This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Doctors say that you can stop global warming by not having kids!

I'm not kidding...

A pair of doctors have said that British parents should have fewer children, because kids cause carbon emissions and climate change. 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.

Source

What a complete load of utter wanky *******s! Fair enough if you want to sign up to the whole global warming hysteria, but Jesus Christ, telling people not to have kids?

If someone really wants to "stop climate change" (Which is impossible, but that's by-the-by), there are certainly much better ways to achieve it. It just seems to be a pressure group created for some daft purpose latching on to the public fear that we're evil monsters who are killing the earth. Pretty insidious really, and moronic that these doctors are latching onto such contemptible *******s.

What do you guys think?

Reply 1

Audrey Hepburn

12

Hah! My little brother's a waste of energy!! :rofl:

I'm off to go mock him for it...

Reply 2

Bear_Grylls

19

Next sherlock holmes in the making.....the less people there are the less emissions are caused, hardly needed doctors to tell me that,

Reply 3

Nothos

OP

14

Bear_Grylls

Err, no **** sherlock, the less people there are the less emissions are caused, hardly needed doctors to tell me that,

The fact is though that just not having kids is not going to stop jack **** if the kids you do have decide it's fun to pollute the crap out of stuff. It's just idiocy.

Reply 4

Em_maK

13

Oh its good to know I'll be doing my bit for the planet.

I don't want kids, ever.

Reply 5

Nothos

OP

14

squid

Of course it is.
Less kids, smaller cars. Less kids, more money. More money, more people can afford to be greener.

If you can't see why this would work, you're probably a bit soft in the brain.

Less kids = Less people and thus less activity going into the economy so even if you do have money, it's not necessarily worth more.

And like I said, say you have two kids, but those two kids decide to drive 4x4s and burn petrol all the time for fun. It's not the number of kids, it's the kids themselves that matter.

Reply 6

Pigeon Explosion

You can't 'stop' global warming by having less kids, but there will be less people polluting/using energy, so it will prevent more contribution being made to it. But family sizes in the UK aren't that big anyway.
Yet again, what if your third child turns out to be a super-genius who develops a load of technology to lessen the impact of global warming? Although I'm getting a bit ludicrous now :woo:

Reply 7

h82think

14

Audrey Hepburn

Hah! My little brother's a waste of energy!! :rofl:

I'm off to go mock him for it...

So is my sister :p:

Reply 8

Pigeon Explosion

BruceTaylor

It's not the number of kids, it's the kids themselves that matter.

Good point. The emphasis should be on educating children and raising awareness of global warming e.t.c, which is already being done.

Reply 9

username138106

Or maybe they've got it wrong, and recycling kills children?

Reply 10

HCD

16

BruceTaylor

Less kids = Less people and thus less activity going into the economy so even if you do have money, it's not necessarily worth more.

And like I said, say you have two kids, but those two kids decide to drive 4x4s and burn petrol all the time for fun. It's not the number of kids, it's the kids themselves that matter.

If you have 4 kids, it's more likely to be polluting than 2 kids. Statistically distributed throughout the nation, fewer kids = fewer emissions. That's that. If you dispute that, you're a fool.

I love these "teenagers wot know better than the experts" threads.

Reply 11

lady_smudger

=audrey hepburnOriginally Posted by Audrey Hepburn
Hah! My little brother's a waste of energy!!

I'm off to go mock him for it...

I am too

Reply 12

GeoTom

15

People are the cause of the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Less people=less effect.
Kids=people too.

Reply 13

Milady de Winter

Or maybe, the link between human intervention and climate change hasn't been proved (in fact, recent cooling suggests that the link is at best tenuous), ergo the number of children you have will have a minimal impact on the climate in terms of carbon/temperature.

Why does global warming have to top the agenda for everything? There are numerous media complaints about falling birthrates in the UK, yet in the context of global warming, that's a 'good thing'. It's the same scenario with developing economies - people state that they want to end poverty, but this poverty is occurring in the very nations whose economies and industrial development are stunted by caps on carbon emissions.

I could go on... but this has already turned into a rant :smile:

I just detest the unthinking acceptance of "man-made climate change", and the political/media machinations that place it higher on the agenda than issues that really need our attention. :mad:

*awaits the Climate Inquisition to tie me to a stake and begin kindling the righteous fires for the heretic*

Reply 14

Nothos

OP

14

Milady de Winter

Or maybe, the link between human intervention and climate change hasn't been proved (in fact, recent cooling suggests that the link is at best tenuous), ergo the number of children you have will have a minimal impact on the climate in terms of carbon/temperature.

Why does global warming have to top the agenda for everything? There are numerous media complaints about falling birthrates in the UK, yet in the context of global warming, that's a 'good thing'. It's the same scenario with developing economies - people state that they want to end poverty, but this poverty is occurring in the very nations whose economies and industrial development are stunted by caps on carbon emissions.

I could go on... but this has already turned into a rant :smile:

I just detest the unthinking acceptance of man-made climate change, and the political machinations that place it higher on the agenda than issues that really need our attention. :mad:

Exactly! Finally someone who looks at it with sense :biggrin:

Reply 15

CatatonicStupor

15

It's a logical idea. Stop the next generation from being born, and eventually, the world will come back to its natural equilibrium.

BUT, if the book I'm reading is anything to go by, it's best not to do that, cause everything we'd have spent years building will be covered by trees and things, and will have fallen down...and then when chimps finally figure out that Darwin was right, and start worshipping invisible monkeys, the cycle will start again. :rolleyes:

Reply 16

Milady de Winter

BruceTaylor

Exactly! Finally someone who looks at it with sense :biggrin:

Thanks. I do think that the science needs to be looked at more closely, as does the media reaction to the whole issue. But that could take up an entire thread on its own (and probably already has).