Poles told to breed 'like rabbits' to fight falling birth rate

In a world that is rapidly becoming overpopulated and consuming natural resources at an alarming rate, we see this!

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-41931770/poles-told-to-breed-like-rabbits-to-fight-falling-birth-rate
A Polish government ad has used the example of bunny rabbits to try to encourage people to have more babies.
But it's not the only advert encouraging people to do it for the children.

They seem to be forgetting that they've successfully exported many of the most productive (in every respect) people in recent years.

The German solution has been to open the floodgates to migrants, a similar plan to many other countries in Europe.

Poland obviously wants their "production units" home grown.

Just goes to show that the ruling elite are on a different planet to the rest of us!.

Tayschren

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In a world that is rapidly becoming overpopulated and consuming natural resources at an alarming rate, we see this!



They seem to be forgetting that they've successfully exported many of the most productive (in every respect) people in recent years.

The German solution has been to open the floodgates to migrants, a similar plan to many other countries in Europe.

Poland obviously wants their "production units" home grown.

Just goes to show that the ruling elite are on a different planet to the rest of us!.

The current government are right up there with the current crop of loonies

Cee-Jay-Cee

Yes. I think.

server down

I presume the polish population is in fact falling.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Dirty Bastids!

server down

server down wrote: »

I presume the polish population is in fact falling.

Considering the sheer numbers that have emigrated in recent years, i would not be in the least surprised. A bit like Ireland in the 1950s
Edit: according to wikipedia, some 2 million (out of a population of 38 million) have left since the fall of communism

Dr Crayfish

Well you'd think falling population is a good thing, but a rising population is what a Government needs to have a strong economy, which they need to get voted back in. It's purely down to this.

Joeseph Balls

Poles have small families anyway, 1-2 kids

Atlantic Dawn

Ireland in a position where people can't breed because they can't afford a basic house so are having families much later while the coffin dodgers get enhanced state pensions which are completely unsustainable but a nice lure for the grey vote.

Dr Crayfish

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Well you'd think falling population is a good thing, but a rising population is what a Government needs to have a strong economy, which they need to get voted back in. It's purely down to this.

This is the problem when you have an economic model that is hard coded to infinite growth, it would be fairly easy to tweak it to be steady state but this would mean business empires wouldn't grow and the top 0.01% would have fewer billions flowing in, and that won't do!

ChunkyLover54

Their government wants to see the number of Poles up the pole go up.

wakka12

You seem to be criticising a country for wanting its population to sustain itself rather than wanting to import millions of middle eastern and north african refugees. Its perfectly valid and much less hassle

And I dont see anything wrong with them trying to encourage people to have babies. Polish birth is far below replacement level..a countries birth rate needs to be healthy so that the population pyramid doesnt invert and a demographic crisis occurs. Sub sahran african countries should be condemned for not trying educate their population to try and bring their average birth rate below 5 children per woman..those coutnries, among others to a lesser extent, are responsible for 'overpopulation',not poland. Poland shouldnt be condemned for trying prevent a demographic time bomb go off

Hande hoche!

The Polish elites seem more sensible than their German counterparts.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Poland obviously wants their "production units" home grown.

Just goes to show that the ruling elite are on a different planet to the rest of us!.

So you start a thread complaining about selfish Poles who are trying to increase their 1.3 birth rate while Irish is over 2.

While I dislike their government they are not doing anything different than for example Germans who tried various measures to increase birth rate.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-873635.html
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/17/fertility-rate-germany-rises-33-year-high-births-children-population

Mister Vain

It's even worse in Japan where half of the men have gone MGTOW.

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This is the problem when you have an economic model that is hard coded to infinite growth, it would be fairly easy to tweak it to be steady state but this would mean business empires wouldn't grow and the top 0.01% would have fewer billions flowing in, and that won't do!

Do you think 0.01% are worried about their pensions or health care? It's the masses whose living standards will suffer.

mahamageehad

Reminds me of the miserable failure that was Fertility Day in Italy. :pac:

There are many ways of incentivising people to have more children, ads ain't one.

wakka12

mahamageehad wrote: »

Reminds me of the miserable failure that was Fertility Day in Italy. :pac:

There are many ways of incentivising people to have more children, ads ain't one.

Germany has tried many methods costing hundreds of millions of euros and government interventions of any kind seem to have negligible impact on birth rates

snowflaker

Right Wing Conservative Gov in Poland - thins doesn't surprise me!

Barefoot and Pregnant is their motto

wakka12

wakka12 wrote: »

You seem to be criticising a country for wanting its population to sustain itself rather than wanting to import millions of middle eastern and north african refugees. Its perfectly valid and much less hassle

And I dont see anything wrong with them trying to encourage people to have babies. Polish birth is far below replacement level..a countries birth rate needs to be healthy so that the population pyramid doesnt invert and a demographic crisis occurs. Sub sahran african countries should be condemned for not trying educate their population to try and bring their average birth rate below 5 children per woman..those coutnries, among others to a lesser extent, are responsible for 'overpopulation',not poland. Poland shouldnt be condemned for trying prevent a demographic time bomb go off

More of an observation than a criticism, better to have a homegrown population replacement programme than importing trouble migrants, the real point is that the world is already so populated that increasing the population is really the wrong way to do things. I agree with what you say about African (& Asian) countries that are doing nothing to sort out their own overpopulation problems, apart from exporting the surplus to anywhere that will take them.

mahamageehad

wakka12 wrote: »

Germany has tried many methods costing hundreds of millions of euros and government interventions of any kind seem to have negligible impact on birth rates

The birth rate in Germany is (very) slowly but surely rising. Yes, some of it is being driven by migrants, but not all. Actually, most of my friends have 2 kids now, with many considering having a third so anecdotally at least it's certainly increasing as many of them were themselves single children. Things that incentivise people to have kids are stuff like affordable housing and childcare availability etc. not ads of rabbits on a telly. A government shouldn't be trying to interfere or intervene with what happens between your legs, they should be focusing on creating an infrastructure and society that makes it possible.

meeeeh

I do wonder how much is just general trend. I come from another central European country whose birth rate is slowly increasing. A lot of my friends have three kids, before one or two would be more common. Childcare provisions, maternity leave and benefit were always fairly generous relative to standard of living, there were no major changes in that regard.

I do wonder if the size of housing, especially apartments would influence birth rate.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Just goes to show that the ruling elite are on a different planet to the rest of us!.

I lost interest when I read this. I find such statements meaningless at this point. Just comes across as "Somebody (other than me) should do something"

jamesbere

I will gladly help in this crisis, give me all the hot single Polish women and I'll repopulate the place.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I lost interest when I read this. I find such statements meaningless at this point. Just comes across as "Somebody (other than me) should do something"

The point I am making is that who benefits from an increasing population the most, it isn't us.

"Somebody (other than me) should do something", Well "me" has already provided two children to stabilise the population.

At what point do you decide there are too many people on the planet, is it when a bad weather event caused widespread famine, or when you find there are no fish left or what.

The people who can do something are the ones doing the exact opposite of what is needed to stabilise the world's population, so yes I can point the finger at the 0.01%, as they are in the driving seat.

conorhal

mahamageehad wrote: »

The birth rate in Germany is (very) slowly but surely rising. Yes, some of it is being driven by migrants, but not all. Actually, most of my friends have 2 kids now, with many considering having a third so anecdotally at least it's certainly increasing as many of them were themselves single children. Things that incentivise people to have kids are stuff like affordable housing and childcare availability etc. not ads of rabbits on a telly. A government shouldn't be trying to interfere or intervene with what happens between your legs, they should be focusing on creating an infrastructure and society that makes it possible.

If there's anything crushing populations it's the nihilistic and aggressive individualism promoted by consumerist globalism. Live in a box, work in a box and consume, consume, consume, die and get buried in a box.
They're building a 'mouse utopia' and that leads to a population crash.

wakka12

meeeeh wrote: »

I do wonder how much is just general trend. I come from another central European country whose birth rate is slowly increasing. A lot of my friends have three kids, before one or two would be more common. Childcare provisions, maternity leave and benefit were always fairly generous relative to standard of living, there were no major changes in that regard.

I do wonder if the size of housing, especially apartments would influence birth rate.

That is very anecdotal..Irelands birth rate at a measly 2.0 or so is still lightyears ahead of most central and east europeans incredibly low birth rates

Regardless of how much it changes, apparently germany and most of central and east europes population are irreversibly ****ed due to so many successive generations of declining birth rates..by ****ed I mean it is impossible for those countries to ever again achieve a healthy or optimal age demographic ratio and will 100%(this is not a maybe scenario) lead to huge problems with worker/pension ratio in the country

conorhal

wakka12 wrote: »

That is very anecdotal..Irelands birth rate at a measly 2.0 or so is still lightyears ahead of most central and east europeans incredibly low birth rates

Regardless of how much it changes, apparently germany and most of central and east europes population are irreversibly ****ed due to so many successive generations of declining birth rates..by ****ed I mean it is impossible for those countries to ever again achieve a healthy or optimal age demographic ratio and will 100%(this is not a maybe scenario) lead to huge problems with worker/pension ratio in the country

With 50% of jobs predicted to be replaced by robots in the coming years and thus the constant decline in the need for manual and unskilled labor, worrying about the pension crisis looks like petty short term thinking that will be solved with a generational die off withing 50yrs. The future will need less labor and thus less people, so frankly (given global warming) so does the world, so perhaps first world population decline is a good thing?

wakka12

conorhal wrote: »

With 50% of jobs predicted to be replaced by robots in the coming years and thus the constant decline in the need for manual and unskilled labor, worrying about the pension crisis looks like petty short term thinking that will be solved with a generational die off withing 50yrs. The future will need less labor and thus less people, so frankly (given global warming) so does the world, so perhaps first world population decline is a good thing?

Maybe youre right in a way about the economic side of it but I think mixed age communities are always best. Children..teenagers..young adults..middle aged parents and workers..elderly..all are needed to balance one another and sustain and interesting and ever developing society

meeeeh

wakka12 wrote: »

That is very anecdotal..Irelands birth rate at a measly 2.0 or so is still lightyears ahead of most central and east europeans incredibly low birth rates

Regardless of how much it changes, apparently germany and most of central and east europes population are irreversibly ****ed due to so many successive generations of declining birth rates..by ****ed I mean it is impossible for those countries to ever again achieve a healthy or optimal age demographic ratio and will 100%(this is not a maybe scenario) lead to huge problems with worker/pension ratio in the country

I'm not disputing that large parts of Europe are facing huge issues around pensions and health care. However there are countries whose birth rate stopped falling and it's even increasing. Germany and Slovenia (my example) are two of those countries. My example wasn't anecdotal, it is supported by actual stats. But the increase definitely isn't big enough to pay for pensions.

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

If there's anything crushing populations it's the nihilistic and aggressive individualism promoted by consumerist globalism. Live in a box, work in a box and consume, consume, consume, die and get buried in a box.
They're building a 'mouse utopia' and that leads to a population crash.

The mouse utopia is a classic example of what happens with uncontrolled inbreeding the entire population was derived from only eight mice,

If some of the mice had been substituted at random periods during the experiment, the results may have been very different.

endacl

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Ireland in a position where people can't breed because they can't afford a basic house so are having families much later while the coffin dodgers get enhanced state pensions which are completely unsustainable but a nice lure for the grey vote.

Also a nice lure for the greying vote. I won’t be a ‘coffin dodger’ for quite some while yet, but when I reach that phase, I plan on being one for quite some length of time.

With a nice defined benefit pension.

Feets

If you read about demographic transition models or population pyramid. They give you a clear visual on the aging population. Reproduction is necessary...some countries in europe have such a low birth rate that their populations wont be sustainable in the near future.
Mate away I say.

Tommy Ferguson

Will they get a free house, dog allowance and fuel allowance?

Jim Bob Scratcher

Tommy Ferguson wrote: »

Will they get a free house, dog allowance and fuel allowance?

Don't forget lube allowance

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

"Somebody (other than me) should do something", Well "me" has already provided two children to stabilise the population.

How did adding more children stabilise the population?

Deleted User wrote: »

The people who can do something are the ones doing the exact opposite of what is needed to stabilise the world's population, so yes I can point the finger at the 0.01%, as they are in the driving seat.

So, if you were in the driving seat, what would you do?

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

How did adding more children stabilise the population?

Adding only two means a stable population, but to have a truly stable population, one family in five needs to have three children.

Tell me how wrote: »

So, if you were in the driving seat, what would you do?

Send condoms to Africa (and other places that have an exploding population) instead of food aid!
So I told you how. :pac:

Irish Guitarist

The last part of the video on the page was one of the weirdest ads I've ever seen. An ad by Mentos featuring a rap song telling the population of Singapore to do their civic duty by having sex.

I found the full video and it gets even weirder.

pumpkin4life

And yet again, Irish civilization continues on its nihilistic self destructive binge with a Castro loving president, while Eastern Europe try and fight the rot to the best of their ability.

The Poles are racist and should take in millions of economic migrants refugees because its the right thing to do! - Tintan O Toole

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

The mouse utopia is a classic example of what happens with uncontrolled inbreeding the entire population was derived from only eight mice,

If some of the mice had been substituted at random periods during the experiment, the results may have been very different.

They may, but I suspect not. The real problem wasn't inbreeding (which mice are fond of anyway) but the psychological impact on an animal population of over population and a purposeless existence other than consumption. The fact that it's true is evident in highly urbanized societies like Japan and most urban societies, the degree of alienation, singletons and a lack of social cohesion increase and God know's (especially in Japan) the rise of 'the golden one's is quite evident in populations that aren't inbreeding.

Donald Trump

-

Donald Trump

I know a few nice Polish ladies that I'd be willing to help with their national duty!! ;-)

Ultimanemo

It won't work for Poland, they will immigrate anyway

conorhal

conorhal wrote: »

They may, but I suspect not. The real problem wasn't inbreeding (which mice are fond of anyway) but the psychological impact on an animal population of over population and a purposeless existence other than consumption. The fact that it's true is evident in highly urbanized societies like Japan and most urban societies, the degree of alienation, singletons and a lack of social cohesion increase and God know's (especially in Japan) the rise of 'the golden one's is quite evident in populations that aren't inbreeding.

You may be correct about the social aspects of the experiment, but I was more concerned about the total collapse of the population when they stopped breeding, why was that?
They really should re run the experiment and change 5% of the population every generation to prevent the affects of total inbreeding.

It is a good example of what could happen to humans if there was a one-off space mission to colonise another planet, it would die out after only a few generations.

Tell me how

Clarence Seedorf wrote:

We need to do the same, we aren't producing enough children to support ooder generations in retirement.

Yes but we are (globally) producing more people than the planet can sustain with our current usage of resources.
Unfortunately, it's not likely to change until it's already too late.

We've all heard the analogy, if the history of the earth was laid out in a 46 yr stretch (instead of the 4.6Billion it is), the industrial revolution started 1 minutes ago and since then, about 50% of the earths forests have been consumed.

Every news report on businesses and the economy is focused on growth. Growth, growth, growth. What do people think the impact of this, or the end result is going to be?

Ubbquittious

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes but we are (globally) producing more people than the planet can sustain with our current usage of resources.
Unfortunately, it's not likely to change until it's already too late.

We've all heard the analogy, if the history of the earth was laid out in a 46 yr stretch (instead of the 4.6Billion it is), the industrial revolution started 1 minutes ago and since then, about 50% of the earths forests have been consumed.

Every news report on businesses and the economy is focused on growth. Growth, growth, growth. What do people think the impact of this, or the end result is going to be?

But in that analogy forests take only a couple of seconds to grow

Wanderer78

Truck loads of money and wealth on this planet, we just need to figure out how to distribute it more evenly, but as others have already said, we can't keep spreading the mantra of growth and expansion, the planet will keel over eventually

maryishere

Tell me how wrote: »

Yes but we are (globally) producing more people than the planet can sustain with our current usage of resources.
Unfortunately, it's not likely to change until it's already too late.

Correct. There will not be enough meat, oil, resources etc for everyone : and everone on the planet aspires to a first world standard of living now.

Quote: "It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960.[71] Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012.[72] The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011.[73][74][75]
According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2024, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2042. Alternative scenarios for 2050 range from a low of 7.4 billion to a high of more than 10.6 billion"

I am sure at some stage our children's children will be cursing the previous generations for not having the foresight to limit growth.

server down

maryishere wrote: »

Correct. There will not be enough meat, oil, resources etc for everyone : and everone on the planet aspires to a first world standard of living now.

Quote: "It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960.[71] Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012.[72] The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011.[73][74][75]
According to current projections, the global population will reach eight billion by 2024, and will likely reach around nine billion by 2042. Alternative scenarios for 2050 range from a low of 7.4 billion to a high of more than 10.6 billion"

I am sure at some stage our children's children will be cursing the previous generations for not having the foresight to limit growth.

It’s clear that growth is tapering off on those very statistics. Even the high estimate is an increase of 3B from 7B which is an increase of about 40%. And that’s the peak. Populations then fall. So it means the next 100 years will see less than < 40% growth at max compared to the 20C increase from about 1.5B to 6.5 which is about 450%.

And in the West or first world that fall is accelerating. Absent immigration populations would be falling everywhere in the West and population has momentum so even if couples had more children in the future populations will still fall.

European populations are static at best. Falling in many parts in particular the East.

Hector Savage

7 Billion people in the world completely unsustainable.

10 Billion by 2050 , yeah what could go wrong - how irresponsible !
I don't get it, don't people that have lots and lots of kids realise that they have more invested in the worlds future than people with fewer or none ???

Don't they get that more of there own ancestors will suffer ??
Or maybe they just don't care...

wakka12

Hector Savage wrote: »

7 Billion people in the world completely unsustainable.

10 Billion by 2050 , yeah what could go wrong - how irresponsible !
I don't get it, don't people that have lots and lots of kids realise that they have more invested in the worlds future than people with fewer or none ???

Don't they get that more of there own ancestors will suffer ??
Or maybe they just don't care...

Its much more the amount of resources each person uses than the numerical population. If everyone lived the lifestyle of somebody from some poorer countries the earth could support many more than 10 billion. But if everyone lived the consumer lifestyle of the average american the worlds resources could only sustain one billion people