one of my dads sayings was 'children should be hurt and not seen'. the real saying is of course 'children should be seen and not heard'.
joking aside (but was i lol) we should always remember our precious children are not necessarily a joy, blessing or use to others. but often merely a nuisance or just plain competition. and every extra one is a bain on the natural world that sustains them all.
58 national science academies agree with this video. The following sources were used for the video: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, NASA, NOAA, the most recent IUCN Red data list, Oregon state university study: Family planning: A major environmental emphasis, UNFPA, gapminder, world resources institute.
I wish people would calm down with having children! They don't understand the damage they are doing to society... I'm a woman who doesn't want children, not even one. My mum and sister constantly complain about this saying my life will be "boring"... I'm so sick of people be so judgmental.
"Cost of raising child to 21 soars to £210,000" Guardian. Thursday 24 February 2011.
"Family planning: A major environmental emphasis-the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives" Oregon State University study. 58 National Science acadmies agree that a overpopulation is a major issue.See:InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth.
Yea, that's a wonderful thing about China and Thailand, and I'm so glad to see there's some hope! Now...the rest of us needs to be taught how very important this is..
Couples selfishly wanting more than one child will NEVER opt for zero or one child unless it becomes a law. It's human nature to procreate and we will freely continue to do so, especially since so many religions require as many babies as possible! Unfortunately, people like you and I have a long way to go to convince babymakers the harm they're doing to the earth ...and their kids!
@sunshinecatlady While I agree that one child (or no child) families are not a bad thing until we stabilise at a more sustainable population, I diagree that laws are the way to do it. e.g. In Thailand they dropped birth rates through voluntary methods and incentives rather than laws from 7 to less than 2 children per woman in little over 30 years. This was just as effective as China's one child policy but unlike China didn't require coercion just voluntary contraception/awareness.
I chose to never have children because of this very important issue. Most or all the issues we are struggling with are the result of just too many people in the USA and world!! And, there's STILL no control over people cranking out so many kids! So sad......
@sunshinecatlady Thanks for your comment. While I agree family size is too large and I welcome people to voluntarily choose to have one child or less, I do not support coercive or forced measures to achieve it. Incentives work better than punishment so inn my next video I will explain the benefits of small family size in more detail. Education on the issue and voluntary contraception provision/training is the key. See un.org/ esa/ population/ cpd/ cpd2011/ ecn92011-6buettner. pdf
@beneecha "Cost of raising child to 21 soars to £210,000" Guardian. Thursday 24 February 2011.
"Family planning: A major environmental emphasis-the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives" Oregon State University study. 58 National Science acadmies agree that a overpopulation is a major issue.See:InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth.
@dankoepp68 But good intentions nonetheless. Not a bad idea too, for one day. It's a good way to start slowing and stopping overpoulation, at any rate.
@Zamriasra At the moment our system runs on a ponzi scheme (pyramid scheme) where we have to increasingly add more people to the bottom to support the rich at the top. This is unsustainable. Children don't actually contribute to old peoples pensions until they are in their 20's. Instead with a one child: less money would be needed for school (which could be transferred to pensions), class sizes would be smaller, unemployment would fall, wages would rise and ecosystem services recover.
@phillips78 Could you explain how unemployment will fall before i comment on why you are wrong ? Also how wages would rise? Just want to see the full picture.
To the last comment the eco system that is not really true. Reason why let's use the nuke if we hit every country with a nuke and the population became lets say 1 million. Because of the natural cause of radiation the world would die off. Now that is a very very drastic case, but some times nature just wants to do it's course.
@Zamriasra The share of resources increases as populations decline.Case study: In Europe, immediately following the plague, wages rose as demand for workers increased and unemployment fell. Health would improve as air quality improved so quality of life would also improve. Ecosystem services are occasionally damaged by natural disaster but a combination of natural disaster AND human damage is much worse and harder to recover from than just one of them.
@phillips78 Finishing the nature wants to due it's course part the ice age, and drought of the century are just two good examples. I would have to say even if we did reduce the worlds population there been evidence that there is a global disastor every 30000 years. So even if we did get to live that long we could see another ice age without human intervention.
@Zamriasra Ecosystem services are occasionally damaged by natural disaster but a combination of natural disaster AND human damage is much worse and harder to recover from than just one of them.
@phillips78 That is not true at all. There was a nice discovery channel apoc. video a couple of months a go on what would happen if they worlds humans disapeared. It would only take 20 years for most of the world to be come vegitated again, and cause and un balance in the world. Yin and yang my friend there must be balance, anyways diseases prevent us from having to much of a population, we still haven't found a cure for the plague and we could easly have another one reducing the worlds pop.
@Zamriasra Sorry but it sounds distinctly like you think that natural disasters are greater than human damage to the environment AND natural disasters combined?
It also sounds like you would prefer nature to deal with our unsustainable population through disease and poverty rather than limit oursleves voluntarily through contraception with no loss of life needed?
@phillips78 I will sum up my arguement on this video. I believe that the worlds population is decreasing which it is. Usa, and such. I do believe that we should have 1 child for 1 person myself i plan to adopt and get a vacs. to prevent. I do not believe we are over populated but mismangeing resources and wasting them. I also believe that industrialization is a bad thing and i wish more people were farmers myself included. I also believe that even if we occupied all space on the planet disease..
@phillips78 ... eradicate them, which was seen in the bio plague and other things. Now I wish your videos focused on more of a we are using to much, and such than we are over populated, but i see your point, but if everyone lived like the normal african tribe we would be fine for sure. They even help the enviroment in some ways. So final thoughts i believe we should go through a total world eradication of industrialization and go to a more green society. If not we should invest in green...
@Zamriasra Tyhanks for your comment. My concerns are 1) We use non renewable resources for our survival AND there are 7 billion of us and rising. If we look at history we can calculate that 2 billion would be sustainable at a European level of consumption, 5 billion at a Chinese level of consumption. No need for deaths, just voluntary contraception. I agree overconsuming people should use less but population is the key as only a lack of a consumer means no consumption.
@phillips78 Good point but due to this point could be possibly argued to the end of time i will not continue but i will state that i was saying instead of living like a eurpean lets live like an african tribe where they don't use any of that stuff, Do you agree if everyone lived like that manor that the world would be fine at it's current population?
@Zamriasra With so many ecosystems damaged I doubt that even at the low levels of consumption that 7 billion would be sustainable. (The MEA measured 24 ecosystem services concluding that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.
@fagvader If he doesn't, the comment section will turn into a full-on flame war. There will always be some misinformed twat or internet troll taking advantage of their anonimity.
I've seen this message painted as "WE 2 OURS 1" on the back of autorickshaws in India, along with "1 FAMILY 1 CHILD." "One Planet One Child" makes for a memorable new variation. Great cause. Great video.
An important video all schools and churches should be showing to their classes.
musicjamvideo 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
one of my dads sayings was 'children should be hurt and not seen'. the real saying is of course 'children should be seen and not heard'.
joking aside (but was i lol) we should always remember our precious children are not necessarily a joy, blessing or use to others. but often merely a nuisance or just plain competition. and every extra one is a bain on the natural world that sustains them all.
andy765gtr 5 months ago
58 national science academies agree with this video. The following sources were used for the video: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, NASA, NOAA, the most recent IUCN Red data list, Oregon state university study: Family planning: A major environmental emphasis, UNFPA, gapminder, world resources institute.
phillips78 6 months ago
I wish people would calm down with having children! They don't understand the damage they are doing to society... I'm a woman who doesn't want children, not even one. My mum and sister constantly complain about this saying my life will be "boring"... I'm so sick of people be so judgmental.
MsBrit5792 8 months ago 7
"Cost of raising child to 21 soars to £210,000" Guardian. Thursday 24 February 2011.
"Family planning: A major environmental emphasis-the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives" Oregon State University study. 58 National Science acadmies agree that a overpopulation is a major issue.See:InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth.
phillips78 9 months ago
Yea, that's a wonderful thing about China and Thailand, and I'm so glad to see there's some hope! Now...the rest of us needs to be taught how very important this is..
sunshinecatlady 9 months ago
Couples selfishly wanting more than one child will NEVER opt for zero or one child unless it becomes a law. It's human nature to procreate and we will freely continue to do so, especially since so many religions require as many babies as possible! Unfortunately, people like you and I have a long way to go to convince babymakers the harm they're doing to the earth ...and their kids!
sunshinecatlady 9 months ago
@sunshinecatlady While I agree that one child (or no child) families are not a bad thing until we stabilise at a more sustainable population, I diagree that laws are the way to do it. e.g. In Thailand they dropped birth rates through voluntary methods and incentives rather than laws from 7 to less than 2 children per woman in little over 30 years. This was just as effective as China's one child policy but unlike China didn't require coercion just voluntary contraception/awareness.
phillips78 9 months ago
I chose to never have children because of this very important issue. Most or all the issues we are struggling with are the result of just too many people in the USA and world!! And, there's STILL no control over people cranking out so many kids! So sad......
sunshinecatlady 9 months ago 4
@sunshinecatlady Thanks for your comment. While I agree family size is too large and I welcome people to voluntarily choose to have one child or less, I do not support coercive or forced measures to achieve it. Incentives work better than punishment so inn my next video I will explain the benefits of small family size in more detail. Education on the issue and voluntary contraception provision/training is the key. See un.org/ esa/ population/ cpd/ cpd2011/ ecn92011-6buettner. pdf
phillips78 9 months ago
This video has inspired me. I'm gonna have tonnes of kids now
beneecha 9 months ago
@beneecha "Cost of raising child to 21 soars to £210,000" Guardian. Thursday 24 February 2011.
"Family planning: A major environmental emphasis-the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives" Oregon State University study. 58 National Science acadmies agree that a overpopulation is a major issue.See:InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth.
phillips78 9 months ago
have you heard of vhemt ? Google it! More radical !
dankoepp68 9 months ago 2
@dankoepp68 But good intentions nonetheless. Not a bad idea too, for one day. It's a good way to start slowing and stopping overpoulation, at any rate.
vgman94 9 months ago
As well as encouraging couples to have only one child, we should also encourage and support people who choose not to have any children.
wix99 9 months ago 12
What happens when the generations of next can not support the elderly ?
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra At the moment our system runs on a ponzi scheme (pyramid scheme) where we have to increasingly add more people to the bottom to support the rich at the top. This is unsustainable. Children don't actually contribute to old peoples pensions until they are in their 20's. Instead with a one child: less money would be needed for school (which could be transferred to pensions), class sizes would be smaller, unemployment would fall, wages would rise and ecosystem services recover.
phillips78 9 months ago
@phillips78 Could you explain how unemployment will fall before i comment on why you are wrong ? Also how wages would rise? Just want to see the full picture.
To the last comment the eco system that is not really true. Reason why let's use the nuke if we hit every country with a nuke and the population became lets say 1 million. Because of the natural cause of radiation the world would die off. Now that is a very very drastic case, but some times nature just wants to do it's course.
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra The share of resources increases as populations decline.Case study: In Europe, immediately following the plague, wages rose as demand for workers increased and unemployment fell. Health would improve as air quality improved so quality of life would also improve. Ecosystem services are occasionally damaged by natural disaster but a combination of natural disaster AND human damage is much worse and harder to recover from than just one of them.
phillips78 9 months ago
@phillips78 Finishing the nature wants to due it's course part the ice age, and drought of the century are just two good examples. I would have to say even if we did reduce the worlds population there been evidence that there is a global disastor every 30000 years. So even if we did get to live that long we could see another ice age without human intervention.
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra Ecosystem services are occasionally damaged by natural disaster but a combination of natural disaster AND human damage is much worse and harder to recover from than just one of them.
phillips78 9 months ago
@phillips78 That is not true at all. There was a nice discovery channel apoc. video a couple of months a go on what would happen if they worlds humans disapeared. It would only take 20 years for most of the world to be come vegitated again, and cause and un balance in the world. Yin and yang my friend there must be balance, anyways diseases prevent us from having to much of a population, we still haven't found a cure for the plague and we could easly have another one reducing the worlds pop.
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra Sorry but it sounds distinctly like you think that natural disasters are greater than human damage to the environment AND natural disasters combined?
It also sounds like you would prefer nature to deal with our unsustainable population through disease and poverty rather than limit oursleves voluntarily through contraception with no loss of life needed?
Is this the case?
phillips78 9 months ago
@phillips78 I will sum up my arguement on this video. I believe that the worlds population is decreasing which it is. Usa, and such. I do believe that we should have 1 child for 1 person myself i plan to adopt and get a vacs. to prevent. I do not believe we are over populated but mismangeing resources and wasting them. I also believe that industrialization is a bad thing and i wish more people were farmers myself included. I also believe that even if we occupied all space on the planet disease..
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra The world population went up around 75 million last year alone.
World population to cross 10 bn - 2100-Economic times
Also try Gapminder for your stats.
phillips78 9 months ago
@phillips78 ... eradicate them, which was seen in the bio plague and other things. Now I wish your videos focused on more of a we are using to much, and such than we are over populated, but i see your point, but if everyone lived like the normal african tribe we would be fine for sure. They even help the enviroment in some ways. So final thoughts i believe we should go through a total world eradication of industrialization and go to a more green society. If not we should invest in green...
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra Tyhanks for your comment. My concerns are 1) We use non renewable resources for our survival AND there are 7 billion of us and rising. If we look at history we can calculate that 2 billion would be sustainable at a European level of consumption, 5 billion at a Chinese level of consumption. No need for deaths, just voluntary contraception. I agree overconsuming people should use less but population is the key as only a lack of a consumer means no consumption.
phillips78 9 months ago
@phillips78 Good point but due to this point could be possibly argued to the end of time i will not continue but i will state that i was saying instead of living like a eurpean lets live like an african tribe where they don't use any of that stuff, Do you agree if everyone lived like that manor that the world would be fine at it's current population?
Zamriasra 9 months ago
@Zamriasra With so many ecosystems damaged I doubt that even at the low levels of consumption that 7 billion would be sustainable. (The MEA measured 24 ecosystem services concluding that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.
phillips78 9 months ago
Phillip I dislike how you have to approve every comment but I really enjoyed this video and for that I thank you.
fagvader 10 months ago
@fagvader If he doesn't, the comment section will turn into a full-on flame war. There will always be some misinformed twat or internet troll taking advantage of their anonimity.
MegaArmchair 10 months ago
liked shared and subscribed
dong9589 10 months ago
I've seen this message painted as "WE 2 OURS 1" on the back of autorickshaws in India, along with "1 FAMILY 1 CHILD." "One Planet One Child" makes for a memorable new variation. Great cause. Great video.
SPAnsw 10 months ago 10