Chris Packham UK TV Host - More incentives for less kids.

This is a good example of a story where you dont know where to put it on ATS.

Chris is a respected TV host, no previous really, and def not a NWO stooge.

So he is saying that we need to cut the population down by offering incentives for people to have less children.

It's interesting in that it can appear on this site, and not be coming from a elite political member, and not a outright stooge for the government.

In a way he is right, I do actually agree with him.

Let's see what others think.

"There's no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we're not addressing the one single factor that's putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other - namely the ever-increasing size of the world's population.

"I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let's face it, that's too many.

"I wouldn't actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick.

"But I would offer them tax breaks for having small families, say, 10% off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child.

"And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all."

Packham - Stop Bleating, and have fewer kids!

I think it becomes an interesting point, when all the propoganda that is being fed to us from around the world about the population numbers, the NWO, The Georgia Guidestone, Hollywood etc, and then a normal personality comes out with it too.

It could be an elitist opinion from him mind you, and if you have never had children and was the personality to not want them, then I think you will have a different take on the world as he does.

I think smaller family sizes will eventually happen naturally in honesty, especially in the West, as the pressures on parents, what with cost, time are pushed to the extreme, and with benefit cuts coming into play and not going to be changed by any future government, more people will need to work, and there will be less time and money to have big familes, and support them yourself.

People in developed countries have generally too low number of kids, under replacement rate. Restricting immigration is what needs to be done before trying to lower the number of kids. Immigration is the source of population growth in these countries, not too many children.

If the West instead helped the countries where the immigrants are coming from with work, better health care, life styles, governments, choice, retail, then the West wouldnt be such an attractive place to head too.

Good point sir!

reply to post by multichild


Packham should stick to animals, he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

Here's a quote from the 'Independent'.

But hold on. All this anxiety is premised upon the idea that the population of the world is mushrooming. It certainly was throughout most of the 20th century. But, quietly, something has changed in recent years. The global population is continuing to grow. But, fairly suddenly, birthrates are falling all across the globe. In the 1970s women around the world had six children each; today they have just 2.7 children on average, and in some places that figure is as low as 1.

The implications of this will take a generation to work through, because the children born in the boom years have yet to have their own children, so there is a great deal of increase built in. Demographers call that population momentum. But the United Nations has had to revise downwards its prediction that the world population would reach 11.5 billion by 2050. The human race is now expected to peak, according to one of the world's top experts, Dr David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, at 9.5 billion people. Then, around 2070, it will begin to decline. We have reached a demographic crossroads which will have dramatic consequences for large sections of the world – including us.

The magic figure for demographers is 2.1 births per couple. That, allowing for the fact that some girls die before they reach child-bearing age, is the figure at which a population replaces itself. In Europe the last time that fertility was above replacement level was in the mid-1960s. But now, for the first time on record, birthrates in southern and eastern Europe have dropped below 1.3 – well below the 1.5 which the United Nations has marked as the crisis point. If things continue the population there will be cut in half in just 45 years. In Italy, one recent survey put it at 1.2. Cities such as Milan and Bologna recorded less than 1, the lowest birthrates anywhere.

Link: www.independent.co.uk...

So you see, population is *not* an issue in Europe, at least the 'Overpopulation' fears often touted as one of the biggest challenges facing our species.

The UN have revised their estimates of population numbers *downwards* for projections of 2070, from 11.5 -12 Billion, to 9 -9.5 Billion...and it's projected to be *HALF* what it is now in many parts of Europe, in just 45 years.

The population crisis, should the current birthrate/death-rate trends continue on a fairly even path for the next century, would become a crisis of under population rather than overpopulation.

Sounds counter to everything we've been brainwashed to believe and accept about population doesn't it? I wonder why that would be hmmm?

Anything to do with 'scarcity of supply' leading to inflated prices perhaps? Surely not!

would become a crisis of under population rather than overpopulation

Hi,

Even if the current trend does buck, and the downward population scale does continue after 2070, wouldnt it be a very long time before under population becomes a crisis rather than something good.

I understand scarcity is one of the main factors of the elite agenda, but to worry about a lack of people on earth would not be an issue for a very long time, and even then, things can be changed, so that people feel they can have larger familes again.

Its a roller coatster ride, and in the end it all balances itself out one way or another.

reply to post by multichild


Well, in reality if there happened to be a crisis of under population in Europe towards the end of this century, and for whatever reason birthrates did not rise to cover the deficit, people from over populated areas around the world would probably immigrate to fill the numbers (for jobs, services, tax collecting etc.), so it's not as alarming in reality.

As you say, levels tend to rise and fall, and generally settle around a sustainable number based on availability of resources.

reply to post by spikey


Yes that was my thought, there are enough to fill the gaps in the western world.

The trouble would come if say there was less and less people filling the top jobs, such as consultants, lawyers, bankers, politics and so on, and the education of the immigrants werent up to that sort of level. Maybe thats what the UN are talking about.

A crisis of highly skilled people.

There are plenty of under skilled people, Labour even where happy to pay these people to stay at home, so I'm guessing its a crisis of highly skilled people they are worried about.

I agree with him in some ways but it seems its always Russia,Europe and the USA that are forced to hear this over population agenda.Yes the world has a lot of people in it and if overpopulation is a problem then go and tell the third world or the third world immigrants in the West because it is they who have more then 2 children in a family......sometimes 6 and sometimes 10 plus.

Russia,Europe,USA and even Japan for that matter have birth rates that are too low and they should be the only ones to be allowed to build their population back up a tad by having a few more kids.

2 kids per family should be the limit.

reply to post by Viking9019


Yes I suppose your right, that it is always our media telling us to stop making babies, but with Western life comes the services and facilities needed to keep a expectant population happy, and that is what is coming under strain.

The NHS, schools, medicine, space in cities are all problems that need to be solved, so rather than thinking outside the box on these issues, what they seem to think the answer is, is cutting down on the number of people using them.

I think the tories are trying to help the problem, but creating less burden on the services from people who are not paying into the system, which is also correct, but the jobs need to be there, and the incentive also.

Something will give, and I thnk it will come from compromise, where people and government will eventaully realise something needs to be done.

reply to post by multichild


Well I'm no NWO stooge either, and I totally agree with Chris - and I think it's good to see people like him having the guts to come out and say it


Edit: one of the problems we have in this country is a sizeable 'underclass' who do not work, do not want to work, add nothing to the economy, but produce large families (most of which grow up with similar attitudes). In part because larger families = more benefits. We also have the problem of teaching younger and younger children how to have sex - and then act surprised when they have sex ..... But that's perhaps a separate issue.

Edit 2 :- I should say, I have no children and have no desire to have any children. I accept that views of such people may differ from those who do have families.

reply to post by Essan


Hi,

Its the reasoning you have when you have children, or why to have children is also part of the problem, which then ties in with your first edit.

There is a definate underclass forming around the western world, where they are not good for anything really. They cant work, have no education, and so do not support the community and country they live in, and on the other hand, look for financial support to live in a very expensive part of the world.

I think parents who are able to understand their limits on children, to offer a good balance of life style, support and security to their children, as opposed to those parents who have children for the benefits, or they just cant help themselves, are the cause for concern.

I do think the UN are worried about the growing underclass, and a decreasing upper higher class for the future.

i don't really buy all this.
On the one hand, they say have less kids.
Then on the other hand, they say they have to up the immigration intake to help pay for the old age pensions because there aren't enough younger generation to foot the bill.
So, I've come to the conclusion after seeing this cyclic circle for 3 decades, that immigration is actually what is the agenda behind all this less kids malarky.

Originally posted by Flighty
i don't really buy all this.
On the one hand, they say have less kids.
Then on the other hand, they say they have to up the immigration intake to help pay for the old age pensions because there aren't enough younger generation to foot the bill.
So, I've come to the conclusion after seeing this cyclic circle for 3 decades, that immigration is actually what is the agenda behind all this less kids malarky.

I believe this stems from deep confusion over the issue of overpopulation. Overpopulation is a serious issue, but only in poor third world nations. Developed countries, and some developing countries (China comes to mind) have exactly the opposite problem - they are below replacement rate already, and/or have little problems with feeding and taking care of their population.

But lots of ordinary people, and politicians such as this one, do not know this, or ignore it. Then you gave two groups, one arguing for reduction of children, even in countries such as Britain, and the other arguing that there is no overpopulation at all. Both camps are wrong.

It is either ignorance, or an agenda, as you say.

reply to post by Flighty


I'm thinking this...

They are telling people not to have kids if you cant afford them basically, the families that are having children from parents who do no work, and so their children are more likely not to work too.

The immigration policy of bringing people into WORK, is happening, as these people and good for them, are coming hear to work and not sponge off the state as the homegrown talentless individuals talked about above.

The tories i think will bring stop benefits after a certain number of children, I'm guessing 3, and then hope to force those who havent work back to work, and so stopping an ever increasing under class, and also increasing the workforce to pay for the services.