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.

I've often wondered why women (and men) in developed countries, with a guaranteed level of quality of life, are judged if they don't control their fertility, yet every excuse ever known is given why those in living in war torn/starvation/global disasters, still reproduce in large numbers, even when there is contraception available.

I'm 47, I've listened to the same reasons for over twenty years why some things happen, including a Mum with HIV, in Africa, produce child after child.

Societies get to were they are because of a common agreement for living, including standards in Childcare/non abuse.

I'm from an immigrant family and ice travelled extensively.

The attitude towards Women, the disabled and Children in some cultures, is shocking and I wouldn't want it in the UK.

I have heard immigrants from some cultures questioning why disabled people and our elderly should be looked after.

I'm Vegan because I want to minimise my part in the expiration of others. I think it would be more sensible to do what we can to make life for everyone better, in the countries that they were born.

The young men are getting out, but the vulnerable are left behind to suffer and die.

I struggle whilst watching the advert about street children, why not round them up and bring them here and leave the adults were they are?

That wasn't a genuine question, but who we "help" does bring up a load of ethical questions and dilemmas.

I've often wondered why women (and men) in developed countries, with a guaranteed level of quality of life, are judged if they don't control their fertility, yet every excuse ever known is given why those in living in war torn/starvation/global disasters, still reproduce in large numbers, even when there is contraception available.

Because very often their children die by 5?

There's a lot of condemnation of the China one-child policy (fair enough, really), but I don't know anyone who would happily welcome another 400 million people on the planet.

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.

No, we don't.

And it is not as simple as just "building". You want to build a bunch of houses on anything other than brownfield, which will inevitably be near a town or city centre? Then they need to plug into the network: gas, electricity, sewerage, water, roads. They need to be near schools, supermarkets, GPs surgeries, hospitals, places of employment and near a refuse processing centre.

I live at the edge of an inhabitable zone. Yes, there's land beyond that but it is unhabitable because it is moorland. The few houses further out than our area need septic tanks, electricity generators that run off oil, 4x4s for access (unadopted roads), and they have to order their own water tanks to be delivered. Plus, you also have to landscape the area to avoid adverse weather conditions -- which is why so many new builds in cities suffer from wind-tunnel syndrome.

You want to start substantial building on unconnected land, you have to tackle all these issues. So you are pretty much looking at creating new towns somewhere that isn't miles away from anywhere else.

The problem is that Britain has pretty much exhausted its infrastructure. Most of the country still runs off 19th century (or earlier) town and city planning layouts (roads are too narrow, junctions are too awkward etc) and when it comes to public transport networks, we actually have significantly less railway capacity than we did in the 1950s -- and the state stupidly sold off the old land so we can't even recreate the old lines in many cases.

We import some 60% of our food. We import almost all our fuel. There was one point in the 00s where certain MPs were getting concerned at the fact that the gas for key public amenities was coming from Russia (at least one NHS hospital was run on Russian gas). We haven't built a reservoir since the 70s, and our reservoirs are getting dangerously low in summer. We have lost over 60 percent of our forest since 1945. We are building on flood plains.

Where I live the sewerage system is so overcapacity that when there is a lot of rain, we are getting raw sewage pouring into the local stream. London is disastrous in this regard and the solution, "the supersewer", is another crossrail-style project, destined to hit every problem on the way and take forever.

All we would need is one very hot summer and the standpipes will be out again, like they were in the '70s. We get a repeat of 2007 and even more homes will flood.

And if shipping lanes were ever blockaded for any reason, say, war in Europe, we would be screwed.

And that is just building more houses, not adding vast numbers of people to boot. More people means more food, more water, more energy usage, more schools, more sewage capacity, more doctors, more hospitals, more roads, more trains, more police, more cemeteries, more crematoriums, more landfill, more industry and business to provide jobs.

It really isn't as simple as "There's plenty of land".

Lightning England alone is one of the most densely populated countries on the planet
Yet you say other countries take in a lot more migrants than we do - yes, they are bigger. Perhaps we should try to spread new arrivals around a bit? And make the country less London centric as a whole?

I do think a lot of migrants have an unrealistic view of England. I know one who's actually fled violence and is in a persectued minority - and STILL is disappointed by England! And I've worked alongside plenty of immigrants who are disappointed by the reality of living here (in particular realising their seemingly astronomical wage is very low compared to living costs) whilst familes back home continue to pile the pressure on to be "living the dream".

Is this a weird windup from the ukipperati ?

If you want to whip up hysteria against all immigrants, smash the Green party and create a large-scale fascist movement ... then advocate restricting the right to have DC, just so we can help refugees and the environment.

And no way to enforce this on the 1%, who'd just move country. So it's all on the 99% as usual.

Many posters on Mumsnet even oppose current tax levels, try to avoid IHT and whinge about benefit costs for their fellow UK citizens.
Somehow I don't expect many to plan their family size to benefit the 3rd world.

Labour's detailled investigation of their defeat is in their report "Listening to Labour’s Lost Voters," Guardian found that Lbour voters lost in 2015 were substantially to the right of Labour on immigration.

There are billions of people suffering in countries with war, or dictatorships, or just grinding poverty.
It costs orders of magnitude less to support people in their own countries, so increasing the Overseas Aid budget is the practical way to help the maximum people.
That is usually unpopular in polls, but at least you'd have some chance of achieving it.

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.

This wins the "most ignorant post" award.

"The young men are getting out, but the vulnerable are left behind to suffer and die.

I struggle whilst watching the advert about street children, why not round them up and bring them here and leave the adults were they are?"

I agree. Very difficult questions.

birds round the children up and bring them here?? To go where? Into the already overfull 'care system'? Take them away from their parents and culture to stuff them into a children's home and put up for adoption? Along with our own children who need adopting or a foster home?

*Meant to add, that's how these people traffickers get away with charging vast sums and people will risk their lives.

Could I also ask - and I'm aware this sounds like a stupid question because the answer must be obvious.. but it's not to me...
Why can't these peope come here 'legitimately'? Ie. to be an asylum seeker, do you have to sneak into the country then present yourself to claim asylum? Is that the 'rule'? So you couldn't arrive say on a plane or boat and claim asylum on arrival? Or are there simply no 'official' transport connections that would get the person here? I used to think it must be prohibitively expensive, but they are paying thousands to go on the death trap boats!

Where I live, we need a lot more housing. It can't all be achieved on brownfield land, so some building in the green belt is probably going to be needed.

Part of the reason we need so many houses is that there is a high rate of migrancy.

So people - often rich, white people who live in the green belt - are turning around and saying 'Well, stop the migrants coming and then we don't need to build so many houses! Tada! Problem solved!'

But here is the thing. When you pull out the age pyramid for my area, you see that we already have an ageing population here and that people are going to live much longer over the next 30 years, so the proportion of the population aged over 60 and over 80 will increase, and with it complex and expensive care needs of older people. And that actually the birth rate isn't catching up with this. So in order to care for these older people - in order to keep essential services going - we actually need migrants!

The same is true of a great many urban areas in England, and I think the stats on this are enlightening reading for those who think that closing the border is a simple solution to the housing problem.

*dads oh yes WE have civil liberties...for US. We have the rights to education etc. But we aren't willing to extend that right to people born in the wrong country....silly people...if only that had made sure they were born here! What were they thinking....

Fundamentally the right to have as many kids as you like isn't sustainable.

At some point civil liberties encounter the hard facts of living on a planet with limited resources.

The planet is finite. We cannot continue to pretend it isn't. We use MASSIVELY more than our fair share of resources in the UK. The very LEAST we could do is to have less kids and take in more of the globally displaced people.*

Because telling British people that they should not have as many kids as we need space for refugees is totally a vote winner.

To extend our libities to everyone on the planet would be great, but the problem is that the world is not a nice place, countries do treat their citizens badly. That can not be solved by letting everyone into Europe, it has to be solved by these people in their home countries.

So Ice in order to give migrants liberties we have to get rid of are own is not what is needed to solve the migrant crisis in fact it would make British people xenophobic.

We need to however op use less resources in this country/eat less. I am a meat eater but have tried to cut down so I at meat only 4 times a week.

Eat less meat? But why?

Fundamentally the right to have as many kids as you like isn't sustainable.

At some point civil liberties encounter the hard facts of living on a planet with limited resources.

Yes.

Shove

I am afraid I don't buy the aging population = we need more migrants argument. I think it is yet another argument borrowed from the US where demographic circumstances were different.

The thing is that Britain never really had a baby boom in the late 40s and early 50s. There was a small spike in 46-48, but it was much of nothing. Yet we had a bulge in the 60s, an equivalent bulge in the 80s and a bulge in the noughties. The 70s was an utter trough: in 75, there were some 250,000 fewer babies born than in 65.

When you look at the data, these three bulges cancel each other out. There were enough people born in the 80s to support the old age of those born in the 60s. I would suggest there were enough people born in the 00s to support the old age of those born in the 80s.

Yes, some people will live longer but it is not a case of everyone living until their 80s and 90s. Already we are seeing increased causes of death related to modern lifestyles: obesity-related disorders and diseases etc.

It seems to me that the increase in pension age to 70 will also largely offset increased costs and labour demands. That's a good ten years more tax take and labour out of me compared to my mother.

We also still have nigh on a million NEETS. I think it gets very difficult to import workers when you have a substantial youth unemployment and education problem in your own society. If we were in a position of full employment and still had labour requirements, then importing workers makes sense; if you don't, I think you are asking for trouble.

OP "But I also think we need to raise awareness of the fact that having lots of children is seriously selfish and detrimental to the planet."

Agree. I do think that some people prefer not to speak about overpopulation because they themselves are parents. I am childfree - if I'd ever had children I would have adopted but I've decided I'm not going to have children any way. (Ironically people who see adoption as a first choice are seen as a bit mad - why? when there are so many of us, why not give a home to a child who doesn't have one?)

And even if you don't care about the planet (can't say I'm a huge greenie tbh) - I just think that there is very little quality of life associated with overpopulation.

people who want to have large families don't seem to stop for a minute and think about how it will affect the children they have, which confuses the heck out of me.

Take them away from their parents and culture to stuff them into a children's home and put up for adoption?

I would not entrust any children into our so called care system.

The government has admitted after the rochdale/oxford recent scandals and then - going back to the care home scandals of elm guest house era, children are still not safe in our so called care homes.

We have a broken system I would not want to pile any more pressure on it for the sake of those here already in it.

Who would?

And children who cant even speak the language are at even more of a disadvantage.

Secondly the governments new CB and tax credits policies will put paid to many larger families in the UK.

I also think its important that we make sure anyone we grant asylum too or want to integrate into our society respects our values. We have a long way to go - but we are streets ahead of many other EU countries, particularly on views on women, and views to those with disabilities.

Meat uses up a lot of resources, feed for the animals and land for grazing and transportation.

lorelei I totally agree....you hear a lot about it being selfish NOT to have a second child coz the only child is lonely blah blah blah...but in reality all you are doing having a second or more is increasing competition for your first in terms of everything from parental time to jobs...

Meat is definitely environmentally unfriendly...which is a large part of why keeping pets (well meat eating ones anyway) is environmentally unfriendly.

It all pales into insignificance in the face of reproducing though...

I think it is also important to recognise the global situation when we are discussing migratory flows into Europe and the UK.

All war is fundamentally about resources: who controls them, who benefits from them.

There is currently a belief in geostrategic circles that we are currently looking at the start of a "30 years war" in the Middle East and parts of Africa. This war will ostensibly be seen to be about "religion", "ethnicity" or "class", but, in reality, it will be all about resources.

And the cause of this resource crisis is stratospheric population growth in the ME and Africa since the 1960s.

The population of Iran has increased from 22 million in 1960 to 80 million today. Iraq has gone from 7 million to 33 million. Almost every Middle Eastern and many African countries has seen population growths of more than quadruple their population in 1960: Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi, UAE, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Ethiopia ...

These are huge increases in population in a very short space of time: only 55 years, less than two generations.

By contrast, Britain has gone from 53 million to 64 million in this time frame. The kind of population growths in the ME would equate to the British population currently being 200 million.

Imagine Britain with 200 million people, 147 million of those having been born since the 60s, because that is what we are talking about here when it comes to the strain on many ME and African countries.

That is a lot of pressure on resources on those countries. That's a lot of young men in the ME and Africa unable to find jobs, homes, and unable to found families of their own; that's a lot of young men without access to resources. And what happens when you have lots of young men with no access to resources?

They migrate or they fight.

And that fight tends to last until the population decreases to the extent where the remaining population has reasonable access to resources -- to be blunt, where every young man feels he can make a reasonable living, get married and support children.

Hence the belief that there will be a 30 years war in the ME.

We are seeing the start of this. We are seeing the first major wave of resource-starved migrant young men, and refugees from the opening battles in these resource wars.

We are arrogant and ignorant if we believe, as Brits, we can stop or solve this process in the ME or Africa. But we do have to consider how we can and will respond to the pressures it places upon us. We cannot let everyone that wishes to come into the country into the country for the next thirty years because it will create a population resource crisis of our own -- to which exactly the same impulses of migrate or fight will apply.

Already, there are resources tensions in Britain: that is the source of most UKIP votes and anti-immigrant feelings. The idea that it is all pure xenophobia is propaganda from invested parties who stand to gain from population increase in one way or another. In reality, Britain is one of the least xenophobic countries in the world and has absorbed migrants and refugees for decades.

In short, we must not attempt to solve other countries' population resource crises by inadvertently creating our own here in Britain. We need to step very carefully because, at the end of the day, humans are humans and the images of desperate young men at Calais will pale into insignificance when you have civic insurrection down your own road.

werkz - I need to see some statistics for that, because everything I have looked at suggests that what you say is incorrect. I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can show numbers to back it up, though.

The data that shows this is for my city in the north of England. It is by no means 'borrowed' from anywhere else, be it the south or the US.

Furthermore, it is replicated across the country. The proportion of people over the age of 65 is rising - it was about 1:6 in the mid 2000s, but is due to be 1:4 by 2050. Here is the data for 1971- the present for the whole of the UK, with predictions to 2085:

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/interactive/uk-population-pyramid---dvc1/index.html

I think it's important to consider that it's not simply that the number of older people is increasing, but the proportion. You may be interested in this Lords Committee report which looks at the implications for this in the near future, for 2020-30

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldselect/ldpublic/140/140.pdf

I suggest putting those figures into a model alongside health trends that show that people are experiencing far longer periods of ill health which require care than they did just a few decades ago.

We also need to consider how on earth we're going to deal with pensions. Yes, a lot of older people are working now - but there are also a lot who simply can't. Michael Marmot did some work on increasing the retirement age by another 10 years, and found that this actually just increased the benefit and welfare bill as people got sick or struggled.

Without commenting on the proposal in the OP, can I point out that newborn children and current migrants aren't actually in competition for the same 'places' in society, because children come with a 20 year delay.

hmm thats 20 years of not contributing...only taking from the public purse and definitely not paying any taxes.

Certainly more chance of a migrant becoming net positive to the economy within 20 years than a child.

But I certainly agree they do not have the same societal impact.