Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

I fuss over colleagues babies to be polite. I am not really interested but don't want to look like a bitch. Women are expected to do this to be polite, men are not.

That's so not true.

We had someone bringing a baby at work and the only ones cooing over a baby were male, my (few) female colleagues were not remotely interested or pretending to be.
And that's in a so-called male environment, no pressure on any man to pretend to like babies.

How many times do you hear all the women in the office going all gooey-eyed and weak at the knees when someone brings their baby in? They all fight over it and can't help themselves

I’m not really that maternal and I’m not interested in other people’s babies or kids, even now as a mother. I obviously I love my own but I don’t expect others to coo over mine either. I was expected to when my boss at my last job brought in his baby

Anyway, I want to live in a world where women have the power to chose the number of children they want. I want all humans to be we well educated and I want everyone to have the same standard of living.

I think the discussion needs to be had and I can see why if you’ve had more than one child why this conversation would get your back up.

I’m the third child so the conversation makes me uncomfortable but has to be had 🤷‍♀️

Oh and yes men bare the responsibility here as well and we need to crack on and get that male contraceptive pill in place

with men I feel it is not so much contraception we need to focus on
rather we need to make sure they cannot evade responsibility for children that they father

As another poster said, I think Chris Packham means we need to stop seeing children as a natural next step, and being child-free as somehow odd. If only people who really really wanted a(nother) child had one I think the results would be pretty good. I'm talking not giving in to pressure from the other partner, or in-laws, or society who demonize only children, or having a baby to cement a relationship or as an escape from a shit career...

Putmore succinctly, when women have equality of opportunity as well as equality of outcome, and access to abortion and quality contraception (and are trusted to know if they want to be sterilized, ffs) we'll be much better off.

Mainly destroying the homes and sources of food for wildlife, I imagine, given the constant desire for new homes and roads, built on green belt in this country!
There was a really interesting programme on a week or so ago about veganism. I think it was called 'farmageddon' with George Monbiot. There was a really eye opening graphic that showed that only 5% of the UK is used for housing and urban areas, but 70% is used for meat and dairy production- so grasslands, animal feed etc, so I would think drastically reducing meat production would have a massive impact on habitat and carbon capture. He also went to Holland where the Dutch government had bought up farmland and let it be rewilded to prevent flooding and it had within a very short time become a haven for wildlife. Population is going down without imposing draconian one child policies. It was predicted to reach 11bn by 2050, now its predicted to peak at 10bn ( still far too many, but most of that ageing populations, so cant really do much about that!) before dropping drastically. I do think incentives to have fewer children do work. India has reduced its birthrate to 2.1 through incentives and advertising campaigns. I think there should be incentives like tax breaks and limited child benefit in this country too.

Josef But do you think it's responsible to have four (or more) children with the way things are? Genuine not goady question. We all WANT things, but it doesn't necessarily mean we should have them or basically ignore the bigger picture because "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets" (to use a current topic).

That might get deleted @shatnerswig as you mentioned MM!

Moonbeams Shall I go the whole hog and mention the other MM one isn't allowed to mention on MN??

I agree that something needs to be done, but it can't be forced, just encouraged, so I've chosen YANBU.

I agree with another pp that 2 successful pregnancies or a maximum of 2 children, whichever comes first would be more realistic/ easier to do.

Again, I would exclude multiple births from that, ie, one child, then triplets would still be counted as 2 successful pregnancies, and wouldn't be penalised.

I would use tax breaks and other incentives to achieve this, as banning it outright won't work, and I would penalise those who ignore the policy, eg, 3 dc from 3 separate pregnancies with penalties such as higher taxes, etc.

I also agree that education is key, and that men who go around fathering dc with different women, ie, more than the suggested limit of 2, should also be penalised though tax and by having to fund each child properly.

Just stop welfare at one child. That way people who want more can have them but they will need to fund them themselves and other (childless) taxpayers don't have to subsidise other peoples damaging carbon footprints.

It's strange how the woke middle classes are virulently against climate change except when it comes to actually doing something about it, rather than just protesting and virtue signalling, such as encouraging population reduction (which limits carbon footprint).

Things like child benefit should be limited to 2 children already, regardless of income, and I'm sure there are other ways they could incentivise this so that people are encouraged to have fewer children.

Don't do it shatner! It's MN suicide!

It won't be long before governments are trying to financially incentivise people to have more children than they want to

Or actually scraped altogether, as you should only be having children if you can fund them without relying on the state.

Getting into financial difficulties after you've had them is different, and there should be a welfare state to help those who fall on hard times, but if you have dc knowing that you can't afford it (ie, without help from the government/benefits), that's irresponsible and shouldn't be encouraged.

Is there a link?
What exactly is CP suggesting? He's not stupid, he's very intelligent, and dog loving and vegan, alternative, etc : but it depends on exactly what he's suggesting, & how?

It won't be long before governments are trying to financially incentivise people to have more children than they want to
They're doing this in quite a few countries already. I think Poland and Bulgaria are trying to do it rather than doing it through immigration, as well as places like Japan who have a huge ageing population. We need to think of ways to change the economy in ways that don't mean we always need a constant supply of workers and consumers. I dont know what that is, especially when it comes to caring for the elderly.

ShatnersWig
well, I don't think it's any more irresponsible to have just 1 than it is to have 4.

I don't even qualify for child benefit btw...

On another note, I found the hatred towards Meghan unacceptable, she is obviously a great scapegoat to forget various scandals but the woman has done nothing wrong that I have seen.

I also support the decriminalization of euthanasia, etc. I would like the choice to die before losing my independence, without having to go to Switzerland.

Chris Packham's chief concern is the moral superiority of Chris Packham

It needs to be a worldwide conversation though, not just limited to western countries. In many places education and emancipation of women is probably a key thing.

Oblomov Here's something he said:

Globally the birth rate is 2.4, and we only need to lower the birth rate to 2.1 to stabilise population growth. How could this be done? “If you were to rub a lamp and give me a wish,” says Packham, “it would be the immediate emancipation of women all over the planet. In every example looked at, it significantly reduced the birth rate and improved the quality of life for both the woman and the family.”

Here's an interesting stat, but no doubt as it's from a climate change researcher, some will take it with a large pinch of salt:

In his recent book SOS: Simple Actions that Make a Difference, climate change researcher Seth Wynne found that only having one child {rather than two) reduces your cumulative carbon emissions by a whopping 58.6 tonnes a year. For context: living car free for a year saves 2.4 tonnes.

Too late for me I'm afraid.

@Blibbyblobby, speaks a lot of sense.