Fucktard

Phil Woolas has just followed up his previous assertion that "the population of the UK will not be allowed to top 70 million".

Which, in itself, is quite some statement.

Seeing as I'm fairly certain there's not a single fucking thing the Government could do if the entire population of the EU decided to come and live in, say, Nottinghamshire. One of the main points of the EU is that it allows freedom of movement between member states. It's also one of the main drawbacks, as it means none of the member countries has the ability to deny access to a fellow member's populace.

How does Phil think he'll be able to stem the tide of Johnny Foreigners arriving from within the EU? Well, let's just say he's a bit vague on that. Asked whether he had made an eye-catching pledge that the government could not keep - because it cannot restrict immigration from within the EU - Mr Woolas told Today: "No, I don't accept that at all."

He said: "What you cannot factor in is how many people leave the country. You cannot factor in, as you rightly say, movement from EU and that is why you can't put a precise figure - but what you can reassure the public over is that the general trend will be controlled."

How?!? You fucktard, the UK has NO control over immigration if the people coming in are from the EU. If, as is accepted, the population in the UK is currently 62 million, 10 million people come in from the EU in the next five year and no-one leaves, we'll already be over your 70 million figure and there'll be fuck all you can do to change it.

Are you planning on offering people incentives to leave? Because if you are, can I be first in the fucking queue?

I am the Revolution and to be honest, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.

Stop Having Children Or The Planet Dies

From the Register, an article about the attempt of two doctors to reduce the population of the UK. Sadly, there's no Harold Shipman type slaughter of the elderly being proposed. Wonderfully, however, they do recommend a reduction in the number of children - so it's not all bad news after all.

And while I would normally support such a call for less children, I have some reservations. Because the doctors are suggesting that controls are needed because kids cause carbon emissions and, therefore (at least in their eyes) climate change. The ecopalypse! Noes! We're all going to die!

Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. The two medics suggest that choosing to have a third child "is the same as buying a patio heater or driving a gas-guzzling car" and that "GPs should advise their patients against it". Yes, you did read that right - Doctors are comparing children with consumer goods. How splendid is that? It makes my heart swell to hear the medical profession talk in such loving terms.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, John Guillebaud (emeritus professor of of family planning at UCL) and Pip Hayes (a GP) raise the spectre of global population explosion, and suggest that the children of the developed world are a particularly severe carbon burden.

You think? I have three words to say to you: Too. Fucking. Late.

There is no "spectre" of a population explosion, there's already been one. If you're over 40 years old (and thankfully I'm not quite old enough to be in this group) the population of the planet has DOUBLED since you were born. I am old enough to remember being taught there were 5 billion people on Earth - the figure now is around 6.75 billion.

There are too many people on this damn planet. To quote Bill Hicks; "How about we take a moment out of our frenzied rutting to work out the whole food/air deal, huh?"

While some - China - have set limits on the number of children a family can have, and the birth rate has fallen in most Western countries, family size in third world/developing countries has actually increased.

In 1984, when Band Aid exhorted us to "thank God it's them instead of you", there were 42 million in Ethiopia and 8 million of them were starving. There are now 78 million people in Ethiopia, and 10 million are starving. When Band Aid suggested we "feed the world", I think they would have been better advised to teach family planning.

From the Country Studies site of the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress (as part of the Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998) a short paragraph giving some insight into why this may have happened.

In 1990 officials estimated the birth rate at forty-five births per 1,000 population and the total fertility rate (the average number of children that would be born to a woman during her lifetime) at about seven per 1,000 population. Census findings indicated that the birth rate was higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Ethiopia's birth rate, high even among developing countries, is explained by early and universal marriage, kinship and religious beliefs that generally encourage large families, a resistance to contraceptive practices, and the absence of family planning services for most of the population. Many Ethiopians believe that families with many children have greater financial security and are better situated to provide for their elderly members.

Analysts believed that reducing the population growth rate was a pressing need, but one that could only be addressed through a persistent and comprehensive nationwide effort over the long term. As of early 1991, the Ethiopian regime had shown no commitment to such a program.

Funny that, as feuding tribes (and Ethiopia was at war with two different countries during the 90s) don't really like this option. Unfortunately, religions don't like this option either. Both for the same reason, weirdly. If there's less people on your "team" then there's more chance of you being taken over/killed by the opposition. This "breeding for God" approach does no-one any favours.

Sadly, using the fear of the ecopalypse to encourage people to breed less also fails to do much good.

Too Many People

Was kind of listening to Sir David Attenborough on BBC's Breakfast News this morning pushing the final episode of "Life In Cold Blood". He was discussing his lengthy career and said something quite startling. Since he has been making wildlife documentaries - some fifty six years - the population of the planet has increased threefold.

Having been surprised by this, I've had a look around, and it seems he is correct: Following on from the Second World War, there was a population of around 2.1 billion - there are now approximately 6.6 billion people on Earth. The UN estimates that world population will peak in 2200 at 10 billion. As Attenborough himself noted this morning, all these extra people place a strain on the Earth.

The drain on the planet's resources are increased to feed them, while previously natural landscapes are reduced in size so that these extra people have somewhere to live. I'm not especially interested in the "Natural World" - although I have previously been charmed by Attenborough's own work (initially with "Life On Earth" in the late 1970's) - so this isn't a WWF/Greenpeace type warning on the diminishing number of species. No, I'm less involved in looking at & after animals than these more vocal activists.

My concern is from a more, shall we say, personal point of view. There are too many people on this damn planet and there's a very simple way to stop the problem getting worse.

Stop having children.

Instead of thinking "Well done us for having a child", maybe start thinking "Do we really need one?". If you can honestly say that, hand on your heart, you *need* to have a mewling ball of vomit and faeces crawling round your house and disturbing your sleep for 18 years, then - and only then - can you start to look at the options.

Perhaps you do sleep too well and too much. Perhaps you do have too much money. Maybe you like the smell of dried milky vomit on all your possessions. It's possible tha you and your partner really do hate your friends so much that you'd like to stop seeing them for about five years, except at times that suit your babysitter. Who really needs to go on a cheap spontaneous holiday abroad ever again?

But do *you* NEED to have children? Could you perhaps adopt a child? Can you give fostering a go and see if you're cut out for it? Would it not be better to just be an Aunt, Uncle or Godparent?

No? Well how about, if you're not working, not contributing to society or just too damn young, what about getting a six year sterilization and see what you think when you can contribute to the kid's up keep? When you aren't a kid yourself? When you realise that there might have been things you wanted to do in your early 20's that didn't involve changing nappies?

A couple of weeks back, there was a report on the BBC about an Argentinian girl who had given birth to her second set of triplets. She's 16 and the mother of seven. Today, I read of a boy in the North of England who has fathered seven kids to seven different girls by the age of 21. Funnily enough, he's not working and isn't living with the latest pregnant bint.

Now. Do you REALLY need a child?