppets that they are, won't agree to such measures, so the world is doomed to an ever increasing human population requiring ever more non renewable resources. It's not just about energy use and CO2 emissions or even drinkable water, which are getting the headlines now. It's tomorrow's headlines about land for housing and transport, and support facilities. It's the scarcity of jobs. Technology is becoming increasingly efficient, fewer humans are needed to do many roles. The only roles that are increasing is in caring. Even teaching could be done by IT in the future.
The arguments for and against HS2 are like a foretaste of the greater issues. The reason why we are even considering schemes like HS2 and HS3 in the future is because of our desire for consuming ever more resources, with our ever increasing population.
If we keep on breeding like entitled rabbits on a production bonus, we will be fighting each other for scarce resources very soon.
Oh and the argument that baby boomers and generation Xs have no business telling their children and grandchildren not to continue this mad dash to the cliffedge, is barmy. A bit like suggesting that someone who used to smoke shouldn't dissuade children from starting to smoke, or someone who left the scientologists been prohibited from warning students that they are a secretive controlling cult designed to take your money away from you. But then youngsters traditionally always do have to make mistakes themselves in order to learn, they never have been able to accept received wisdom. I've got the hangovers to prove that
Secondly, most people have only just started to wake up about the near future probability of global catastrophe caused by excess population. Some of us have been shouting into the dark windy nights for the last 40 years or more with the majority of people laughing at us for being pessimistic doomsayers. Recent fires in Australia, the worst they have ever had, recent floods in the UK almost the worst ever recorded despite all the flood prevention measures of the last 10 years, plagues of locusts overseas, some of the biggest ever seen. All this of course isn't mother earth warning us is it.
So yeah, ideally, I'd say shelf the HS2 altogether. Spend a bit of money on improving the existing network by electrification. And spend the bulk of the money addressing the underlying cause of climate change which is unsustainable population growth. The only reason to argue for HS2 is if we do continue as we are in regards to using resources without restraint. Then at least HS2 allows us to do so more effectively.
Hobson's choice. Continue to see some deranged benefit in everyone commuting miles to work each day passing each other along the way. Continue to replace electronics for the latest, not because it's unrepairable. Continue to go on pubcrawls in the next city where you're not yet barred from every pub. Continue to order clothing to wear just once for afore mentioned night out, before returning it as "wrong size" And continue to build more transport.
Or start growing up and accepting that having children isn't actually a human right. It's a lottery as any other animal species will tell you. Once you're born then you have rights to stay alive and well, but passing your genes on isn't one of them. In fact the concept of having to pass on your genes is the very basis for racism and wars between countries. By logically induction, if you feel it is so important to pass on your genes, that implies that you don't wish to treat other's as equals. Harsh, but that's Freud and half a dozen Greek philosophers for you.
17 Nov 2018 - Dr Robin Hadley, 58, and childless by circumstance, recently completed a PhD exploring the experiences of ... the childlessness rate is around 20% for women in the UK and 25% for men.
No. actually I'll retract. If you can fully and completely support without recourse to public funding of any kind, and
somehow only from your own 0.000000029% share of natural resources in the UK, support your sprogs, you can have as many as you want. Just don't ask everyone else to pick up the bills for childcare, education, health, food and water supplies. I for one, is a wee bit tired of supporting big families on the dole, let alone feckless absent father's shenanigans.
