Doing my head in....

[CoffeeGrunt]

That is terrible but what do you do short of taking ownership of the kids away from the parents. If parents want to spend their $ on drugs and booze instead of their kids there's not much you can do about it.

Here's part of the problem. You're stereotyping them as lazy addicts. How do you know if it's a can't pay, or if it's a won't pay? You're blanketing a problem that's going to leave thousands without water with a statement implying it's their fault for buying drugs and booze? What authority gave you the statistics to prove such a claim? Or is it a fiction made up to make yourself feel better about it?

But what about all these people who pop a baby by age 18? Now they've got a family to provide for and they have zero education and limited opportunities from a self made disaster.

Yet these issues will happen regardless of breeding laws, if you're talking about accidental pregnancy. Actually, that's a pretty big issue you'll have trouble overcoming. How do you deal with it when a unsanctioned couple has kids anyway? Are the kids left to fend for themselves? Is that fair? Should the parents be forced to abort it?

[40kGamer]

Here's part of the problem. You're stereotyping them as lazy addicts. How do you know if it's a can't pay, or if it's a won't pay? You're blanketing a problem that's going to leave thousands without water with a statement implying it's their fault for buying drugs and booze? What authority gave you the statistics to prove such a claim? Or is it a fiction made up to make yourself feel better about it?

I freely admit I'm letting my personal experience influence my judgement as I trust it far more than any bent statistics. As you pointed out with unemployment, stats are more about government PR than reality anyhow.

I grew up in 'the' welfare state. The majority of people I know are riding the system. I am either related to or grew up with hundreds of them. A few had hard knocks and need help but the vast majority are just riding a negative cycle. They're in and out of jail, they drink and do drugs to escape their reality, and their kids suffer hideously. My entire life in WV was one big exposure to this and it left a raw wound.

There were the kids I went to school with that came through the grocery I worked in while paying for college with food stamps and WIC. While I worked 40+ hours a week and took night classes they did nothing.

There was the lady that couldn't meet the criteria to get a house loan so she had another kid, increased her welfare income and got it the next year.

There were the people who came to the church for free food for their kids that had cartons of cigarettes in their car when you loaded it.

There's the family members I have that lay drunk and high 7 days a week while taking my tax dollars to do nothing.

There are the families that swap kids illegally on their tax returns to get special tax refunds for needy families.

These aren't anecdotal... these are a fraction of first hand experiences and they leave a helluva bad taste. I've had so many negative interactions with those on government assistance that it's virtually impossible for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I escaped the hell that is welfare through grim determination and a willingness to sacrifice today to have a better tomorrow. It's hard for me to understand others lack of conviction.

Yet these issues will happen regardless of breeding laws, if you're talking about accidental pregnancy. Actually, that's a pretty big issue you'll have trouble overcoming. How do you deal with it when a unsanctioned couple has kids anyway? Are the kids left to fend for themselves? Is that fair? Should the parents be forced to abort it?

It would help if we got religion out of the procreation problem and taught sex ed from a very early age. At least if the kids know something they might avoid these things. I would never wish a kid on a teenager.

[Alaric]

Very interesting read. You all raise good points.

As I see it, nobody has the right to tell someone whether they can have kids if they want them. I wish I didn't have to support the ones that can't afford it but taxes have always been used to pick up the slack (poor word choise but im not as verbose as yall) whether its war reperations or welfare. I agree we r a blight on the planet but we are learning... Slowly..and hopefully not too late. Disagree on our right to rule this planet tho. We r the ones running it so its ours to do with as we please, the day my dog speaks to me and says "yo, ***#ole stop wrecking my planet" ill say its ours. Poor upbringings do not always screw the kids up, I know plenty of rich twits in jail and all of them deserve to be there.

Thanks for the link Haighus.

[40kGamer]

Disagree on our right to rule this planet tho. We r the ones running it so its ours to do with as we please

While I agree it is ours to run I side with the Native American philosophies regarding our place in the world.

Poor upbringings do not always screw the kids up, I know plenty of rich twits in jail and all of them deserve to be there.

True beyond any reasonable doubt.... in fact the jails should have more rich twits in them. Too many of the rat *******s play the system like a fiddle and use their wealth to dodge the rules.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I apologize if I've came across as offensive. This issue hits so close to home that it causes an unusually passionate reaction.

[grimmas]

Actually no, you didn't. All you said on the matter is that, "willingness to provide for ones children and finances are not entirely linked. Also being unable/unwilling to provide for your children is pretty much the definition of being a bad parent. Of course providing for your children does not mean buying stuff for them. Where stupid parents doesn't necesarily mean stupid children, bad parents will in most cases mean bad children, without sone form of intervention."

So willingness =/= finances, if you're unable/unwilling you're a bad parent, but providing =/= buying stuff. Also bad parents == bad children.

You didn't actually put forward a definition in that, merely noted some things that are not defined by, "provide."

The gist of the thread was that we are spending too much on welfare, and thus the discussion moved to issues of preventing overpopulation and overbreeding. This then moved to premises that would primarily target the poor or less fortunate, and that's where I felt the problem started.



I'm not sure if you're naive or ignorant, but unemployment figures are being fiddled by government schemes, (such as the scheme where Jobseekers are forced to do unpaid labour in order to continue receiving money, thus counting as "employed" despite no long-term career from it, or any hope of even getting paid.

Also, many people don't have a full education, and can't afford one as government subsidies only cover the young for such things. Thus, the cost of reeducation is pretty tough to bear on top of the currently high cost of running a household, especially if you have kids.

Sometimes life takes a steaming crap on you outta nowhere. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Oil and Gas workers who've lost jobs in the last six months because the oil prices tanked. They're not going to get other O&G work because no-one is hiring. Are they bad parents?

In a nutshell, I'm just asking for a little bloody empathy in your proposals, really.

Seriously you're going to write an explanation of what I said (with a quote) which doesn't match what I said, yeah well done. Stop trying to be clever you're massively under equipped.

If you can't see the difference between someone who is having a child expressly expecting others to pay for it (yep talking about money now) and a hard working tax payer, who has paid into a protective system, who has fallen upon hard times and needs some help with the financial burden of their existing children, then it is you Sir who is ignorant.

As for bleeding empathy I'd quite like 6 kids but I can't afford them so I didn't have them, but I would like an effective NHS, police service, Schools and all the other stuff that helps keep the country great for the ones I do have. And paying for people who have never worked and don't intend to work to have broods of children out of the public purse is taking money from those areas. So what you're saying is you'd be happy if the wife and I gave up our jobs had a number of extra children paid for buy government and just chill out with our children for the rest of our lives while teaching or children to be the same, because that's what it sounds like?

Oh and the highest forecast for job losses in North Sea Oil is 35000 (still pretty high though) over the 5years, Jan 15 - Dec 2020 not 100000s over the last 6 months stop making stuff up.

And to be perfectly clear if you fail to or fail to ensure (you don't have to do everything personally just make sure it is happening) all of your child's needs are provided for then yes you are a bad parent.

Do you actually have anything to say rather than hypothetical what if senarios, made up figures and government conspiracy theory's?

[Haighus]

Use a less vague term than, "provide," then. What is, "providing?" Do you mean socially, nutritionally, intellectually, academically?

The argument in this thread was that the taxpayer is paying too much for people looking after their kids though, so they were looking at reducing that, (by reducing the amount of people who are allowed children.) I also don't think you understand how long these hard times can last for some people.

If there simply isn't the work available - which is common - are they a bad parent?

For me, it is not that the taxpayer is paying too much, but that there are potentially more effective ways of spending it to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation. But those different options need good, solid research evidence to back them up. Not that the Government ever bloody listens to evidence, unless it suggests they will win more votes next election.

Are you providing for children right now? Hard to travel when you've got a family, it can affect your job prospects, especially as far as overtime and the like.

As far as generations of welfare, we have that here in Britain, though depending on where you ask it's a far smaller, cheaper problem than what it's made out to be. I imagine America is the same, especially with that debacle [URL="http://secondnexus.com/social-commentary-and-trends/baltimores-delinquent-water-bills-tap-wellspring-concern/?ts_pid=2&ts_pid=2"]going down in Baltimore[/URL] right now where they're threatening to turn peoples' water off, (in Summer, with water being a basic Human Right.)

There you have people getting their water shut off without trial or warning, and thus being unable to provide a basic human need to their children. Despite $15M of the debt for the water company coming from businesses, they're hurting the average person and punishing them.

Your stupid breeding law would do the same.

That water situation is disgusting.
Agree that people 'playing the system' are fewer than they seem, but the media is excellent at stirring up outrage and making an issue seem bigger than it really is.

Oh and not being able to find work isn't common unemployment is at one its lowest ever levels.

Yeah, what CoffeeGrunt said: it is better than those same people not being employed at all, but many of those people who have got paid jobs are also on minimum wage, zero hours contracts, especially young people. Whilst I don't have a problem with zero hours contracts in general, they are very flexible and great if you have other commitments; but they are awful for stability and providing for a family, and minimum wage is too low. If they were at the living wage, it would be less of an issue and the Government figures would be more realistic a reflection of peoples prospects.

I freely admit I'm letting my personal experience influence my judgement as I trust it far more than any bent statistics. As you pointed out with unemployment, stats are more about government PR than reality anyhow.

I grew up in 'the' welfare state. The majority of people I know are riding the system. I am either related to or grew up with hundreds of them. A few had hard knocks and need help but the vast majority are just riding a negative cycle. They're in and out of jail, they drink and do drugs to escape their reality, and their kids suffer hideously. My entire life in WV was one big exposure to this and it left a raw wound.

There were the kids I went to school with that came through the grocery I worked in while paying for college with food stamps and WIC. While I worked 40+ hours a week and took night classes they did nothing.

There was the lady that couldn't meet the criteria to get a house loan so she had another kid, increased her welfare income and got it the next year.

There were the people who came to the church for free food for their kids that had cartons of cigarettes in their car when you loaded it.

There's the family members I have that lay drunk and high 7 days a week while taking my tax dollars to do nothing.

There are the families that swap kids illegally on their tax returns to get special tax refunds for needy families.

These aren't anecdotal... these are a fraction of first hand experiences and they leave a helluva bad taste. I've had so many negative interactions with those on government assistance that it's virtually impossible for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I escaped the hell that is welfare through grim determination and a willingness to sacrifice today to have a better tomorrow. It's hard for me to understand others lack of conviction.



It would help if we got religion out of the procreation problem and taught sex ed from a very early age. At least if the kids know something they might avoid these things. I would never wish a kid on a teenager.

Depends on where the statistics come from- ideally independent organisations.

Improving sex ed is the method I actually support for reducing birthrates and so on, this two child idea was something I was just floating as a concept for discussion. Sex ed should be both compulsory and be standardised to an evidence-based program across the country.

Very interesting read. You all raise good points.

As I see it, nobody has the right to tell someone whether they can have kids if they want them. I wish I didn't have to support the ones that can't afford it but taxes have always been used to pick up the slack (poor word choise but im not as verbose as yall) whether its war reperations or welfare. I agree we r a blight on the planet but we are learning... Slowly..and hopefully not too late. Disagree on our right to rule this planet tho. We r the ones running it so its ours to do with as we please, the day my dog speaks to me and says "yo, ***#ole stop wrecking my planet" ill say its ours. Poor upbringings do not always screw the kids up, I know plenty of rich twits in jail and all of them deserve to be there.

Thanks for the link Haighus.

You are welcome The documentary you mentioned looks like it is more focussed on the actual abortions, I would be interested to see that too. Formaldehyde is nasty stuff, shouldn't be anywhere near a baby!

Oh dear, is this discussion going to move on to the climate? That will likely lead to NIMBY's, and they do do my head in (well, sometimes justified).

[Psychosplodge]

Point of thread was to be able to rant about anything and everything, very original post was about being stuck in the middle of two friends very bitter break up.

Just latest rant seems to have stayed topical for too long.

Or derailed in a serious if contentious manner...

[CoffeeGrunt]

These aren't anecdotal... these are a fraction of first hand experiences

Just gunna point out that an anecdote is exactly that - an experience you yourself had. The problem is that a singular or even series of experiences can be negated by someone else telling an opposite story they had. Hence the need for macro-scale statistics to get a realistic view of stuff.

As far as the right to rule the planet....it's ours', and it's long past the point where we could just stop hurting it. Our only choice is to push onwards and try to do everything smarter, IMO. Cleaner power, less fossil fuels, better hazardous waste disposal. A million man-made problems plague our planet from the vast slews of chemical slurry pumped into waterways every day, to the billions of plastic micro-pieces steadily invading the sealife's collective bodies.

Our only hope is to push and reach a point where we can start turning the clock back. We still have so much to learn, and we can put in all the delaying measures and mitigation we want, but ultimately, Mankind is going to have to evolve.

Yeah, what CoffeeGrunt said: it is better than those same people not being employed at all, but many of those people who have got paid jobs are also on minimum wage, zero hours contracts, especially young people. Whilst I don't have a problem with zero hours contracts in general, they are very flexible and great if you have other commitments; but they are awful for stability and providing for a family, and minimum wage is too low. If they were at the living wage, it would be less of an issue and the Government figures would be more realistic a reflection of peoples prospects.

That's another point, what was the statistic that dropped just before election this year? [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-miliband-promises-an-end-to-zero-hours-britain-10147560.html"]1.8 million people on Zero Hours contracts?[/URL] That's not a steady wage, you can't even get a good mortgage or loan with that as it isn't a steady, reliable income.

Seriously you're going to write an explanation of what I said (with a quote) which doesn't match what I said, yeah well done. Stop trying to be clever you're massively under equipped.

"If in doubt, just imply the other guy is stupid."

-Ad Hominem for Dummies.

And paying for people who have never worked and don't intend to work to have broods of children out of the public purse is taking money from those areas. So what you're saying is you'd be happy if the wife and I gave up our jobs had a number of extra children paid for buy government and just chill out with our children for the rest of our lives while teaching or children to be the same, because that's what it sounds like?

"Shortly after accusing said guy of not being smart enough to, 'get it,' deliberately misinterpret his point."

Oh and the highest forecast for job losses in North Sea Oil is 35000 (still pretty high though) over the 5years, Jan 15 - Dec 2020 not 100000s over the last 6 months stop making stuff up.

"Continue on by presuming that the person was not, in fact considering global statistics, given that many oil and gas companies operate on a global basis, and thus that's where the money comes from as well as many of the parts. Especially America, [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/03/16/oil-layoffs-itemized-75000-and-counting/"]which lost 75,000 by march 2015[/URL] and shows no sign of letting up.

Don't forget to use their wider view of the situation as an accusation of them trying to inflate the numbers. This will make you seem way smarter. Even if the person you're talking to works for a multinational Oil and Gas corporation."

Do you actually have anything to say rather than hypothetical what if senarios, made up figures and government conspiracy theory's?

"Finally, dismiss all their points without actually addressing them. This implies they aren't real, or are far too trivial for your mind to bother with. This will auto-win the argument for sure."

[Haighus]

Just gunna point out that an anecdote is exactly that - an experience you yourself had. The problem is that a singular or even series of experiences can be negated by someone else telling an opposite story they had. Hence the need for macro-scale statistics to get a realistic view of stuff.

As far as the right to rule the planet....it's ours', and it's long past the point where we could just stop hurting it. Our only choice is to push onwards and try to do everything smarter, IMO. Cleaner power, less fossil fuels, better hazardous waste disposal. A million man-made problems plague our planet from the vast slews of chemical slurry pumped into waterways every day, to the billions of plastic micro-pieces steadily invading the sealife's collective bodies.

Our only hope is to push and reach a point where we can start turning the clock back. We still have so much to learn, and we can put in all the delaying measures and mitigation we want, but ultimately, Mankind is going to have to evolve.

I would rather we pull out of using fossil fuels for energy pretty much altogether. Current estimates put us past the (probably to lenient) point of no return for CO2 levels in 17 years I think? Assuming 'business as usual' for that period. To me, that means we need a serious shake up in how we produce energy, and we need it now.

What I can't get my head round, is why the top brass in the oil and gas industry can't see this coming. We are heading towards climate disaster, if we burn all currently known reserves we go well over the 'safe' limit, and if nothing else, it is a finite resource. Governments are and will continue to implement stricter and stricter regulations on the fuel industry, it is a dying business, albeit slowly. Even China is trying to curtail it's fossil fuel use and has had a decrease in the amount of coal it has burned, because they have already caused climate change across an entire province within their country. Yet despite all of this, oil and gas companies are actively spending huge sums on finding more reserves?! I actually just don't understand. I don't expect them to stop producing fossil fuels tomorrow, but if I was at the helm, I would do something similar to GSK in the clinical trials transparency debate; in other words, realise times are changing, cut my losses and get on with getting to grips with what the new system is going to be, and get a head start. I would be investing that money in renewable technologies, not looking for more reserves, and diversifying into new branches of energy to create a sustainable future for the company. Is the lure of 'easy' money that strong?

[CoffeeGrunt]

I would rather we pull out of using fossil fuels for energy pretty much altogether. Current estimates put us past the (probably to lenient) point of no return for CO2 levels in 17 years I think? Assuming 'business as usual' for that period. To me, that means we need a serious shake up in how we produce energy, and we need it now.

What I can't get my head round, is why the top brass in the oil and gas industry can't see this coming. We are heading towards climate disaster, if we burn all currently known reserves we go well over the 'safe' limit, and if nothing else, it is a finite resource. Governments are and will continue to implement stricter and stricter regulations on the fuel industry, it is a dying business, albeit slowly. Even China is trying to curtail it's fossil fuel use and has had a decrease in the amount of coal it has burned, because they have already caused climate change across an entire province within their country. Yet despite all of this, oil and gas companies are actively spending huge sums on finding more reserves?! I actually just don't understand. I don't expect them to stop producing fossil fuels tomorrow, but if I was at the helm, I would do something similar to GSK in the clinical trials transparency debate; in other words, realise times are changing, cut my losses and get on with getting to grips with what the new system is going to be, and get a head start. I would be investing that money in renewable technologies, not looking for more reserves, and diversifying into new branches of energy to create a sustainable future for the company. Is the lure of 'easy' money that strong?

The current system still makes a lot of money. Trust me as someone who works in the industry - it's glacial from an environmental perspective and many people genuinely own an exploitative view of the world. There's a lot of old, selfish men in the industry. Heck, the environmental company I work for attends a lot of conferences, and while we're not allowed to discuss clients, let's just say a certain well-known company that rhymes with "hell" is well known for client reps that simply don't give a damn.

There's been several industry summits recently trying to get an idea of what, exactly, to do. You get a wide spectrum. There's the, "stop everything immediately and save the world crew," who are often a load of hippies who propose this vehemently without proposing how. That's the problem, we can wean ourselves off oil but the infrastructure is built and bred for it. This view is seen as unrealistic by many because the dependence on oil is a fact of life, and despite using it with ever-increasing efficiency, the exploding numbers of people using it mean we're needing more and more each year.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum which you get a lot of people sitting at. Quite simply, "f*ck the environment." One of the guys I work with was at a conference where a rep honestly reacted to the problem in the industry where cetacean species are disrupted by the sonic booms used to map seabeds for oil deposits with, "well then they shouldn't get in the way of the oil then." These people are used to everything jumping at the click of their fingers, they don't consider working to another system. They're arrogant and callous in a way a movie director wold tone down for fear of being unrealistic, and they're in charge of a lot of oil production.

The majority sit in the middle, between the inevitability of our oil dependence, and our need to break away from it. The big question is...where? Solar and Wind aren't able to work to the yields we need, and coal would be even worse. Nuclear? If it could break the stigma, it'd be fine, but every proposed site is picketed into oblivion by, "concerned locals." The same kind of people who picketed wind farms a decade ago, actually. They don't care about the damage to the environment so long as it's out of sight and out of mind. Heck, the American people only really care because of Deepwater Horizon and largely because of the Gulf of Mexico's reliance on its biodiversity for fish stocks and tourism. The average person just wants someone else to deal with the issue, and the buck ends in some third world country to poor to pass up the money. Hence the reason why places like Myanmar are so popular right now as it stumbles out of a civil war in dire need of cash.

The only real option is Fusion, and that's still a scientific fairy tale until we finally design a reactor that puts out more than it takes in.