|
Proposed trams under Cambridge
In article , wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:07:25 +0000 wrote: On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a toss but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently have no offspring so why would you. Depends on what route you want to argue the planet should be saved for, the majority of living things that form a stable eco system or one where human beings exist in ever increasing numbers and gradually destroy everything by the demands placed on resources. If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world population, in fact it would come down a bit. Unfortunately religion and stupidity generally lead to ... You seem to have mis-spelt "education, income, child mortality and availability of contraception". Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Proposed trams under Cambridge
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 11:03:59 +0000 (UTC)
Nick Leverton wrote: In article , wrote: On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:07:25 +0000 wrote: On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a toss but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently have no offspring so why would you. Depends on what route you want to argue the planet should be saved for, the majority of living things that form a stable eco system or one where human beings exist in ever increasing numbers and gradually destroy everything by the demands placed on resources. If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world population, in fact it would come down a bit. Unfortunately religion and stupidity generally lead to ... You seem to have mis-spelt "education, income, child mortality and availability of contraception". If the population is rising then clearly the extra kids are not simply to cover for child mortality, you don't need to be educated to understand if you have a limited food supply you can't support too many children, ditto income and the best form of contraception is to keep your trousers on. Stop making excuses for these people, they're not some sort of witless missing link whose behaviour is instinct based. |
Proposed trams under Cambridge
On Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:56:53 -0000
"tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 18:07:25 +0000 wrote: On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:08:42 +0000 (UTC), wrote: I'm not lentil munching hippy, but I do my bit. You clearly don't give a toss but then you've probably only got a few decades left anyway and apparently have no offspring so why would you. Depends on what route you want to argue the planet should be saved for, the majority of living things that form a stable eco system or one where human beings exist in ever increasing numbers and gradually destroy everything by the demands placed on resources. If couples only had a maximum of 2 kids we wouldn't have a spiralling world population, in fact it would come down a bit. Unfortunately religion and stupidity generally lead to many cultures having far more In developing countries you need as many children as possible in order to be sure to be looked after in old age, because the state surely doesn't do it Many tribal peoples have a stable populations and care for the elderly as a group. Its entirely dependant on culture. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk