to think if the country is already 'too full up' we should probably stop having so many children?

[IceBeing]

After listening to a discussion on a bus between two women, it would seem that the country is far to stretched to take in any refugees at the moment! We are full to busting and not enough money for services for those already here.

AIBU to wonder where the concerns of these people were when they had the (apparently) six kids that were along with them?

The refugees are already alive and in need of shelter, food, medical aid etc. Our unborn need not come and add to the problem....

So, maybe a China style policy...although we could probably afford to do 2 kids per family....unless we really are full to busting as indicated.

IceBeing
So setting a limit will still reduce the birth rate as a significant majority are having more than 2 children.

Since the average number of children is

fara that doesn't solve the problem though...as when the kids get old we will need EVEN MORE to support them.

Fundamentally we are in a pyramid scheme...sooner or later having more and more children will become unsustainable.

sorry that was a typo...I meant significant minority.

Although the other thing is statistically possible...

Actually a whole different debate but I do think it's disgusting the way we make some elderly live but we would be prosecuted if we kept our pets alive with such poor quality of life.

The whole worlds issues however cannot be solved by taking masses of people from their own counties and leaving them with only those who want war.

Where are you getting your stats from? The average number of children born is 1.7 to a family so the majority are already have less than 2 children. So how does your plan work when most are already doing it

des I mean if 60% are having 3 and the other 40% have none, then the average is 1.8 and significant majority have more than 2....

Not the actual case clearly...but mathematically possible!

Surely the true answer is why England?

Because many refugees speak English and feel they have a better chance at supporting themselves in England.

well, OP, I wish the topic wasn't linked to refugees or immigration as that will skew things.

Separating it - I have a friend who is worried about the future of the planet and about to have her 4th planned child.

it's difficult because she knows I am big on overpopulation - I wouldn't dream of telling her off, it's her choice. But if she says to me in 20 years "I can't believe how much competition there is, my kids can't get jobs" - I will find it hard to keep my mouth shut.

I'd say after 2 children, no state help at all - so pay for the education and health etc that we currently get for free. I realise that the 2nd birth may be twins etc and that should be exempted of course.

not sure how we organise it practically - one child per person, so to speak? So in a couple, 2 is fine but if you move on, you can't have another one with the new partner unless it's their first and only?

I recall Cameron saying something about overpopulation before the 2010 election - but he has 4 kids doesn't he, so um....yes.

I'm not particularly environmentally concerned but I do think world population has reached astonishing levels and it doesn't benefit anyone - in fact it makes life harder for the majority. Maybe the very rich are happy with it because cheap labour is in ample supply.

'I couldn't get past "we're hugely overcrowded in London and it's not immigration at fault." '

That's not what I said - I said it can't all be blamed on immigration. So have your biscuit back.

bella unless restricting those having more than 3 to have two causes those that would have had 1 or zero to increase (and I can't really see why it would) then cutting off the tail of the distribution will reduce the average.

But the real point is that we aren't so worried about being full that we want to reduce the number of births...we are only worried about being full when we are asked to help people not born in this country...because we are above all things, selfish.

We are not in China, we are not overcrowded in this country, only something like 7% of Britain is built on. What we are is under resourced the last government and the current one are not building the roads, hospitals and schools that we desperately need.

The birth right is low in the Uk at 1.6 so we are hardly a nation with a lot of children being born to the average family. Some african nations have an average of 5 or 6 children a child.

So if birth rate is low how can not having as many children solve the OP's overcrowding.

That is going to mean people having less than 2 kids each while we continue to live longer

Women do have fewer than 2 children each on average at the moment I think, whilst the replacement rate for the UK is about 2.1 apparently. But of course, some people will have more and some less.

I'm sure we could accomodate a few thousand refugees easily, I guess the negative impact on infrastructure occurs when there are concentrated groups in one area which may reflect uneven pressure on a few catchment areas for hospitals, schools etc.

Sorry not 7% between 2% to 3% of the Uk is built on.

Implementing a 1 kid per adult...2 kids per couple rule (calculating retrospectively) would have reduce the population by over 1 million.

That's a lot more than the number of refugees applying for asylum.

dad we share a planet with China....if it all goes to hell, the climate fails and humanity is wiped out...is it really going to feel okay that we didn't what we could to stop the over crowding because it was all China's fault?

*chatty do we want more criminals? Well no. But maybe people who break laws in order to help their children survive are not so much to be condemned as those in our own country who break them for lesser motivations of greed....

Maybe we should let in the refugees and sterilise the convicted?

Op you cant just sterilise people against their will? The humans rights act.

You can't reject refugees either....but people seem happy to do that...coz...well either they are the wrong colour or they weren't born here...so somehow they have less human rights than we do.

Sorry not 7% between 2% to 3% of the Uk is built on

I'm sure I read a debunking of that stat somewhere - they hadn't included loads of stuff that any sensible person would consider 'built upon'. But it still wasn't that big a %.

I would also like to point out that in the category of people who have put nothing into the welfare system, have paid no taxes etc. and therefore should perhaps not be allowed to take anything out....babies and children make up the majority of the number.

I gave you the example of those who trashed a place Germany had given them to sleep and be safe while being prossed. This was a group of only men no children. Their behaviour of criminal actions had nothing to do with getting children safe and all to do with a book.

Police being stoned in France due to trying to stop people crossing illegally, throwing stones won't help get your children to the UK when you could be prossessed in France and then enter legally.

If you really wanted to be safe and keep your children safe you would get prossessed in any EU country then practice your right to free movement not break the law harming people.

Well considering that population growth is largest in Africa where most of these migrants are coming from then perhaps if we're going to start looking at population control you're looking in the wrong place?

Until Africa gets that under control they are going to have an exploding population competing for very scarce resources which is going to cause conflict.

As far as refugees go I would like to see those most at risk prioritised. In Syria this is going to be Christian's and Yazidis. In my book refugees should be prioritised by need, not by who manages to get to Libya and pay a people smuggler. Because those who pay get here it's much more likely that those who have benefited from the war and strife in there own countries will get here rather than the genuinely desperate.

I also think money spent on settling a minority of people who get here (some of whom are not genuine) would be better and more efficiently help and help more people by supporting the vast majority of refugees who are in the safest country closest to their own; Turkey, Kenya, Ethiopia, Jordan etc

But we have civil liberties Ice we have a rights as well

As a libertarian I think restricted children gives the state way too much power.

Many experts say that china never needed to introduce such a policy because economic development would have reduced birth rate anyway.

Over population is much more of a problem in poorer countries, Nigeria for example is going to have a population explosion before 2020. The UK is growing at a slow rate population wise compared to the poorer countries, so why would implementing such a policy on Britain be worth it.

People around here chuck bricks at police just because they are arses.

Would definitely rather share the country with refugees than some of the locals. In fact maybe we could do a swap.

As dadistired said, we are not 'full up' at all. I've never understood that argument. Where are we full up? London maybe? Don't live in London then.

There is plenty of land to build on. There is plenty of food and fuel. We have as much water as we could dream of on tap. In fact, when you look at how much we consume and waste as a nation it's pretty vulgar really. It seems the real problem is allocation of resources. Things like hospitals and schools need more, things like Trident need less (IMO, obviosily)

I'm with Malthus on this: with every mouth God sends another pair of hands.

I do not agree that we should start limiting the number of children people have because this inevitably ends in some kind of social engineering project where poor people are not allowed to have children while rich people have as many as they wish.