| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Rob R |
Change in farming can feed world - reporthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/16/food.biofuels
|
||||||||||
| Brownbear |
The population increases and needs to be fed. Produce more food.
The population increases further and needs to be fed. Produce more food still. Repeat until population sufficiently dense to fall victim to plague. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
You missed out a stage (or two) at the beginning 
|
||||||||||
| VSS |
coming ever nearer i think there's a bright thought for a sunday morning. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
It'a alright, technology will keep pace with disease, won't it 
|
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
I just hope we discover warp drive and can leave the planet before we run out of room.
In the meantime the Chinese method - restricting number of children - is perhaps not a bad solution? |
||||||||||
| tahir |
That kind of thing works quite well, in dictatorships. What about the rest of the world? |
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Here in the UK that sort of thing could be implemented quite easily as a "green tax" - the more children you have the more tax you pay. (I am assuming the opposite approach - tax reductions for those with fewer children) would be less popular with the government. | ||||||||||
| tahir |
Would tax in such a wealthy country make any difference? Fertility goes down as wealth goes up doesn't it? | ||||||||||
| Stacey |
I thought people weren't having enough children in the uk? 
eta - a quick google says it's the whole of europe, not just uk |
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
A combination of taxation, legislation, and government social advertising has been fairly successful for reducing smoking. I think a similar approach could work for population. However as Stacey says, current UK government policy is to increase population, through immigration and child benefit allowances. I think in France there is also a policy of encouraging more children. However any policy that can encourage population growth in a democratic country can presumably work just as well in reverse? | ||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Not fertility, or activity, just output. Generally rich countries have lower birth rates and even declining populations, which is why for economic reasons some are rewarded for having babies (Germany). |
||||||||||
| Brownbear |
You will probably find that competition for increasingly scarce resources will encourage the spread of low-intensity warfare, thus lowering the population through not only combat losses, but the associated disease, famine, infant mortality and falling birth rate. Overpopulation is usually self-correcting in the end. |
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
That's a bit pessimistic. The world seems to have woken up to climate change and is starting to do something about it. Over-population is no different, maybe western countries can start to take the Chinese lead on this one. | ||||||||||
| vanessa |
It works to an extent, but the Chinese want male babies, and the female ones are often left to die in the gutter. Terribly sad. 
[quote=tahir] Would tax in such a wealthy country make any difference? Fertility goes down as wealth goes up doesn't it? [/quote]
This can be seen in the UK - the contrast between the "wealthier" families having very small families and the "poorer" ones having larger families. Generalisation I know ... but it's the broad pattern, and has been for many years now. |
||||||||||
| Slim |
Providing free education to anyone on the planet would significantly lower birth rates worldwide. The main difference in family size has to do with the age of the mother at first born. The longer they are educated, the longer they go without raising a family, the smaller their family is likely to be. Sort of win-win-win isn't it? | ||||||||||
| Nick |
But then, won't they move away from a small impact peasant lifestyle, and demand cars and phones and water and homes and oil and things? | ||||||||||
| Slim |
|
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
It’s not just small impact un-educated peasant lifestyles that have high birth rates ... the UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe. And inspite of being a democracy we also have more CCTV cameras per head of population than anywhere else, including China. We may not like some of the things they do, but we are not necessarily any better, and at least they seem to be taking population control seriously even if we don’t agree with the way they are going about it (which I don't). | ||||||||||
| toggle |
It's not just an issue of remaining in education, there's a lot more complex things going on, even a basic level of education about the way in which their body works and enough knowledge about hygiene and health to have some surety that most of their offspring will survive childhood can significantly impact on birth rates. |
||||||||||
| Slim |
Wait, my two sentences weren't a thorough plan of action for the U.N. to embark upon? 
You're absolutely right, there are so many little aspects that could have large impacts. Anything that helps is a help! 
|
||||||||||
| oldish chris |
Re: Change in farming can feed world - report
My tuppence worth is: is it the responsibility of the USA and the other major grain producers to ensure that the rest of the world gets fed? |
||||||||||
| Nick |
Legally, no. Morally, I think we stink if we allow them to starve whilst we have less important things, like surpluses. Especially when some of the food we eat is grown at the direct expense of theirs, which it often is. | ||||||||||
| orangepippin |
So to avoid morrally stinking, what are we going to do then? Stop importing their food and grow more ourselves? Stop expanding our population so that we consume less? Or maybe allow more immigration on the grounds that our country can mostly feed its population? Put pressure on our government to tell the Americans to feed everyone else? Intervene in the the wars and political unrest of the third world so that they have peace and can grow food for themselves? Just send them our food surplus and hope it gets distributed fairly? Force our culture on theirs Commonwealth style - after all that worked for us when the Romans invaded here? Implement fair trade agreements?
Bit of a mess really isn't it. |
||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Assuming you pay tax. And for those who dont? Policies that deliberately impoverish people tend to be poorly received. |
||||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
Perhaps you haven't noticed. But the UK has not managed to feed it's population for decades. We import massive amounts of food. |
||||||||||
| oldish chris |
(1) Decades? Am I right in thinking that it is more than a century? (2) Due to our industriousness, we earn more than enough to feed ourselves, obesity is our main nutritional problem, and orangepippin is right, in theory, if we cut our working hours down to 35 hours/week we could employ loads more. |
||||||||||
| Jamanda |
But no-one starves here. We do manage to feed the population by one method or another. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Yes, by destroying virgin habitats abroad to grow our foods. It is hardly sustainable. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
This is what we as a nation have to address. Do we want a bigger population to work for us and pay our pensions when we are old? Or a greener , more self sufficient and sustainable population? The first option is only compounding the pension/elderly problem for the next generation. Until it is decided what population level we want we can’t resolve the issue. 
|
||||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
CKR has hit the nail on the head. Here in France they are encouraging large families so that there will be more working people to pay pensions of those retired. Only problem is what happens when those young people themselves are retired? We'd have to have even more younger people etc etc. So it's a vicious spiral. And one that can't be sustained. | ||||||||||
| Stacey |
Why do they need 'even more'? |
||||||||||
| Nick |
To pay the pensions and support the larger generation as they get old, and refuse to die.
What we need is a few good winters, to knock off a few hundred thousand coffin dodgers.
|
||||||||||
| Stacey |
Yes, but why even more? I don't understand the maths. |
||||||||||
| Nick |
1 old person today needs, what, 2 people to pay enough tax and/or have enough spare time to look after them.
Which means two old people tomorrow. Who need 4 people to look after them. And so on. The ratios are made up,but I guess that's the theory. |
||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
If you assume you need two people working to pay for the pensions for a single retired person. When those two workers retire you will need four people to pay for them and if the original retired person is still alive you'll need six people. |
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
One of the problems in the UK at least is the apparently unsustainable public sector pension commitment. There was an article in the weekend press about "pension apartheid". | ||||||||||
| vanessa |
Because people are living longer and longer. Sure, there must come a time when this trend will cease, but for the foreseeable future, this will be a problem.
When Aneurin Bevan dreamed up the Welfare State, the retirement age was set at 65 for men and 60 for women because they were only expected to live one or two years longer than that. If, indeed, the ever achieved retirement age. Now, huge numbers live into their 80s or even 90s; pensions which were only designed to cover a very few years are now being claimed for decades, which puts a strain on the whole welfare system. Not only that, but in general, old folk have expensive healthcare needs. And so, until longevity reaches its peak, ever more "young workers" will be needed to pay for the care of the retired generations. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Or the fitter, elderly could work for longer. We are going to have to work longer before we get our pensions. | ||||||||||
| orangepippin |
But part of the thinking in Bevan's time was a "contract" between the generations. The pension savings of the current generation actually paid for the previous generation. One of the problems now is that our generation - all of us - are still paying for our parents generation yet now having to pay for our own pensions too. A bit of a double whammy on this generation. This "time bomb" has been coming for some time but our politicians - who are immune to its effects - have done very little about it. Indeed many of the actions of the UK government over the last few years seem aimed at making live even more difficult for those who are willing to save for the future. | ||||||||||
| cab |
Perfectly fine for those capable of doing so. I dread to think how hard it will be to differentiate those who can work from those who can't. More to the point, it's going to be monstrously harsh on those who have selected less well paying but essential jobs and who therefore can't afford to retire on their own assets. |
||||||||||
| Nick |
Well, we manage, to a degree on those below 65 currently. (Disability type things.) Would eating the old be a workable solution? |
||||||||||
| cab |
We manage very badly in some cases, which is the cause for my concern. |
||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
The pensions bill is going to raise the retirement age to 68 and try to encourage people to save in a pension. I know it's too little too late and IMHO not flexible enough but at least it's a step in the right direction. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Perhaps the Costa del Sol brigade should have saved for a rainy day instead of spending every summer abroad since the 1970's. Multi £bn's have haemorrhaged out of the British economy this way. Money that could have either been personally saved or nationally reinvested for elderly provision. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Perhaps the Costa del Sol brigade should have saved for a rainy day instead of spending every summer abroad since the 1970's. Multi £bn's have haemorrhaged out of the British economy this way. Money that could have either been personally saved or nationally reinvested for elderly provision. | ||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Some other things the government might do to encourage saving: stop means-testing pensioners, re-instate pension tax credit, re-instate the 2% reduction in tax-free contributions that the recent change to the 20% tax rate has created, introduce free care for the elderly (as they have in Scotland), put public sector pension schemes on the same basis as the private sector etc etc. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
And create a fair ‘Hereditary Tax that taxes the individual beneficiaries only if they inherit a large legacy, instead of the current ‘Death Duty’ that taxes the whole legacy. The current situation makes canny pensioners give away their own money before the state takes it leaving some poor and dependant. | ||||||||||
| orangepippin |
Good point.
Can't help thinking we could make a better job of this than the government is 
|
||||||||||
| Nick |
Well, you get £300k FOC.
Do you mean if one person gets it all ,they should be taxed, but if it's split between, say, 5 brothers, they should get an allowance each? Inheritence tax is one of the more insidious taxes. |
||||||||||
| Treacodactyl |
Means testing certainly causes problems and really the best advice at the moment is to only save for a pension if you're going to save a fair bit. I'd also want some funds that perform better than cash but are less volatile than many of the current low risk funds. How a fund that can fall 20% in a few months can be defined as low volatility and low risk is anyone's guess. For example, in todays market if people received something like a guaranteed 9% growth, which shouldn't be too difficult, it might make people more willing to save. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Yes, that way it is the living people that get taxed not the dead one, which I think is macabre and immoral. |
||||||||||
| cab |
Or just have a far more just inheritance tax, taxing the transfer of resources from one individual to another as if its a gift, and tax inspectors with teeth to track those who currently seek to evade the system. Personally, I'd be putting inheritance tax up to something like 85%. It seems utterly regressive and quite absurd that property is passed from one generation to another. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
That would really encourage pensioners to die pennyless and drain the coffers of the N.H.S. 
|
||||||||||
| orangepippin |
It is not just property (ie houses) though. In many cases (property being a partial exception) the "estate" has already been taxed so I don't see how there can be any justification for taxing it again. For example, I buy a guitar. I buy it with my after-tax income. I pay VAT on it. Why should my son be taxed on it if he inherits it?
Fundamentally we need less tax, not more. Tax evasion is only a significant problem where tax rates are too high - which is one of the benefits of a low flat-tax system. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
Like the last world war? Which resulted in the 'baby boom' & the misguided 'cheap food' policy the cracks of which being the very reason that we are all here posting on this website?
Subsequently this thread seems to have gone off on a tangent concerning itself with our aging population, like world governments ignoring the the fundamental facts that are so often mis-used to justify food policy, I refer anyone to the quote in bold. |
||||||||||
| cab |
Fine, they've spent their money and its circulating back into the economy. |
||||||||||
| cab |
You pay tax on your salary. You then pay more tax when you spend that salary. Those who you bought things off pay tax when they spend the money. You want to exclude the massive transfer of wealth unearned by the recipient? Why?
Why should he not pay tax on something he did not earn? |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
We've been here before, so it hardly needs repeating but that is rather anti-multigenerational thinking. If it should be every generation for itself that will only serve to encourage us to care less for our own elderly. |
||||||||||
| cab |
And that argument rather exposes where we're really missing out in relating to elderly people in society. They aren't a source of wealth waiting to be passed on, and those with less money are not of lesser 'worth' because they have lesser 'wealth'. Theres something quite unsettling about the way we don't listen to what the elderly have to say, we don't make use of their skills and experiences, instead we seem to view them merely as a store of property and money to eventually be exploited. Indeed there is pressure for them to continue to accumulate wealth to pass on, its viewed as a respecable and sensible role for them to be living endowment policies. Such waste, such squandering of the real resource that the elderly represent. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
All true about the value of our elderly, however, if a person has been a carer for that elderly person for umpteen years working for nothing & then they get a lump sum when that relative passes away is it really fair to slap a blanket 85% on that money rather than a progressive tax, had they taken that money as earnings? Surely that would be just another way people would avoid the tax. And this of course all assumes you die when you are 80, as opposed to when you have a young family. | ||||||||||
| cab |
Oh, I've nothing against replacing inheritance tax with something genuinely progressive treating time caring as time to earn (amongst other things), but that ain't happening any time soon. Hence the suggestion that as there is no clear moral principle for passing resourced from one generation to another in a family being a good thing, up the inheritance tax. I agree entirely that there should be a 'smarter' way, I'm just not of the opinion that tax systems are good at doing things the 'smart' way. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
And there endeth this tangent I see there's another thread started about it anyway. Maybe this one can get back to the issue of food being poorly distributed throughout the world...
|
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
They spent it with Cunard. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I thought the 'Cheap Food Policy' was introduced by the Liberals in the '20's. WW2 highlighted its shortcomings and governments post war, vowed never to return on reliance of imports if we could help it. oops that all went wrong then.
|
||||||||||
| gnome |
if farmers were paid a decent price for what they produce, they might start growing food instead of whatever gets the subsidies this year. there is no shortage of arable land, merely a shortage of politicians who have their priorities right.
the only major barrier towards feeding the world (apart from greed, that is) is how do we getfresh food from A to B? it is transportation and storage that pushes up the cost. |