New Scientist SPACE - Breaking News - When is a black hole like a dripping faucet?
Perhaps this is relevant to my previous posts about the uncertainties involved in creating micro black holes in particle accelerators.
What worries me is that so much about how they would behave seems unknown or unclear, and that this seems likely to still be the case when they might start to pop into existence at CERN in a year or so.
Friday, May 12, 2006
An economics question
Michael Costello: Taking us down with them | News | The Australian
In the article above, Laborite Michael Costello criticises the budget because:
First and foremost, there is no strategy to rein in the current account deficit, which is running regularly at more than 6 per cent of gross domestic product and which has led to a national debt of about $500billion, still rocketing upwards. That's $23,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.
He then quickly moves on to talk about skills shortage and training not being addressed.
Hang on, back to the current account deficit. This is all to do with private sector debt and import/export imblances, isn't it? Everyone acknowledges that there is no government debt now. Quite the opposite.
My question is: what are the possible government strategies to deal with large private sector debt, and our fondness for overseas goods?
It seems to me that this is an issue much raised on the Labor side, but (as in Costello's column) with virtually nothing said about how the government could tackle it.
OK, I know that Ken Davidson in The Age had a whole column about this, in which he wrote:
Given the unprecedented size of the foreign debt, a prudent government would measure every proposed expenditure and revenue initiative in the budget against its impact on net exports (exports less imports) in order to minimise the size of the current account deficit, which has to be financed by foreign borrowings.
But no, the Government is sticking with its discredited "twin deficits" thesis, to the effect that eventually budget surpluses, which add to national savings, will be reflected in current account surpluses.
It seems to me that this is not really an answer at all. There is no detail as to what expenditure and revenue measures could be taken to improve the current account deficit. I am guessing that this means that there is no magic cure; it would likely be a very tough nut for any governing party to crack.
Am I wrong?
In the article above, Laborite Michael Costello criticises the budget because:
First and foremost, there is no strategy to rein in the current account deficit, which is running regularly at more than 6 per cent of gross domestic product and which has led to a national debt of about $500billion, still rocketing upwards. That's $23,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia.
He then quickly moves on to talk about skills shortage and training not being addressed.
Hang on, back to the current account deficit. This is all to do with private sector debt and import/export imblances, isn't it? Everyone acknowledges that there is no government debt now. Quite the opposite.
My question is: what are the possible government strategies to deal with large private sector debt, and our fondness for overseas goods?
It seems to me that this is an issue much raised on the Labor side, but (as in Costello's column) with virtually nothing said about how the government could tackle it.
OK, I know that Ken Davidson in The Age had a whole column about this, in which he wrote:
Given the unprecedented size of the foreign debt, a prudent government would measure every proposed expenditure and revenue initiative in the budget against its impact on net exports (exports less imports) in order to minimise the size of the current account deficit, which has to be financed by foreign borrowings.
But no, the Government is sticking with its discredited "twin deficits" thesis, to the effect that eventually budget surpluses, which add to national savings, will be reflected in current account surpluses.
It seems to me that this is not really an answer at all. There is no detail as to what expenditure and revenue measures could be taken to improve the current account deficit. I am guessing that this means that there is no magic cure; it would likely be a very tough nut for any governing party to crack.
Am I wrong?
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Wasting technology
Why the World Doesn't Need Hi-Def DVD's - New York Times
This story (about the upcoming hi-def DVD wars) is a good read. Beta and VHS all over again....
This story (about the upcoming hi-def DVD wars) is a good read. Beta and VHS all over again....
A funny comment from The Age
Turning up the cringe factor - TV & Radio - Entertainment - theage.com.au
From the above review of the Logies (most of which I missed):
CSI's George Eads and Chris Non (sorry, Noth) were excruciating but not nearly as freaky as Bec and Lleyton's Epponnee Rae moment with baby Mia. She was kitted out in a miniature version of Bec's frock and sporting one of those baby headbands that look like they're covering up a manufacturing seam. Half Australia swooned, the other half threw up, though it did lead Rove McManus and Peter Helliar into one of the best lines of the night from Crown: "Sorry, we left our baby in the car."
My only comment about the show is that Bert Newton had a joke (and not just a passing one, he dwelt on it) about how everyone on Nine's Today show laughs too much. The audience laughed a lot at this.
I don't watch Today, but my mother and one TV reviewer I read have said the same thing. Now it seems that the entire TV industry agrees. Isn't that a bit embarrassing for the people on Today?
From the above review of the Logies (most of which I missed):
CSI's George Eads and Chris Non (sorry, Noth) were excruciating but not nearly as freaky as Bec and Lleyton's Epponnee Rae moment with baby Mia. She was kitted out in a miniature version of Bec's frock and sporting one of those baby headbands that look like they're covering up a manufacturing seam. Half Australia swooned, the other half threw up, though it did lead Rove McManus and Peter Helliar into one of the best lines of the night from Crown: "Sorry, we left our baby in the car."
My only comment about the show is that Bert Newton had a joke (and not just a passing one, he dwelt on it) about how everyone on Nine's Today show laughs too much. The audience laughed a lot at this.
I don't watch Today, but my mother and one TV reviewer I read have said the same thing. Now it seems that the entire TV industry agrees. Isn't that a bit embarrassing for the people on Today?
Checking out Japundit
Today's line up of articles on Japundit features 3 that you should see (permalinks here, with my own titles):
Proof that they are taking low child rate seriously
Shinto festival with a very big guest (probably workplace safe, it's cultural after all)
It doesn't take good looks to be an advertising star in Japan
Proof that they are taking low child rate seriously
Shinto festival with a very big guest (probably workplace safe, it's cultural after all)
It doesn't take good looks to be an advertising star in Japan
Angry Liberal guy
Boing Boing: Angry liberal guy rant
See this (sort of) funny post at Boing Boing (which has interesting stuff despite its politics).
Also at Boing Boing, a pic of a very cool design for a rotating kitchen.
See this (sort of) funny post at Boing Boing (which has interesting stuff despite its politics).
Also at Boing Boing, a pic of a very cool design for a rotating kitchen.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
In case you wondering what the letter said
Dr. Sanity
See the link above to Dr Sanity's take on the long, long lecture/letter the Iranian President wrote to George Bush. (You can get to the translation of the letter from there too.) Also, have a look at the way AP reported this, via LGF. Really appalling.
See the link above to Dr Sanity's take on the long, long lecture/letter the Iranian President wrote to George Bush. (You can get to the translation of the letter from there too.) Also, have a look at the way AP reported this, via LGF. Really appalling.
Sex on the brain
New Scientist Breaking News - Clue to sexual attraction found in lesbian brain
The study reported above strikes me as rather useless. The fact the lesbians brains seem to respond differently from those of straight women to a male armpit chemical doesn't tell us a hell of a lot, does it? As the report says:
"But our study can't answer questions of cause and effect," cautions lead researcher Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "We can't say whether the differences are because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond differently."
I would have been surprised if their brains did respond the same way.
The article says:
Despite these issues, the scientists agree that mapping these differences in brain activity between heterosexual and homosexual women is an important step towards understanding how sexual orientation manifests in the brain.
Given this chicken and egg problem about sexual differences in brains, and that the cost of such studies can't be so cheap, haven't we got many better things for which to be scanning brains?
The study reported above strikes me as rather useless. The fact the lesbians brains seem to respond differently from those of straight women to a male armpit chemical doesn't tell us a hell of a lot, does it? As the report says:
"But our study can't answer questions of cause and effect," cautions lead researcher Ivanka Savic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "We can't say whether the differences are because of pre-existing differences in their brains, or if past sexual experiences have conditioned their brains to respond differently."
I would have been surprised if their brains did respond the same way.
The article says:
Despite these issues, the scientists agree that mapping these differences in brain activity between heterosexual and homosexual women is an important step towards understanding how sexual orientation manifests in the brain.
Given this chicken and egg problem about sexual differences in brains, and that the cost of such studies can't be so cheap, haven't we got many better things for which to be scanning brains?
Take a Bex, Elizabeth
A tragic tale of a nation that drowned in greed and neglect - Opinion
Good Lord, Elizabeth Farrelly, the SMH's architecture and planning writer, gets very overwrought in her article in today's paper. It takes 3/4 of the article to get to the reason she's writing it: her objection to the New South Wales State government reviewing the Building Sustainability Index. (Which apparently requires energy and water efficiencies in new houses.)
She may be right; doing away with the index may well be short sighted. But to go on with a rant for the first page like this (talking from the point of view of explaining to our grandchildren what happened):
Instead, we chose to get richer, fatter and smugger. We had resources to burn and, my, we burnt them. What a fire it was. We let our fauna drift into extinction and our indigenes into indigence. Instead of harvesting wind, wave, hot-rock or sun energy, which we had in sparkling abundance, we sold our forests for toilet tissue, our rivers for cotton-farming, our space for radioactive waste, our military for oil. While old Europe poured her energies into sustaining big, dense populations on the few renewables she could muster, we, stuck in neutral, let the mining lobby draft our energy policy and the developers draft our urban plans. So, while the old world leapt forward we new worlders went on filling our air with fossil fuels and covering our remaining farmlands with fat, eaveless houses.
And yet, as the icecaps started to melt and the earth to drown, we sank ever deeper into denial.
And so on.
Doesn't she realise that such hyperbole doesn't serve her cause well? Don't ruin a decent argument by claiming the end of the world if you lose the debate.
Good Lord, Elizabeth Farrelly, the SMH's architecture and planning writer, gets very overwrought in her article in today's paper. It takes 3/4 of the article to get to the reason she's writing it: her objection to the New South Wales State government reviewing the Building Sustainability Index. (Which apparently requires energy and water efficiencies in new houses.)
She may be right; doing away with the index may well be short sighted. But to go on with a rant for the first page like this (talking from the point of view of explaining to our grandchildren what happened):
Instead, we chose to get richer, fatter and smugger. We had resources to burn and, my, we burnt them. What a fire it was. We let our fauna drift into extinction and our indigenes into indigence. Instead of harvesting wind, wave, hot-rock or sun energy, which we had in sparkling abundance, we sold our forests for toilet tissue, our rivers for cotton-farming, our space for radioactive waste, our military for oil. While old Europe poured her energies into sustaining big, dense populations on the few renewables she could muster, we, stuck in neutral, let the mining lobby draft our energy policy and the developers draft our urban plans. So, while the old world leapt forward we new worlders went on filling our air with fossil fuels and covering our remaining farmlands with fat, eaveless houses.
And yet, as the icecaps started to melt and the earth to drown, we sank ever deeper into denial.
And so on.
Doesn't she realise that such hyperbole doesn't serve her cause well? Don't ruin a decent argument by claiming the end of the world if you lose the debate.
The budget response
A quick survey of the left leaning blogosphere this morning shows very, very little response to last night's budget. Seems they are sitting around scratching their heads about how to best attack it. When Labor immediately supports a lot of it, that makes the job pretty hard.
Really, this would have to be the best received budget I can ever remember.
But one thing I would suggest to the government for next year's pre-election sweetener. Go for a re-instatement of a reasonably funded dental health scheme for the pensioners. It is obvious that all of the States are just never going to fund this properly themselves (even though it is logically their responsibility.) It looks like a couple of hundred million dollars a year would replace the old scheme, which seems peanuts when the surplus is maybe $10 to $12 billion.
Really, this would have to be the best received budget I can ever remember.
But one thing I would suggest to the government for next year's pre-election sweetener. Go for a re-instatement of a reasonably funded dental health scheme for the pensioners. It is obvious that all of the States are just never going to fund this properly themselves (even though it is logically their responsibility.) It looks like a couple of hundred million dollars a year would replace the old scheme, which seems peanuts when the surplus is maybe $10 to $12 billion.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Panic over corporations power
Tearing up the constitution - Opinion - theage.com.au
Greg Craven, a professor of constitutional law (and the executive director of the John Curtin Institute) gets over-excited by the implications of a Commonwealth success on the current IR High Court case. He argues that, as most things are done by corporations, if the Commonwealth succeeds in controlling industrial relations this way, they will be able to control... everything.
There may be some point to some of his examples, although I am far from completely convinced about any of them. What I think is his most ridiculous example is this:
The school sector faces the same prospect. Numerous private schools are organised as corporations, and have nowhere to hide, yet even state schools should be feeling the cold breath of the Brindabellas on their necks. After all, what proportion of their students ultimately will work for corporations? Under an ascendant corporations power, a law regulating state school curriculums in the interests of their ultimate corporate employers is a tritely logical step.
So a power to govern corporations could be used to dictate to State governments the curriculum of non-corporate State schools? By no stretch of the imagination can I see that as plausible. (I guess that by signing up to some weird UN treaty it could happen under the external affairs power, but that is a different argument entirely. It is also an avenue more widely used on "progressive" issues than conservative one.)
Constitutional law professor or not, you need to a grip, Craven.
And as for Labor generally on this issue, the phrase "hoist on your own petard" seems most appropriate.
Greg Craven, a professor of constitutional law (and the executive director of the John Curtin Institute) gets over-excited by the implications of a Commonwealth success on the current IR High Court case. He argues that, as most things are done by corporations, if the Commonwealth succeeds in controlling industrial relations this way, they will be able to control... everything.
There may be some point to some of his examples, although I am far from completely convinced about any of them. What I think is his most ridiculous example is this:
The school sector faces the same prospect. Numerous private schools are organised as corporations, and have nowhere to hide, yet even state schools should be feeling the cold breath of the Brindabellas on their necks. After all, what proportion of their students ultimately will work for corporations? Under an ascendant corporations power, a law regulating state school curriculums in the interests of their ultimate corporate employers is a tritely logical step.
So a power to govern corporations could be used to dictate to State governments the curriculum of non-corporate State schools? By no stretch of the imagination can I see that as plausible. (I guess that by signing up to some weird UN treaty it could happen under the external affairs power, but that is a different argument entirely. It is also an avenue more widely used on "progressive" issues than conservative one.)
Constitutional law professor or not, you need to a grip, Craven.
And as for Labor generally on this issue, the phrase "hoist on your own petard" seems most appropriate.
From an MI3 review
in the New Yorker (Anthony Lane):
Returning from there, they don’t even make it to the office, having the misfortune, while crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, to run into a barrage of air-to-ground missiles fired by a pilotless drone. I hate it when that happens.
And from The Sunday Times review:
..Yes, there’s one reference to America blowing things up in the Middle East and cleaning up financially, but it’s so silly, not even Noam Chomsky could take it seriously.
I wouldn't bet on that!
I haven't seen it yet. Maybe this weekend.
Returning from there, they don’t even make it to the office, having the misfortune, while crossing the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, to run into a barrage of air-to-ground missiles fired by a pilotless drone. I hate it when that happens.
And from The Sunday Times review:
..Yes, there’s one reference to America blowing things up in the Middle East and cleaning up financially, but it’s so silly, not even Noam Chomsky could take it seriously.
I wouldn't bet on that!
I haven't seen it yet. Maybe this weekend.
Real tough guys
The only original thing I can think to say about the release of the Tasmania miners is that they make David Blaine look like a goose.
Monday, May 08, 2006
On socialism
TCS Daily - Why Isn't Socialism Dead?
The article above on socialism, and its relationship to myth in particular, is interesting. I'm not sure if its explanation of Marx's views on revolution is entirely accurate, but certainly the idea that socialism serves the equivalent function of religion for many people does ring true.
The article above on socialism, and its relationship to myth in particular, is interesting. I'm not sure if its explanation of Marx's views on revolution is entirely accurate, but certainly the idea that socialism serves the equivalent function of religion for many people does ring true.
Don't hold back, Theodore
Theodore Dalrymple: From stiff upper lip to clenched jaws | Opinion | The Australian
Theodore Dalrymple really lets fly in this Spectator article, which seems to have appeared in The Australian on Saturday:
The doctrine of rights has borne putrid fruit. In the ward recently was a young woman of the now very extensive slut-babymother class, whose jaw was clenched in a habitual expression of world-destroying hatred. Her glittering saurian eyes swivelled mistrustingly, on the qui vive for infringements of her rights. She exuded grievance as a skunk exudes its odour.
I think Theo has retired recently (was this his last piece for The Spectator?) A pity in a way, but probably good for his blood pressure.
Theodore Dalrymple really lets fly in this Spectator article, which seems to have appeared in The Australian on Saturday:
The doctrine of rights has borne putrid fruit. In the ward recently was a young woman of the now very extensive slut-babymother class, whose jaw was clenched in a habitual expression of world-destroying hatred. Her glittering saurian eyes swivelled mistrustingly, on the qui vive for infringements of her rights. She exuded grievance as a skunk exudes its odour.
I think Theo has retired recently (was this his last piece for The Spectator?) A pity in a way, but probably good for his blood pressure.
Noel Pearson talks sense
Visions of brighter future can liberate camp dwellers - Opinion - theage.com.au
The article above is short, but again shows Noel Pearson's common sense on aboriginal issues. This part in particular rings true:
Welfare reform is only a part of the picture. True reconciliation would also mean that Aboriginal Australians could walk in two worlds; that they could seek work and education in places far away without losing the link to their homelands.
We must change the current system, because it does not provide incentives for young people and their parents to think about the future. There is no substitute for geographic mobility, education and work experience; without them, Aboriginal culture will collapse.
As I am sure I have said here before, the idea of all remote communities being able to be integrated into the national economy always seemed to be pie in the sky. (Sure, some might make it on art works or tourist ventures; but even those with mining employment available nearby have not always succeeded.) Lack of integration into the economy means poverty, hopelessness, and the vices that go along with those.
At least to the extent that it may have encouraged residents in remote and non-economically viable areas to stay there, the emphasis on land rights (with its talk of the spiritual need for "connection with the land") has actually worked against the interests of keeping a viable aboriginal culture alive.
Pearson seems to think that the land connection is still important to keep, and that is fair enough, as long as it does not encourage the kids actually stay there.
The article above is short, but again shows Noel Pearson's common sense on aboriginal issues. This part in particular rings true:
Welfare reform is only a part of the picture. True reconciliation would also mean that Aboriginal Australians could walk in two worlds; that they could seek work and education in places far away without losing the link to their homelands.
We must change the current system, because it does not provide incentives for young people and their parents to think about the future. There is no substitute for geographic mobility, education and work experience; without them, Aboriginal culture will collapse.
As I am sure I have said here before, the idea of all remote communities being able to be integrated into the national economy always seemed to be pie in the sky. (Sure, some might make it on art works or tourist ventures; but even those with mining employment available nearby have not always succeeded.) Lack of integration into the economy means poverty, hopelessness, and the vices that go along with those.
At least to the extent that it may have encouraged residents in remote and non-economically viable areas to stay there, the emphasis on land rights (with its talk of the spiritual need for "connection with the land") has actually worked against the interests of keeping a viable aboriginal culture alive.
Pearson seems to think that the land connection is still important to keep, and that is fair enough, as long as it does not encourage the kids actually stay there.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Aspartame cleared - again
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sweetener 'not linked to cancer'
The Europeans have decided that an earlier study that raised a question about the safety of aspartame (as found in diet drinks) was flawed. (I had posted about the previous study before.)
So how much Diet Coke (or Pepsi Max) can you drink and be OK?:
"On the basis of the evidence," said Dr Pratt, "there is no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or to undertake any further revisions of the safety of aspartame."
The ADI is the level of additive considered to be safe if consumed every day over a lifetime without risk to health.
For aspartame, the ADI is set by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.
An adult would have to drink about 14 cans a day of diet soft drink, or consume about 80 sachets of sweetener to reach this amount.
Drink up.
The Europeans have decided that an earlier study that raised a question about the safety of aspartame (as found in diet drinks) was flawed. (I had posted about the previous study before.)
So how much Diet Coke (or Pepsi Max) can you drink and be OK?:
"On the basis of the evidence," said Dr Pratt, "there is no reason to revise the previously established Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) or to undertake any further revisions of the safety of aspartame."
The ADI is the level of additive considered to be safe if consumed every day over a lifetime without risk to health.
For aspartame, the ADI is set by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) at 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.
An adult would have to drink about 14 cans a day of diet soft drink, or consume about 80 sachets of sweetener to reach this amount.
Drink up.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Nasty Surfdom
It's been noted by Currency Lad and his readers recently that Road to Surfdom has become a nasty place of late. Have a look at this post and in particular the comment from Aussie Bob, which argues that as Australia is a "religious monarchy" it's not a real democracy anyway, and who are we to question the legitimacy of the Iranian "democracy", which is a little different in style, but (just like ours) allows for religious figures to intervene in government. (I don't think that is an unfair summary of his argument.)
There are some arguments not even worth wasting your breath with, and I made a post to that effect. (Yes, I am the Steve. I did not put my url on the post, as there seems to be little here that its readers would agree with.) The post was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek, and of course I could expect some response to the effect of challenging me to argue against AB instead.
AB does do that, but in a style I find snide and overly personal, as indeed are comments below that. They then got onto the Cole response to the Hitchens article, the links to which are well worth reading. The Surfdom readers - well, the couple who referred to it - think Cole got the better of the argument. This I similarly find hard to believe, when Cole comes across to me as barely keeping it together.
No one has yet taken up my proposal that some one on the left should state the bleeding obvious responses to Aussie Bob.
Anyway, you can see why I consider Surfdom has become a very unpleasant place to post, or even visit much for that matter. It's rather reminiscent of posting at Webdiary in its heyday.
Update: Dunlop's pun obviously stuck in my brain. I originally referred to "Serfdom" in this post. Sorry.
There are some arguments not even worth wasting your breath with, and I made a post to that effect. (Yes, I am the Steve. I did not put my url on the post, as there seems to be little here that its readers would agree with.) The post was meant to be slightly tongue in cheek, and of course I could expect some response to the effect of challenging me to argue against AB instead.
AB does do that, but in a style I find snide and overly personal, as indeed are comments below that. They then got onto the Cole response to the Hitchens article, the links to which are well worth reading. The Surfdom readers - well, the couple who referred to it - think Cole got the better of the argument. This I similarly find hard to believe, when Cole comes across to me as barely keeping it together.
No one has yet taken up my proposal that some one on the left should state the bleeding obvious responses to Aussie Bob.
Anyway, you can see why I consider Surfdom has become a very unpleasant place to post, or even visit much for that matter. It's rather reminiscent of posting at Webdiary in its heyday.
Update: Dunlop's pun obviously stuck in my brain. I originally referred to "Serfdom" in this post. Sorry.
The only option ?
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Give Iran Enough Rope
Found via LGF was the above article that suggests waiting on the Iranian issue at the moment. Given the apparent difficulties of "surgical" military action in this case, and the possible regional consequences as well, this seems to be the only option at the moment. (Maybe Israel has nothing to lose if it embarks on some limited operation, but no one seems to think it can do it on its own.)
Found via LGF was the above article that suggests waiting on the Iranian issue at the moment. Given the apparent difficulties of "surgical" military action in this case, and the possible regional consequences as well, this seems to be the only option at the moment. (Maybe Israel has nothing to lose if it embarks on some limited operation, but no one seems to think it can do it on its own.)
It's all about fun
BBC NEWS | Health | Britons 'put fun before babies'
Meanwhile in Britain:
The Guardian poll suggested that those quizzed were aware of women's declining fertility, but that they had to balance financial and work pressures against this.
However, most men (64%) and most women (51%) said it was more important for women to enjoy themselves than have children.
A majority also said they believed doing well at work and earning money can count for more than bringing up children.
The report says nothing about how this poll was taken. I suspect that if it was of readers of the left leaning newspaper, the results would be skewed against having children.
The Family Planning Association seems to downplay the fact that people waiting too long means not many people at all soon enough:
A spokeswoman for the Family Planning Association said things had changed both for women and men, with more choices and opportunities open to both.
"There are more things you can do in life, such as going off travelling and going to university.
"But it's actually quite a responsible thing to do, to wait until you are financially secure before having a family so that you can provide for your children."
This may be a reason for delaying children until you are able to work, but otherwise this line of thinking ("we can't start yet, we would have to put off that 3 month holiday in France") is really what fertility experts are trying to warn against.
Meanwhile in Britain:
The Guardian poll suggested that those quizzed were aware of women's declining fertility, but that they had to balance financial and work pressures against this.
However, most men (64%) and most women (51%) said it was more important for women to enjoy themselves than have children.
A majority also said they believed doing well at work and earning money can count for more than bringing up children.
The report says nothing about how this poll was taken. I suspect that if it was of readers of the left leaning newspaper, the results would be skewed against having children.
The Family Planning Association seems to downplay the fact that people waiting too long means not many people at all soon enough:
A spokeswoman for the Family Planning Association said things had changed both for women and men, with more choices and opportunities open to both.
"There are more things you can do in life, such as going off travelling and going to university.
"But it's actually quite a responsible thing to do, to wait until you are financially secure before having a family so that you can provide for your children."
This may be a reason for delaying children until you are able to work, but otherwise this line of thinking ("we can't start yet, we would have to put off that 3 month holiday in France") is really what fertility experts are trying to warn against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)