Too many kids

[OoerBlah]

So I've just watched Cathy Come Hone, the Ken Loach play from 1965. It's heartbreaking, no doubt about that. But it made me wonder if there is ever a situation where people might think that having kids if you can't afford them is just, well, don't do it?

I know accidents happen and not all kids are planned. I also know that life is complicated and consequences can't be foretold. But particularly in this day and age of so many finding it difficult to find homes and provide for themselves let alone children - is there ever a time when we should say if you can't afford kids, don't have them?

As a libertarian the idea of 11 billion people on the planet must make your blood run cold. Imagine the kinds of government controls that gain traction in the face of dwindling resources. *

I don't think it will get to 11 billion though. Look at the way LEDC countries are developing its very fast. Population will rise but it will level off and technology will help support the increase until then.

I don't think it will get to 11 billion though. Look at the way LEDC countries are developing its very fast. Population will rise but it will level off and technology will help support the increase until then.

It's set to rise to 11 billion by 2100 not because of birth rates but rather increasing life expectancy.

Does rioting worry you as a libertarian? Riots lead to police states.

"There are plenty of ways to reduce the birth rate in the UK without resorting to China's measures".

The UK birth rate doesn't need to be reduced, arguably its too low because its already below replacement levels.

Several generations of Chinese have made an enormous sacrifice for the benefit of their descendants, and the whole world by adopting the one child policy.They should be lauded for that.

"There are plenty of ideas that could be thought of without actually stopping people. Two is selfish enough, nobody needs more than that."

People don't need more than two, but if a society wishes to maintain population levels at a constant then a small number need three to compensate for those that have one or none, and for rare child deaths. 2.1 children per woman is the replacement level.

And if you're that worried about the finite resources, why not focus on the fact that most of them are hogged by the richest people? IT's not that we can't support the population of the planet, we easily can, and many more. It's that we as a society choose not to.
But yeah, tell the people with 2 more kids than you that its all their fault. Makes sense not in the slightest

Several generations of Chinese have made an enormous sacrifice for the benefit of their descendants, and the whole world by adopting the one child policy.They should be lauded for that.

I am not sure I would call forced abortions, organ harvesting and forced sterilisation a sacrifice. I would call it evil and a awful dictatorship.

People don't need more than two, but if a society wishes to maintain population levels at a constant then a small number need three to compensate for those that have one or none, and for rare child deaths. 2.1 children per woman is the replacement level

Actually you need more than a few to have more than 2 children. With one in 5 women at 45 child free (and that figure is rising) and one child families also much more popular than they used to be, those of us with three or four are doing you all a big favour.

In regards to China the birth rate was very likely to fall and many studies have shown it was pretty much pointless.

Ineed: human life is worth more to me than the environment.

Most of us with environmental concerns have them IN ORDER TO PROTECT HUMAN LIFE.

The environment is worth so much precisely because it is essential to preserving human life.

FWIW I don't think you need a one child policy to constrain the birth rate, you just need societal pressure informing people from a young age that reproduction is a primarily selfish act.

At the moment, getting married and having children is held up by our society as an aspiration (for women in particular). We advertise toys to girls that emphasise this and we portray getting married as some wonderful outcome in movies etc.

We could do worse than simply banning sexist advertising to children and coming up with a different happy ending to holywood blockbusters...

I don't think it will get to 11 billion though. Look at the way LEDC countries are developing its very fast. Population will rise but it will level off and technology will help support the increase until then.

It's set to rise to 11 billion by 2100 not because of birth rates but rather increasing life expectancy.

Both actually, but the high birth rate is the main problem the average world total fertility rate is : 2.58 per woman very much concentrated in
African countries and Afghanistan. That is very significantly above replacement levels

www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Of course raising standards of living naturally causes it to drop, but that process is too slow to wait for it to just happen naturally, especially as overpopulation is one of the major causes of poverty in these countries.
As Mao said "Halve the population and double the standard of living"

those of us with three or four are doing you all a big favour
In some cases I agree with you but there are people who have lots of children who are not installing in them any discipline or moral values.

I think that people like you (HeddaLettuce) are the sort of people who are raising your children to be valuable members of society but there are a few women who have chosen having lots of kids so they can live on benefits . I really think that these children may actually become a burden on society in the years to come as opposed to an asset due to the fact they have not had a great upbringing.

*FWIW I don't think you need a one child policy to constrain the birth rate, you just need societal pressure informing people from a young age that reproduction is a primarily selfish act.

At the moment, getting married and having children is held up by our society as an aspiration (for women in particular). We advertise toys to girls that emphasise this and we portray getting married as some wonderful outcome in movies etc.

We could do worse than simply banning sexist advertising to children and coming up with a different happy ending to holywood blockbusters...*

With all respect that is codswallop most people (male and female) want to get married and most want children as well. Giving someone life is not a selfish act. Most people make sacrifices to have kids. I could probably go on holiday to Caribbean every three months if I didn't have kids .

I am not sure I would call forced abortions, organ harvesting and forced sterilisation a sacrifice. I would call it evil and a awful dictatorship.

Organ harvesting is a separate issue and not directly linked to reducing the birthrate, but I dont think you should be denying the sacrifice Chinese people mad for the common good. And yes it was harshly implemented but if there is common agreement to a policy that demands huge individual sacrifice, then the recalcitrant minority have to b obliged to comply.

If you were in charge of a Chinese commune and 99% of peasants were cooperating for the common good by limiting themselves to one child what would you do about the selfish woman who had a girl first time, conceives again, and conceals her pregnancy instead of having an abortion?

Consider too the other enormous beneficial side effect the policy has had in raising the status of women in a society where previously they were like cattle.

No organ harvesting goes on in China including on people who disobey the state by having more than 2 kids. Its not a sacrifice it was put on them.

I though mumsnet was liberal. Now we have defending the evil Chinese and Mao

INeedAnEspresso
In regards to China the birth rate was very likely to fall and many studies have shown it was pretty much pointless.

Nonsense China and India make a reasonable comparrisson, both large countries with rapidly modernising economies:
China TFR 1.55
India TFR 2.51

China Population growth rate 0.44%
India Population Growth rate 1.25%

You need to be very sceptical of studies claiming to show the one child policy as ineffective as they are based on mere speculation about what might have occurred had the policy not been adopted. Many people, including researchers, are, for political or religious motives, strongly opposed to the policy and eager to denigrate it.

INaE
I don't think you need a one child policy to constrain the birth rate, you just need societal pressure informing people from a young age that reproduction is a primarily selfish act.

At the moment, getting married and having children is held up by our society as an aspiration (for women in particular). We advertise toys to girls that emphasise this and we portray getting married as some wonderful outcome in movies etc.

You think an advertising policy of simply discouraging people from marrying is going to reduce the birth rate in the high fertility countries of Sub Saharan Africa and Afghanistan? You're having a laugh.

The West, Japan and much of Pacific Rim needs to INCREASE not decrease the birth rate!

INAE
"Its not a sacrifice it was put on them."

It is a sacrifice because its a policy that's widely supported. I realise that in a one party state the verification of levels of support is difficult but there is no doubt that many do support it. They realise that without it population levels were out of control. Some even say it wasn't enforced strictly enough and too many people in the country were allowed to get away with having three four children until they got the sought after boy.

China would have had 1.8 billion people by now were it not for the intelligent sacrifice of millions of Chinese families.

China Population: 1,355,692,576 (2014)

Espresso, I can't figure out if you think that China's decrease in birth rate arose organically

In regards to China the birth rate was very likely to fall and many studies have shown it was pretty much pointless.

or whether you think it was imposed upon them.

Its not a sacrifice it was put on them.

Marmade it's was inhuman and evil not a voluntary sacrifice. I suggest you leave mumsnet for a while and partake in some intelligent research.

Moved on a bit, but really, IneedAnEspresso , "Technology will save us"???

Oh dear.

Depends on how it's used, always, and there are limits. The only way technology can really save us at this point is finding about 5 uninhabited but strangely suited for human life other planets and shipping off 3 out of 4 or so people to them.

Did you know that the increases in productivity in food crops we've enjoyed have been tailing off, that the nutritional content of many food crops has been falling, and that our dependence on just one or two while damaging the rest of the earth's ecosystems is damaging biodiversity and rendering us very vulnerable to crop diseases? Technology brings new problems.

I don't remember who said now about preferring to value human life over the environment, probably Hedda, but it isn't either/ or. Humans cannot survive without the environment and looking after it is critical to future human lives. The green party friend you have is a bit mixed up.

Marmade it's was inhuman and evil not a voluntary sacrifice

That's nothing more than your value judgment.
It wasn't entirely voluntary but it was accepted by the community, as a whole. The same can be said about any decision taken by political leaders, such as to go to war. British families made enormous sacrifices in WW2 when their sons were conscripted. That wasn't strictly a 'voluntary sacrifice' either. Many did not want them to go.

I suggest you leave mumsnet for a while and partake in some intelligent research.
Now that is just rude. You've clearly not given this any thought and don't care to challenge your own narrow perspective which you've been fed by the Western media, demonising China.

Marmade it's was inhuman and evil not a voluntary sacrifice. I suggest you leave mumsnet for a while and partake in some intelligent research.

Seven, I can't work out what intelligent research has left you with the notion that God created the planet and overpopulation is a myth. Please don't insult Marmaduchess, her posts are thought-provoking (even if I don't agree with them).

Thank you for your kind words Apple.

t is a sacrifice because its a policy that's widely supported. I realise that in a one party state the verification of levels of support is difficult but there is no doubt that many do support it. They realise that without it population levels were out of control. Some even say it wasn't enforced strictly enough and too many people in the country were allowed to get away with having three four children until they got the sought after boy

Ask the woman who had forced abortions if they supported it. Ask the girls who were abandoned in the street or to orphanages or just killed outright, if they supported it. Ask the boys who will grow up destined never to marry because China has the biggest gender imbalance in the world if they support it.
Defending the vile, barbaric, misogynistic practices of China's one child policy to defend your ecological principles is obscene.

"The West, Japan and much of Pacific Rim needs to INCREASE not decrease the birth rate!"

No! These countries need to welcome the poor and displaced from other parts of the world. There is no need for every country to replace its population. Lots of brown people want to live in the uk and evidence shows that they make excellent citizens in majority of cases.