Talk

Advanced search

Chris Packham - one child policy.

(356 Posts)
Meadowland Tue 14-Jan-20 16:23:56

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

WooMaWang Tue 14-Jan-20 16:29:29

It worked so well for China. 🙄

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius Tue 14-Jan-20 16:31:13

Well - it went so well in China, didn’t it.

Female babies being killed or abandoned (In orphanages where many died) because families wanted a son, but had a daughter first. Doctors selectively aborting female foetuses. Generations where, instead of the balance between male and female being roughly equal, there are far more men than women, with a knock-on effect of men who can’t find a wife, so the birth rate goes down even further.

And people being punitively fined, and even women being forced to have abortions, if they get pregnant a second time.

Leaannb Tue 14-Jan-20 16:31:34

Terrible idea. If you limit the number of children people have you lose a lot of money for future entitlement programs

Francina670 Tue 14-Jan-20 16:33:10

I think history shows this doesn’t work very well. I’d also predict an increase in IVF twins

VivaLeBeaver Tue 14-Jan-20 16:34:12

Is he also going to agree to a “no pets” policy. After all they’re totally unnecessary and when I took an online carbon footprint test the other week it was being a pet owner which pushed me up.

At least kids become adults who hopefully work, pay taxes, contribute to society.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius Tue 14-Jan-20 16:34:31

The Dying Rooms

The Dying Rooms -a more detailed article.

VivaLeBeaver Tue 14-Jan-20 16:34:38

And I’m being a bit sarcastic btw as I know he has dogs.

BeyondMyWits Tue 14-Jan-20 16:34:40

Totally and utterly unreasonable. Pie in the sky, ideal world perhaps. But life isn't like that. Much more complicated.

Are we also going to introduce euthanasia alongside it in the meantime (till we die off and there is a lower amount of old folks coming through) for all the old folk with no care 'cos there's not enough youngsters coming through to take up the profession.

nuts.

AutumnCrow Tue 14-Jan-20 16:35:29

Wasn't China's skewing of the sexes (and the accompanying sex selective abortion and infanticide) to do with the socio-economic culture of how elderly parents are supported by their son(s), whereas the the fruits of a daughter's economic labours transfer to the family into which she marries?

Asdf12345 Tue 14-Jan-20 16:35:30

If you want to preserve the environment it seems a no brainier. The economic costs are considerable though.

That said there is no point flying less or taking the bus without addressing this huge elephant in the room.

DesLynamsMoustache Tue 14-Jan-20 16:35:32

No.

But I am all for encouraging smaller families and also women being honest with themselves about what they're able to handle v what is expected of them. There's still a stigma about choosing to stop at one child, which is totally at odds with research that shows they are just as happy (and in some cases happier) as those with siblings, as well as the current climate (literally), and I think it leads women to make decisions that aren't necessarily the best for them or their existing DC. Sometimes you can be a fantastic parent to one but more would stretch you thin, and that's fine.

Copperleaves Tue 14-Jan-20 16:35:44

I can't decide which way round the vote is, which might explain why it is almost 50/50

SameOldHorrorStory Tue 14-Jan-20 16:37:02

How would this in any way be enforceable or manageable?

MrsBethel Tue 14-Jan-20 16:39:24

I'll reserve judgement to see what he actually thinks first.

If he's advocating encouraging people to choose to have one child rather than more, that's fair enough.

If he's advocating a China-style ban, then that would be batshit mental.

AutumnCrow Tue 14-Jan-20 16:40:24

I agree that pets are a huge burden on the environment, ie pet-keeping has a big carbon footprint. I won't have any more after my current pets shuffle off this mortal coil, god love them.

I might euthanise myself when the time comes as well, if I have no discernible purpose or function.

Mumtown Tue 14-Jan-20 16:41:05

I think it depends on how you go about it. Forced abortions/sterilisations cross a moral (and legal) line. But I don’t see the harm in encouraging people to have smaller families through tax breaks or not funding the upbringing of subsequent children (although the latter wouldn’t be particularly effective imo). Of course it would all depend on people taking financial responsibility for their own retirement and aged care. As things stand the burden of older generations is already unfair on the young, if the young were a small minority then it would be quite unworkable without either major technological change, political change (adopting a visiting worker system) or as I said people taking financial responsibility. If we’re going to be really blunt the government has caused overpopulation. If the government didn’t fund children with healthcare, education, benefits etc then far fewer would be born. I can understand why some people think the government has a responsibility here (even though I don’t agree).

Mockers2020Vision Tue 14-Jan-20 16:41:19

Seems rather unfair on Jenny Packham.

WeeSleekitTimerousMoosey Tue 14-Jan-20 16:41:21

Absolutely terrible suggestion which shows Packham up as an ignorant fool.

HoneysuckleSpeck Tue 14-Jan-20 16:42:56

He can fuck off with his pontificating.

AutumnCrow Tue 14-Jan-20 16:43:25

Packham is far from being an ignorant fool. What a bizarre claim to make.

TheMemoryLingers Tue 14-Jan-20 16:43:40

The answer lies in the hands of those considering starting or adding to a family. If you have one, or two already, think about whether you really need to start trying for that extra child. New partner, but you both have DC already? Do you really need another child together to cement your relationship?

Obviously accidents will happen, and a multiple birth might take matters out of your hands, but of people can be responsible and self-regulate at the planning stage, there will be no need for future governments to introduce draconian measures such as this.

AutumnCrow Tue 14-Jan-20 16:46:16

Well I doubt Boris Johnson or Trump dare say a word. Packham's floating an idea. It'll never be legislated on in the west, this generation.

VivaLeBeaver Tue 14-Jan-20 16:46:28

I don’t think he’s an ignorant fool at all.

I think he’s an intelligent bloke who cares deeply. He’s certainly right that the planet is struggling to cope with it’s current population and I think having a conversation about population is worth it even if it only puts some people off having multiple kids.

chocolateteapot20 Tue 14-Jan-20 16:46:41

1. It worked for China. Not. (If you're going to have that amount of testosterone about, then you need wars, families, or football to keep it in check, don't you??)
2. What about twins?? They do still happen naturally now and then (twins in the family).
3. If you don't have ANY kids, does that mean you get a rebate??? (I'm not being serious with that last one, I don't mind some of my tax having gone to support my nieces and nephews, and health and education and infrastructure in general.)

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »