Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

Less people on the planet, less consumers, less pollution, less shit.
Btw you just have to lurk on Mumsnet and listen to the moaning of mothers who are collapsing under the burden of multiple childrearing to understand that it’s a no-brainer to have less kids per household.

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

Do you not see that for every additional child you have, you are committing the planet to supporting another human being? Every child will go on to have a carbon footprint. Do you not appreciate that one child produces less than four children?

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

Nor do I, but just because we could afford more children financially and would not need to claim benefits to do so, it doesn't mean I feel I I the right to keep having them.

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 have been on some of the RF threads lately and I am also someone who really likes MM. Don't think she is the problem at all.

But some of the accusations from her more aggressive defenders towards anyone expressing a negative opinion on anything about her have made even me .

There have been bitchy posts by people who clearly don't like her too though. But I don't agree that it's all hate unless you think she should be canonized. Also think MN may have been a little heavy handed with some of the deletions, but it's impossible to say because I can't look back and see what the deleted posts said.

Do you not appreciate that one child produces less than four children?
I do, but the point i don't "need" one child - or 4. It's not like I need hands to help produce food for the family.

Who can decide who is entitled to have more children than others?

Will and Kate have 3, and they can afford them. Should they have more rights than others because they are financially independent?
Parents who can't have children naturally? Is it right to spend even more resources - that we don't have - on fertility treatments?

Who is there to decide if we should impose an arbitrary limit? Based on what, the number of children, the financial resources, the medical resources?

That's what I am questioning. And I don't agree that anyone is in position to make a judgment call.

I do, but the point i don't "need" one child - or 4. It's not like I need hands to help produce food for the family.

Yes, but, your words were "it is no less responsible to have four than to have one" (paraphrasing as yours had a typical I think)?

So, comparing it to say, long haul flights for beach holidays, would you say it was more irresponsible to have four every year compared to one every year or is it completely equal? Or comparing it to eating beef, would you say it was equally responsible / irresponsible to eat steak four times a week as once a week? Or food waste, would you say it was equally irresponsible to throw away one portion of a meal a day, as throwing away four portions?

Nobody 'needs' to have children. Arguably society needs someone to have children, but no, we as individuals do not need to have any at all. But, those of us who want to, usually do. Some of us limit ourselves to 2 as that is 'replacement level'. One in, one out (when a couple with two children between them both die, they will not have added to the population iyswim as they will be gone and have left two in their place. It isn't scientific at all, but that is the theory). So, having one child is better still, as you will have theoretically left one behind for your two iyswim.

Not judging you for having four btw. I have been saying all along that it is completely pointless and a little unfair to do so, as what the hell are you meant to do about it now and nobody should wish away people's children. But just explaining why one child or maybe two is more desirable for the planet than four in one household.

Haaa typical = typo. Irony!

I get your point, but you could use other arguments. The limited to 2 is not necessarily the right one either. (obviously I don't think it is)

Some people limit their number
others limit based on their own resources

who 's to say it's right.

Okay but who do I hand the two youngest back to? [Grin]

Well, indeed, who is to say anything re the environment is right? But, just because you can afford it, isn't a good enough argument for me personally. I could afford to go on long haul holidays (I don't really fly). I could afford to drive everywhere (I don't). We could afford to have more children than we do (we don't). This is based on advice from numerous leading experts that these are the things we can cut down on, if we wish to reduce our carbon footprint. If someone has no wish to do that, then, actually, nobody can make them! .

I also think it's not black and white though and appreciate that babies born now will be the ones running public services when we are old and in need of it. And we are already at below replacement level in the UK. So not a straightforward issue at all.

Will and Kate have 3, and they can afford them. Should they have more rights than others because they are financially independent
William certainly shouldn't be lecturing others on overpopulation when he has a 9 month old 3rd child, so chose to have an above average number of children well after CC became a major issue. Doesnt matter how rich he is (well it does, as his children will have an even bigger carbon footprint than most other children in the West)

Exactly the point I've been making banana! What is the use in berating parents with larger families? What are they supposed to do to rectify the situation?

But, for couples who are planning their families and before they even reach that stage, I think we need more clarity and education around the idea that opting for fewer children or none at all is the more eco friendly option. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 2 child maximum some day and it might be short term pain for long term gain.

noodle, Harry and Meghan more or less said the same after Archie was born didn't they?

I think they were right, but Jesus. Awkward!

Who is there to decide if we should impose an arbitrary limit? Based on what, the number of children, the financial resources, the medical resources?
It's not really arbitrary. 2.1 is replacement level statistically so if people have 2 maximum it will reduce the population.

But Josef do you not consider the state of the world and what it may be like for your children (or their children) in the future? Or is it really just "I want them, don't care about anyone else"? Isn't that selfish and potentially irresponsible? Your grandkids could have a really difficult life if we can't sort of the planet - doesn't that cross your mind at all? Don't you care about them?

Comparing it to China is a bit silly IMO. We don't have the same cultural preference for males over females here so there's no reason to suggest that the experience of selective abortions on the basis of sex would happen here.

I'm reading the rest of the thread - but this particular comparison just isn't culturally relevant for 99% of people in the UK.

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

The social care crisis could be solved by increasing the salaries of social and health providers to a decent level (it’s not that there aren’t people to do the jobs, it’s just that they are low paid and deemed ‘non skilled’). In addition, improving the infrastructure-better adapted housing and the effective use of modern technologies to enable the elderly and disabled to live more independently-self cleaning toilets/self accessible showers (most are too small for disabled people to access without help)/better wheelchairs and public transport etc. would help reduce the care required.

In otherwords it takes money.

it takes money but also wise and prudent use of said money

Most things take money-but imo it is a better solution than the other options to keep having children or perpetually requiring immigrants to fill the never ending and ever increasing social care gap.

Population control is the elephant in the room, as we try and use wisely what is left of our planet and it’s resources. We have one beautiful boy, would have loved one more, did not happen. The conversation on population has to happen for the sake of our world and existing children. Not easy I know.

Life expectancy is falling in the UK.

Ageing populations come with their own challenges, some of which aren’t fully understood yet.

But population control is hardly a new concept. Child benefit is a soft form of population control, ie it decreases (by a tiny amount!) the burden of raising a family.

Having spent a lot of time in S Italy with its ageing population I can tell you that ‘little emperor / empress syndrome’ is truly a thing. Our son (only child, not by choice) is subject to it every time we visit - the intense gift giving, giving in to his every whim..... and it’s clear to see when out and about too.

Talking about introducing a one child policy gets people talking (as we are) - much better to consider how to stabilise population growth sustainably to respect the carrying capacity of the land and environment.

@karencantobe. Life expectancy is not falling

fullfact.org/health/life-expectancy-uk-not-falling/

It is increasingly more slowly than predicted.

What I think is interesting is that nobody is able to make a case for having more than (say) two children beyond “who will look after the elderly?”, which is a red herring and “I want four children”, which is just an argument based on want.

Here’s a (semi-)facetious idea: mandatory contraception of all men and women until they can demonstrate why they should be allowed to reproduce and obtain a Child Licence.

Here’s a (semi-)facetious idea: mandatory contraception of all men and women until they can demonstrate why they should be allowed to reproduce and obtain a Child Licence.

Find a contraceptive for women that isn't harmful to their body and mind. Then find a contraception for men other than condoms.

Even if that were possible I would be more inclined to imposes a rule where you have to prove your a capable parent. That would defninatly lower birth rates.