UKC

People with kids

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Flinticus 27 Jun 2015
How worried are you about the world they will grow up into? Climate change and a great extinction. Water shortages and environmental refugees, not to mention potential for increased biological warfare / terrorism.

I have no kids. If I did, I think the worry and the lack of action on a global level would drive me insane.

How do you handle it? Do you just focus on the small things?
 flopsicle 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

When I was a kid being nuked seemed near certain. Most school kids had plans for the 3 minutes after the sirens went off.

Now my child will face air borne ebola, being slow roasted, drowned or starved. We'll all die regardless, the trick is in living first and she seems to have that nailed; or I'd really worry.
OP Flinticus 27 Jun 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

Difference is a nuke war was basically a yes or no situation and the nastiness of the outcome known & accepted. And so far it's a no. Climate change and a big extinction are happening and your children will live in that (this) world.
3
 flopsicle 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

We watched threads. Look it up on you tube.
 Yanis Nayu 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

I ignore the big stuff. I can't change it.
1
cragtaff 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

There is bugger all we can do about climate change, no matter what the hippies tell us, and death is something none of us can avoid, so live for today and enjoy what you've got.
10
 ThunderCat 27 Jun 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

> We watched threads. Look it up on you tube.

Sweet Jesus. How scary was Threads? I think that movie, and "Scum" had a real affect on my life...the first to show me how horrendous a nuclear exchange would actually be, and the second to keep me on the straight and narrow in regards to the law
 Timmd 27 Jun 2015
In reply to cragtaff:

> There is bugger all we can do about climate change, no matter what the hippies tell us

In the hopes of starting an interesting discussion, why do you think that?
1
 wilkie14c 27 Jun 2015
In reply to ThunderCat:

Ave ya bought ya tool?

What facking tool?
 ThunderCat 27 Jun 2015
In reply to wilkie14c:

> Ave ya bought ya tool?

> What facking tool?

Hahaha. "just going off for a burn sir".

Seriously though, I saw Scum at a really early age and the thought of being stuck in borstal terrified the crap out of me. I can't say for certain if that's what kept me 'a good lad'...but I think it helped.

Anyhoo, sorry to the OP for the thread hijack. I'll stop now.
 flopsicle 27 Jun 2015
In reply to ThunderCat:

It was at the very least as scary as climate change! Still, damn, I've had a good life and never did have to bite my kid free.
 Lord_ash2000 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:
I don't have kids but may well do one day.

I don't really worry about any of those big issues, humans are pretty adoptable over a generation or two's time and these problems are slow and gradual ones, as species we'll be fine. But for my possible children on an individual level I also have no worries. Climate change in the next 50 years or so isn't going to cause any signification problems to a wealthy educated person living in the UK, nor are water shortages (is that even a real problem in the UK?) nor a few animals dying in a country they'll probably never visit.

As for war an terrorism, we've had those to deal with for all of human history I don't think it's going to change anything.
Post edited at 19:26
 wilkie14c 27 Jun 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

I've never looked at snooker balls without thinking of the brutality of the film, kept me straight out of fear too
 Dave the Rave 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

Tend to worry more about feeding, clothing them and keeping a roof over their heads. Real worries not perceived threat.
If I hadn't got kids, I may worry about something else.
 Peakpdr 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

The only thing that I worry about is what Britain will be like for them once that f#cktard of a prime minister has done with it..
5
 john arran 27 Jun 2015
In reply to pauldr:

Agreed but in general this is a fantastic time to be growing up if your parents aren't among the neglected underclass. It's bound to change since growing inequality breeds crime (anyone remember the 80s car theft epidemic?) but overall children today have fantastic opportunities.
1
 earlsdonwhu 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

Despite all the shitty things about, the chances are they will live longer than their parents and grandparents.
1
 Wsdconst 27 Jun 2015
In reply to wilkie14c:

This facking tool
Lusk 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

Was going to type a load of blurb, but looking back over the last 50 odd years, I'm sure they'll be fine.
As for the future, I want to be alive to see the first Fusion electricity generating station come on line.
 Fraser 27 Jun 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

> When I was a kid being nuked seemed near certain. Most school kids had plans for the 3 minutes after the sirens went off.

Can I ask how old you are? I'd assumed from your user name you were quite young but I'm now thinking otherwise. You must be older than I am (>52) 'cos being nuked didn't seem certain to me and I didn't have a 3 minute plan & don't know anyone who did!

 timjones 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

> How worried are you about the world they will grow up into? Climate change and a great extinction. Water shortages and environmental refugees, not to mention potential for increased biological warfare / terrorism.

> I have no kids. If I did, I think the worry and the lack of action on a global level would drive me insane.

> How do you handle it? Do you just focus on the small things?

You think too much!

Live for today and plan for tomorrow. Don't worry about next year until you get there
 Mutl3y 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

Why not just top yourself now mate? The future seems that bleak?

Still here...? Well there's your answer.
 mountainbagger 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

> How do you handle it?

By watching Frozen 365 times instead of the news.
 DancingOnRock 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

If you had kids you'd be too busy to worry about all that stuff that grown ups like to un-necessarily scare themselves with.
 wintertree 27 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

I saw the thread title and hoped it would be a rant about parents who let their kids totally block a set of stepping stones that form a significant thoroughfare for foot traffic without showing any awareness of others. I was totally going to agree.

In reply to your actual post - the world is a much less shitty place than it has ever been for children. Have a look into infant mortality and life expectancy over the last 10,000 years. Better now than then. Things are changing, but they always have been. Once upon a time not very long ago young children would have been dying of curable diseases in Dogerland. Now it's under the North Sea...
Lusk 27 Jun 2015
In reply to pauldr:

> The only thing that I worry about is what Britain will be like for them once that f#cktard of a prime minister has done with it..

The only thing that I think about our Prime Ministers is that horrendous union of Edwina & John.
 flopsicle 28 Jun 2015
In reply to Fraser:

I'm 44 and we did used to talk about what we'd do with the time/hoping we'd be clean nuked. Ten years older you may not have been as effected by the media as we were. I know it wasn't just us because it was when both threads and the much softer 'the day after' were released.

I was 12 when threads was aired.
 Fraser 28 Jun 2015
In reply to flopsicle:

Thanks for the reply. Must admit I've never heard of either of those programmes.
Moley 28 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

All part of evolution, they will probably adapt and survive. We have bigger brains than any other creature on earth so evry chance of surviving somehow.
If not we become extict, no big deal.
aultguish 28 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

'great extinction'

This is a new one on me...which media faction has dreamed up this one??
Spoke with daughter no2 and she has no idea that this is on the cards for her generation but is in no immediate rush to panic or start living out her bucket list.
 Jon Stewart 28 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

> How worried are you about the world they will grow up into?

No kids, and not known for my optimism, but I think now's a better time than any to be born. I agree climate change is a big issue and don't go with the "huh yeah, someone'll sort than one out when we really need to" outlook. If we had evolved brains capable of long-term planning, we would be arranging and using our democratic institutions to sort it out now. We would also be a lot better at distributing resources so we didn't have ludicrous concentrations of wealth here and millions starving to death there.

Human beings are very sophisticated mammals, and all the war, technology, misery, art and love will remain as our behavioural repertoire for a long time to come. As we accumulate knowledge and find better ways to gather and distribute resources we're able to make space to be a little fairer to each other - slow progress admittedly, but we don't generally sell slaves or burn people alive these days. Where there are plenty of resources, we worry about things like gay marriage and work-life balance - this is a great place to be, rather than worrying about where to get your next meal or who's going to burn your village down.

Here's a good clip about "1st World Problems" that's kind of relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uLL418S1GQ&index=2&list=LLdWC6Y_AS...

And if you want a dose of serious, well evidenced, brilliantly presented optimism about the future of the human race, here is the wonderful Hans Rosling on the "population problem" - really worth watching this if you've got the time:

youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8&
 lummox 29 Jun 2015
In reply to wintertree:

Which stepping stones ?
 Trevers 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Timmd:

> In the hopes of starting an interesting discussion, why do you think that?

Good call. I imagine he means on the personal level. It's easy to see why you would think that there's nothing you can do if the rest of the world doesn't spontaneously make the same expensive lifestyle decisions. However, the recent ruling from the Hague shows that the average person can make a difference and I hope it sets a precedent that make turn the tide.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/hague-climate-change-jud...

On a related note, the environmental impact of more humans is one reason I don't ever want children.
2
 Phil79 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> , but we don't generally sell slaves or burn people alive these days.

Unless you're a member of ISIS, who do exactly that.

But I agree with your general sentiment - life today (for all its issues) is better for most people than its ever been. Its hard to retain that thought sometimes with all the crap in the news.
XXXX 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

The environmental impact of every couple having 1 or 2 children (stable population) is nothing compared to the social and economic impact of every couple having none - ie a nation full of pensioners with no working age population to support them.

Children are essential, not evil. (Although, sometimes I find myself doubting the latter)
 Scarab9 29 Jun 2015
In reply to aultguish:

> 'great extinction'

> This is a new one on me...which media faction has dreamed up this one??

> Spoke with daughter no2 and she has no idea that this is on the cards for her generation but is in no immediate rush to panic or start living out her bucket list.

was declared last week. Not something as such to stress about in regards to your kids, it's not saying humans are going to go extinct or anything, it's saying that the rate of extinction in regards to number of species kicking it is as high now as it ever has been during the previous big extinctions (like them big lizards n stuff).

So it's a conservation issue. Still awful, but not really relevant to the thread.
 wintertree 29 Jun 2015
In reply to lummox:

> Which stepping stones ?

Stanhope. The problem solved itself when the child fell in to the river and had to go away to dry out.
 MG 29 Jun 2015
In reply to XXXX:

> The environmental impact of every couple having 1 or 2 children (stable population) is nothing compared to the social and economic impact of every couple having none - ie a nation full of pensioners with no working age population to support them.

But that's not the choice. A reduction to less than replacement rate of children would lead to a gradual reduction in population that would be manageable. The world's population is not sustainable in any sense (water, food, territory, CO2 emissions) so this is required.
XXXX 29 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

Not really sure what you mean. The UK's birth rate is already too low. We rely on net migration to maintain a healthy population profile.

If I'd had 10 kids, I'd feel guilty. But I think we can all allow ourselves one or two (or even three) without the need to start lashing ourselves.

3
Graeme G 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

I console myself by knowing that f no-one had kids society would break down and we'd all live in absolute anarchy. My sacrifice is for the greater good - so please enjoy every child free moment you have.....just remember me when you do
1
 MG 29 Jun 2015
In reply to XXXX:

What I mean is that a world population at 7 billion and rising is at the root of practically all the big problems we face. We need to first stabilize and then reduce it. Having two children is probably OK as this results in a declining population (due to some dying and some adults not having children). Having three or more children results in a rising population and is immoral in my view in places like the UK where there is no need for it.
XXXX 29 Jun 2015
In reply to MG:

So you're saying what I'm saying. Except you're saying that people who have three children is immoral, which is a little harsh to say the least.






2
 Trevers 29 Jun 2015
In reply to XXXX:

> The environmental impact of every couple having 1 or 2 children (stable population) is nothing compared to the social and economic impact of every couple having none - ie a nation full of pensioners with no working age population to support them.

I'm not trying to pick on you in particular here, and it's possible I've misinterpreted what you've said... but I find it concerning when people seem to separate economy and society from the environment, as though humanity exists inside a bubble unaffected by the natural world.
1
 summo 29 Jun 2015
In reply to XXXX:

That's ok, it is global birth rate that matters with a mobile work force. Unless you live in north Korea etc..
 summo 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

> How worried are you about the world they will grow up into? Climate change and a great extinction. Water shortages and environmental refugees, not to mention potential for increased biological warfare / terrorism.

you can life your entire life as a 'prepper', or you can get on with living it in the present conditions, giving your kids a wide variety of experiences and skills.


XXXX 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:

Of course. They can't be separated but it works both ways. A rich, equal society can afford to spend more on climate change. A poor, divided society will be focussed on short term issues.

As a society, we will be devastated by unchecked climate change. Equally, if there were no children, there will be no society. Like most things, there's a happy balance to be found.

Up to three children per couple, I would suggest, is about right.
1
 summo 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Flinticus:

the current drought on the western coast of the USA might help people see things little better and perhaps make then see a little further in the future. Farmers inland are being told to cut consumption by another 25%, whilst the swimming pools of the rich in LA are still full and their lawns watered, because they can afford the fines.
 summo 29 Jun 2015
In reply to XXXX:

> As a society, we will be devastated by unchecked climate change. Equally, if there were no children, there will be no society. Like most things, there's a happy balance to be found.

> Up to three children per couple, I would suggest, is about right.

if people lived more as families and didn't caste their parents off to a home, living '2 kids to a couple' would be much more feasible. In the future it could probably be less, the staff ratio for looking after oldies in homes is a long way from 1 to 1.

The bigger problem is funding old age, as many folk don't make any provisions for it, for various reasons. But, that's not a good enough reason to keep increasing the planets population by 50% every generation.
In reply to XXXX:
> So you're saying what I'm saying.

Not really. He's speaking on a global scale, you were talking about the UK population level.
Post edited at 15:22
 Timmd 29 Jun 2015
In reply to Trevers:
> Good call. I imagine he means on the personal level. It's easy to see why you would think that there's nothing you can do if the rest of the world doesn't spontaneously make the same expensive lifestyle decisions. However, the recent ruling from the Hague shows that the average person can make a difference and I hope it sets a precedent that make turn the tide.

> ht tp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/hague-climate-change-judgement-could-inspire-a-gl...

> On a related note, the environmental impact of more humans is one reason I don't ever want children.

So do I, a sure way for things not to change for the better is for most people to think it's hopeless, there's the fact that even if we can't affect climate change, or if the science turns out to be wrong, making the same changes is still to our benefit anyway, in terms of air pollution and less wastage happening...it is still a beneficial shift to make.
Post edited at 16:01
 BarrySW19 29 Jun 2015
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Sweet Jesus. How scary was Threads? I think that movie, and "Scum" had a real affect on my life...the first to show me how horrendous a nuclear exchange would actually be, and the second to keep me on the straight and narrow in regards to the law

Really? I thought the take away message from Scum was that you should always carry a 'tool'.
 Trevers 29 Jun 2015
In reply to BarrySW19:

> Really? I thought the take away message from Scum was that you should always carry a 'tool'.

Quite. Noone messes with you if you're carrying an ice axe.
 Timmd 30 Jun 2015
In reply to BarrySW19:
> Really? I thought the take away message from Scum was that you should always carry a 'tool'.

Either carry a tool or stay away from places where you need to carry a tool I guess. I'm half tempted to start learning Taekwondo after stumbling across footage of a bully starting on an inoffensive looking thin youth, who unexpectedly takes him out with one head kick before proceeding on his way. I've been lucky enough to be able to escape by running in the past, but that might not always be the case.
Post edited at 00:10
XXXX 30 Jun 2015
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

Well societies are local. It's all very well having a global birth rate equal to the death rate but if there are countries where the birth rate is zero, you have problems in those areas. People don't just spread out evenly across the globe!

XXXX 30 Jun 2015
In reply to summo:

Having three children per couple does not mean a guaranteed population increase. Some couples will have none because they can't or don't want to have children. Some will have children who die before they do.

If most people have one or two as in the UK, you get a gradual decline. There is certainly no need to have a rigid cut off at three when you become some kind of spawning monster. What if you have triplets ffs

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...