Originally Posted by Aardvark

I don't like smoking, but I oppose the ban....the ban, EU led, is total.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Aardvark's point was made in post #7.
You were still referring to premature death in post #12.
12>7

I didn't advocate that people should give up the right to have children.
That's yet another unfounded assumption about me.
You claim that you can read properly. Clearly, that extends to reading stuff that isn't there.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

YCHTT,

What I'm saying is that I don't intend to change my lifestyle just to eke out a couple of extra years in an old people's home. In the days of the nanny state people are being told exactly what they should eat and drink and laws are being changed to make us all live the puritan lifestyle.

It is not about living longer, as far as I am concerned, but about enjoying the life you have.

I don't like smoking, but I oppose the ban. Pubs could have been made to have smoke free rooms or extractors, but the ban, EU led, is total. It's not about the health of bar staff since most bar staff know the risks and can work in a smoke free restaurant if they choose. Publicans knew the risks before they became involved. Many bar staff and publicans smoke.

I enjoy eating fruit and veg, but I don't need to be constantly told how many portions are 'ideal'. If I want chips I'll eat chips.

I will drive within the speed limit, but I enjoy speed and, where conditions allow, will go as fast as I can. I've owned a motor bike and I used to drive a MGB GT - not expensive, but more fun than a Ford Fiesta. I just wish my present car had more oomph.

Life is about risk and people should be encouraged to push the limits. I have more respect for people who die young falling off mountains or racing motor cars than I have for those who wish they'd done it, but choose to die in bed at a ripe old age rather than enjoy life to the full. I got 14 hours into flying selection with the RAF, but at least I tried to be a fighter pilot (I ended up as a navigator) - I scared myself a couple of times, but I have looped and barrel rolled an aeroplane.

It's not UKIP policy to encourage risk because we live in a politically correct world.

I'd never encourage people to squander their lives with suicide or dangerous drug use, but I'm not sure that making everyone live a long life of utter misery and depression is exactly kind either.

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Forgive me if I make the logical conclusion that you are in support of the opposite point of view to mine ?

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

You said:

"I don't have a problem with reducing the world's population."

So either
a) You want to kill people to "make room"
b) You want to stop people's right to have children.

Which is it ?

Originally Posted by TannyD

Neither and thanks for your weak posts, they were rather fun.
Natural disease and lifespan reduces the population in a natural way.
To make it your mission to research into all the diseases that end human life and create cures for all the things that decrease lifespan and the total population is obviously stupid if you are planning in advance how you are going to feed the people in a population that is rapidly growing and with a increasing lifespan. Why did you want me to openly say that I want to kill people? Is that the result you were looking for? It's all about management, we have to take into account the fallout of such actions we do in the name of benifiting humans and the "greater good".
I don't want people to stop having children, but is it soo wrong to ask people to reduce the number of children they have if they don't need to have soo many children for reasons such as living in a country where the percentage of children who die before 5 is low and the quality of life is good. Surely you must agree with me on this point, that people breeding like rabbits isn't a very good plan.

As for your point A, I personaly don't want to kill people just to make room, I am pretty sure other factors of human and natural origin will see to that in the long run.

Would you have been much happier if I bent to you will and conceded? And said that I want everyone to die and would be happy to commit mass genocide?

If you aren't satified with the reply I have given you, then you are obviously looking for a fight and you won't get one.

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

We certainly discuss our topics widely, don't we! We go from birth control to smoking in pubs.

Besoeker: In a well balanced population, multiply the birth rate by life expectancy rate, and it should be c.1000. For example a generation ago, the United Kingdom the life expectancy was c. 73.5 years. The birth rate was 13.5, therefore 73.5 X 13.5 = 992.25. That was indicative of a reasonably balanced population. In most western countries, at the same time, similar figures would appear. Population varies over the generations. A high UK population birth rate in Victorian times, which was to drop dramatically between the wars. War, emigaration /migration also has to be taken into account. Even so, the formula still has merit as a sound guide.

Take Bangladesh, B.R 200 per 1000, Life Expectancy 38 , therefore, 200 X 38= 7600. Can we see why the formula cannot be used in an unbalanced population with a terrifically high-infant mortality rate and other distortions. I haven't looked at Sweden in recent times, but you may find it interesting: rich, 200 years of peace, etc. etc.

In western Europe, high immmigration, with the immigrants birth rates, for the first couple of generations reflecting the country of origin, and not the host countries, does produce difficulties. Population control, certainly, but the consequences, hopefully to create a balanced population in all its manifestations, will not be done in a matter of a few years. Africa has highly populated countries, Nigeria, Kenya, and a couple of others, but in the main, population isn't their main problem. Latin America, I fear, will be the problem area for all kinds of reasons.

Anyway, I found your comments interesting.