They have no clean drinking water and it’s your fault!

[Neapolitanicecream]

Watched Stacy Dooley “Fashion dirty secret” on BBC last night. Lost sleep over it. Michael Gove is clueless on the poisonings of water for millions of people. It’s a disaster and it’s our fault with buying cheap cotton. We need to do something! Kids are being poisoned 🤢 it made me cry

i tend to make a winter coat last a few years too. I do need a new pair of boots this winter though as a black pair i bought back in 2014 were falling apart so i got rid of them back in June.

To be honest, I really don't care. I certainly don't accept that it is MY fault. I do what I've been raised to do, I wear and wash clothes because society (YOU!) have told me I should.

You can't spend your life worrying about "tomorrow". Live for the moment. The world is going to shit anyway.

See also

yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/replacement-fertility-declines-worldwide

"Since the start of the 21st century, close to 20 countries have declined in population size and are aging rapidly due to low fertility levels. If current below-replacement fertility rates remain unchanged, populations of 40 countries, including China, Germany, Japan, Russia and South Korea, are projected to be smaller by mid-century. Even if fertility rates were to increase modestly, as assumed by a United Nations projection, the populations of those countries are still expected to be smaller by 2050."

I'm not saying that overpopulation isn't an issue

"Despite more countries facing population decline and rapid population aging, world population continues to increase, likely reaching 8 billion by 2023, 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion by 2055. This growth is largely due to the high rates of demographic growth in sub-Saharan African countries, where fertility levels are generally in excess of five births per woman. While the populations of 40 low-fertility countries are projected to be smaller by mid-century, some 25 high-fertility countries, nearly all in Africa, are expected to see their populations more than double by 2050.

For most countries, sustained below-replacement fertility rates promise population decline. Communities that refuse to adjust will only exacerbate the consequences of these powerful demographic trends."

But there's a context about fertility rates that's worth noting as the global data story is rather more complex than 'we just need to have fewer children'

To say all the world's problems are down to overpopulation is over simplifying.

Women's health and choices not always a priority in any country to be honest. There are reasons that the poor of the world tend to have more than 2.5 kids. These reasons are multifaceted.

Also the 20 per cent of us who have a naice life consume the most/use the most energy and stuff (not excluding myself here though I strive to do better).

Sadly other emerging economies/countries are following our bad example. I would say most problems are created by our greedy capitalist culture which gives not a damn about the effects on individuals or planets. As long as those profits keep on rising.

@banana I quoted those figures for 2023, 2037 and 2055 earlier and did say that the rate of growth is slowing but we're hardly in danger of dying out yet the world is in danger of dying. Yes, you're right to say many things need to change but the most simple inescapable notion is that more people = more stuff being made = more pollution/waste = more damage. Yes, we are doing things to try and make this better, whether that's LED bulbs to increased recycling rates, but none of it is going anywhere near fast enough to prevent the climate change issue that was so prominently flagged up (although I think more people are concerned about two dancers on Strictly) yesterday.

Attenborough has tried to start a debate but unsurprisingly no one is taking it and running with it to at least get people really thinking. And maybe if people did say "hey, look, the way we're going, future generations may have to take severe steps like preventing people having babies by methods we really don't want to countenance" more people might start to think a bit harder and make more effort now.

On a personal level, swishing (clothes swap party) is bloody great and you get to meet other women of all kinds. I have made good friends and found good clothes. Win/win. There's enough stuff out there in the world, re-use is way forward. I may need to but some organic knickers in future though rather than go to Primark. I do love it even though I know its bad really - well, just as bad as anywhere else in the city centre.

buy

In case some of you missed JacquesHammer's post- it's not even possible in most areas to get sterilised on the NHS if you'd had children and don't want any more. So good luck getting forced sterilisation after one each....

Oh dear I've got up some people's noses, of course it's only me on this thread suggesting that population should be controlled. Carry on dear you are obviously lead such a good life.

Womanin I mentioned that globalisation is a double edged sword because if it was done properly, with fair trade , using clean agricultural processes , then it could really help the poorer countries grow responsibly.

Clothes are just disposable now aren't they? I remember buying trousers for 40 odd quid in the 90s from topshop and they lasted years. You buy them for a tenner now and wear for less than a year.

ppeatfruit, don't you see though, what you said is the perfect example of how we all delude ourselves when it comes to the environment. We all think "well sure I've done x, but in my case it was OK because I have y excuse, and anyway I do z good thing so it all evens out". But that's what everyone thinks! Everyone has a million excuses and that's the problem.

In your case, saying that you "only" had children because your siblings didn't is ridiculous! First, you couldn't have known your brother wouldn't. Second, it would still have been a greater good if you didn't have any. It's not like every family has an allowance and you took theirs. The reason is you wanted to. And that's the reason everybody has children, drives cars, uses plastic, etc - they want too.

It's not really sensible to criticise people for their past childbearing decisions, although certainly it shouldn't be a sacred cow.

I had my 2 kids in 02 and 05. The tone of the conversation has shifted pretty dramatically even since then, there's now a movement of ecologically-minded people who've vowed to not have children.

Frankly, I didn't want my second kid, my husband pretty much strong-armed me into it (I'm glad he did, obvs). I was completely overwhelmed by how much work it was, which dovetailed nicely with my alarmist stance on overpopulation.

I buy pretty much everything second hand, I get a lot from ebay. I feel like a capitalist fat cat buying new stuff.

ppeatfruit, don't you see though, what you said is the perfect example of how we all delude ourselves when it comes to the environment. We all think "well sure I've done x, but in my case it was OK because I have y excuse, and anyway I do z good thing so it all evens out". But that's what everyone thinks! Everyone has a million excuses and that's the problem.

Which is why everything needs to cost more. No room for delusion. Not by way of an ecological tariff, but just making sure producers put right what they damage in the production process.

If we were paying what it actually costs for beef, just for example, in terms of environmental degradation, it would have a knock-on effect to family size.

Agreed, everything is way too cheap. It doesn't reflect the true human and environmental cost of producing it.

Although worldwide I'm not sure if it would. The biggest population increases are coming from developing countries.

@Thursday Is everything too cheap, though? Apparently childcare is extortionate and a lot of parents begrudge it even though most of the staff at the nursery will be on minimal wage or not much more and think more should be done to subsidise it to a greater extent.

Actually I don't think childcare is extortionate - in the sense that it's an unfair price. It's expensive yes, but that's because we don't have slaves doing it.

Services that we can't farm out overseas (to slaves) are one of the few things that reflect the true price.

Whether the government should subsidise it is a completely different matter.

I buy pretty much everything second hand, I get a lot from ebay. I feel like a capitalist fat cat buying new stuff.

I agree, but we're told this is elitist on this very thread.

I buy pretty much everything second hand, I get a lot from ebay. I feel like a capitalist fat cat buying new stuff.

Whilst that is good, you are still relying on the throwaway fashion to keep up the supply of second hand clothes nobody is buying 80's shoulder pad power suits to wear every day etc

Overpopulation is definitely a huge problem, but it isn’t the only problem and it certainly isn’t easily fixed. A handful of people saying “I don’t have children, there. I’ve saved the planet” achieves very little.

I mean, it’s great that women have the choice in this country and that some people make that choice for the greater good. But it’s nowhere near enough. And coming on to parenting forums saying “look at me! Aren’t I marvellous? Look at you, breeders, ugh” is just not helping. Really, what do you hopeto achieve by saying that?

There’s a really interesting documentary about this, whose name escapes me. It’s how to get people to stop having so many babies. Here’s a hint, it isn’t by saying “stop having so many babies”.

Some might argue that the (unpalatable) truth is not that people are having too many children, it’s that we’re living too long.

I do agree that there may be one child policies in the future and more freely accessible euthanasia. Hopefully fewer clever dicks being really unpleasant to Greenpeace activists because they have 3 children though, so, you know, swings and roundabouts .

I don't think there's a great second-hand market for throw-away fashion, which is in an of itself a disincentive to buy throw-away fashion.

That’s vintage Justa