Two children

[newwave]

AIBU to consider two children to be more than enough.

We have a rising poulation in this country with ever scare rescources (housing etc) should we consider the effect of having more than two and is it a bit selfish.

I know the poulation is getting older and more young people are needed but then again this can be offset by working a bit longer.

Obviously no one can be told how many to have.

hmc, I dont have an answer but I suspect mass starvation in the developing world will sadly sort it out.

IMO the future will consist of fortress Europe and barriers against the worlds starving in all "western" countries.

Look at what has happened in Pakistan and is happening in other parts of the world.

Divine, do you consider that there must be an upper level to the worlds population or can the increase go on ad infinitum.

No, I am not. I was surprised to see this thread here, just because this is something that I had been thinking about for a while and all of a sudden here it is.

I don't think that it is a flippant view. Far from it. I am wondering if it is a realistic view.

If we accept that increasing population is a major factor in the destruction of the earth, why shouldn't we take steps to control it?

what is your point? UK is already stopping at two. Parts of the developing world are not. Are you suggesting forcible sterilisation in the developing world to bring them into line? - or some alternative, or what exacty?
The UK may be stopping at two but those two are consuming way more than the fair share of resources. See someone's previous point on single woman, big house and car.

In developing countries, infant and child mortality are really high. People in developing countries may have more children than we do in the UK, but how many of them make it to forty? Do they use as much of the planet's resources as we or our DCs do?

Dione I am a little confused - are you saying that over-population is the problem causing the 'destruction of the planet' or the wasteful western lifestyle? Or both? I agree that in the developing (hate that phrase but you know what I mean) world where birthrates and infant mortality are high and adult life expectancy low, then education and technology and getting rid of multinationals exploiting their resources and the corrupt regimes allowing that is the priority. In the west our birth rates have declined and our consumption of energy food and other resources has increased this is all obvious. There are ways to manage this but it involves the world governments to work together we are so not there yet - but the future?

But we haven't got a hope in hell of managing populations and birthrates in a democracy - where would you start? Culling older people? Forcible sterilisation? Making parenthood something you must be licensed for? Or perhaps a national lottery? Perhaps you would like to make sure only people with a certain IQ or income are allowed to breed? for me the only meaningful (that actually reduces the population growth considerably) way to manage population growth is morally unacceptable and therefore a non-starter.

Bigmouth, you say that the only way to manage population growth is morally unacceptable. I can see why you would think that if you believe that it would involve euthanasia and elitist breeding programmes, what I can't see is why capping offspring to two per person is morally unacceptable.

Well there are a few options:

1. You could take steps to reduce the number of people considered less desirable eg. those with different beliefs, sexual orientation, skin colour. How about rounding them up and gassing them? It's been done before. Google "holocaust" for some helpful tips.
2. If thats not what you had in mind how about a national policy of restricting the number of chilren a person can have. The Communist Party of China can give you tips on that one.

HTH

A huge amount of suffering is caused for the greater good in china, by the the one child policy, the rural poor are disprortionately affected. The Orphanages are full of abandoned (girl) babies.

This policy would never get support in a democracy and if it was you can bet your ass that again the poor would be targeted and the wealthy able to bypass regulation. So no I cannot see an acceptable method of population control other than education, good health care and relative wealth which brings with it longer life and lower birth rates. But apparently is not enough.

Actually I do think that making sex education and contraception more readily available in developing countries would be a good thing. Although that is clearly about giving choice rather than "population control".

24.5 million people in Africa are living with HIV/Aids, millions of children orphaned as a result. Of course less Africans dying of Aids may actually result in an increase in the population over time.... Oh what a conundrum...

I'll say again OP's question is ludicrous, And frankly disturbing.

Bigmouth, do you think that the amount of suffering would be the same if you allowed 2 children? Surely two children = two children, regardless of income. Would you support a government policy of 2 children only, in order to stem the unsustainable use of resources? If not, why not?

Molly, holocaust?

No I am saying that in the west av birthrates are already that low while our consumption is high and in the developing world education and better standard of living would bring down birthrates.

So if population still needs managing after we have reached true northern / southern hemisphere equality (of living standards) and agreed as a planet to restrict our use of resources. Then get back to me about reducing the growth of the worlds population.

"We are obliged to depopulate. We shall have to develop a technique of depopulation... And by remove I don't necessarily mean destroy; I shall simply take systematic measures to dam their great natural fertility..." Adolph Hitler, 1934

My DB and DS are both mid thirties and single - if they remain childless am I allowed 6 kids?

DS= dear sister, not dear son!

I'm not in favour of a cap in numbers of children people are allowed to have. Aside from the fact it would never go through parliament it does seem to be impinging on basic human rights somehow.

It would be possible to discourage larger families by tax measures as the current government seems to be doing by restricting benefits etc. My worry with this is that it may leave some children in poverty, so it needs to be done very carefully. There's also a problem that taken to extremes only rich people will be able to have large families which doesn't seem quite right.

I do think more could be done in education though - it's clear from this thread that many people haven't really grasped the environmental impact of having children. Even if as children they all share a small house/car/nappies or whatever, western children (even those living a green lifestyle) make a huge impact and obviously they are highly unlikely to all share their parents home for ever so economies of scale only apply in the childhood years. No amount of recycling is ever going to compensate in green terms for having a child less in your family though a lot of people seem to think it will.

It is generally accepted that the more educated a population is the smaller the families they tend to have (obviously as an average), so improving education standards in the third world & areas with unsustainable population growth should be a priority.

YABVU to think 2 children is more than enough for other people. I have 3 girls and wouldn't be without any of them.

If your 2 children are *more^ than enough, which one are you giving away then?

I do have some sympathy with the OP - when I see crowds and crowds of people and queues of cars it does seem as if we are over populated. I cant help but think large families are somehow selfish - its all very well saying we never go on holiday, grow our own fruit and knit our own jumpers but in a few years those kids will go out into the world and will all want houses/cars etc. But then I have 2 and would love a third but my conscience is nagging...

Some friends of my parents were very concerned about this issue and had the regulation 2 children but their son went on to have 6 which made me . They were furious.

People are saying in the west that people all make the same impact on the environment when that is not true the way you live your life does make a difference.

That said we are insignificant when you look at the life of the planet and all the species that have lived on it over billions of years. Maybe we should stop making out our existence is in any way important one way or another we will be extinct in the end... so we may as well rut ourselves into oblivion!?

Overwhelmingly, when you provide women with meaningfully equal access to education and employment, the birth rate drops dramatically and to below the replacement rate. That's been shown repeatedly in the developed world and in parts of the developing world where there have been concerted programmes. No need for talk of forcible sterilisation.

I am going to have 3, but reckon I have borrowed a bit of the quota from the rest of my extended family where a lot of my relatives have opted for none at all...

You can have my spare ProfessorLayton as I only have one!

2 children is more than enough... for what?
The population pyramid in this country is fairly imbalanced and projected to get worse. Most of UK population growth in last 20 years came from immigration (I speak as an immigrant). So if it feels crowded chuck out people like me & mine... but then don't complain in future if there aren't enough working age adults around to wipe your bottom in the nursing home.

OP - so from subsequent posts are we to understand that by "We have a rising population in this country", you actually meant "we have a potentially reducing population in this country and in Western Europe, but I am actually talking about global population growth"?
People should probably know what they are being asked to debate......

It looks like debate is over on this thread, but I want to add my comments for people who find this in future.

I have also been thinking about this question, as I have 2 children and would love to have another but feel this may be rather selfish. This isn't about judging other people - it's about me thinking through the decision I am about to make. I can't look at or think about another person or baby who actually exists and think, they shouldn't exist. I am only thinking about the choice I myself can make now.

I think this is a very important question to be able to ask ourselves and talk about and I am glad that newwave has raised it. Me thinking about this for myself is completely separate and nothing to do with questions about government policy, sterilisations etc. I am thinking about my own personal and voluntary decision that I am going to make, on the basis of my own thoughts and feelings and belielfs. I find it is helpful to be able to share these with other people and learn what they think - that is why this post is so vaulable - I imagine that is what several of the mumsnetters above think (it has nothing to do with being jugemental).

I would also say, I think it is not only about the exact number of children one has, but about any decision to have another child. 'Two children' probably comes up because few people would deny anyone the right to have a child if they want one, and many people prefer their children to have siblings; and two is (almost, allowing for mortality) replacement for the two parents. But anyone considering having a child could consider the issues involved in this question, regardless of the number.

To me, 'the issues' are the fact that a person living my lifestyle - me! - consumes a huge amount of resources and this has a big impact on the other people alive on this planet - today, and in the future. Even though I care deeply about justice - environmental and social - I know that I and my family have a big environmental footprint (much larger than the average same-sized or even larger family) living in a developing country. I also know that the actual actions I take to minimise these impacts - and make positive impacts, like lobbying for change on issues I care about - are not nearly as significant as they should be or could be. We have one car for the family; we walk or cycle or catch the train when we can, but we also use the car several times a week as we live in a rural area; we grow some of our own veg (also badly); we spent extra on rennovating our 1960s house to include extra insulation, triple glazing and a more effcient boiler - but there is some draught-proofing that could be improved; we try not to fly and to holdiay in the UK except for important family occasions e.g. weddings, rare visits. In other words, we do a bit to act on our beliefs, but are far from perfect and still consuming more than our share of the world's resources.

My children will probably go on to be much like me; certainly they will go on to have their own homes and travel and consume in their own right - even if they try to do this in as ethical a way as they find possible. And they are likely to have their own children. My siblings have their own children. We are all consuming a great deal of resources, and creating a good deal of pollution and this all has impacts on people whose villages and towns we drive through, on communities who live near landfill sites, on people living in low-lying coastal areas lost to sea-level rise, and on our selves and our children as our climate and landscapes change and wildlife is lost (more housing, roads, car parking, sewage, water extraction etc) and we witness (and perhaps even experience in this country) more conflict related to access to resources such as water and oil - and peace and quiet.

This all sounds very gloomy. I feel I must say, then, that I love my children (and my DH) and I love our life as a family. Our days are (mainly!) happy and joyful. I would love to have another child, because it is such a beautiful experience to nuture a baby, because it is a pleasure beyond words to see our DCs play together, because I have gained so much in my own life from having siblings, because our DCs are such characters I can't help feeling there is another one waiting to come and join them.

But I am worried (almost convinced) that if we do, it will have been a selfish decision, given what I know and believe. How sad.