Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

'd be interested to see things like an extra tax on very large people carrier type cars, unless registered for use by childminders or by taxi firms
There is an extra tax on SUV's but people (mostly parents) keep buying them. Many people either couldn't care less about their own impact on the environment.
Overpopulation will kill the human race, it is inevitable. Humans will only have been a tiny blip on the radar of time
Either that or antibiotic resistance.

Or AI - not even counting the euthanasia bots .

Dont have Children , dont have pets, dont eat meat, dont fly, dont have cars, dont dont dont, is the planet worth saving then to live like that on it

Well yes that is the problem with over pontificating. People think 'we cant do anything so we may as well enjoy ourselves and die out eventually' . We'll take a ton of other species with us, but frankly, I doubt the Polar bear cares how many other polar bears there are. They care about their own survival and that's it. We are the ones who want them to live on for other generations.

apparently last year the world produced enough food to feed 11 billion people the population is 7 billion so 35% of all food produced is either in the wrong place or just wasted

every woman having 2 children replaces population at present UK is on 1.8 generally as more children survive childhood and women work and are educated population birth rate drops only Ireland and Iceland have a higher birthrate than UK in western world France, Sweden and Norway are about the same and China is similar; USA a tiny tiny bit higher, Spain Italy Japan and Greece quite a bit lower

I don't think enough people care about the planet to be honest. I would think for every person that does care and is worried about the future there are at least 10 who don't give a damn.

You only have to look at threads on here where so many posters say you should be able to have as many children as you want and/or admit they never gave any thought at all to overpopulation/climate.
change.

Also look at how many posters saying their pregnancy was an "accident", not only the first pregnancy but second, third, fourth etc. Of course there will be some accidents but if contraception was used if a pregnancy was not wanted and used properly there would be no where near the amount there are.

I have been told numerous times over the years that I am selfish because me and DH chose not to have children. I totally disagree. I think the selfish ones are the ones having children with no thought to their future.

I am selfish in that I am thankful I have no children to worry about where the future is concerned. I do worry about my nieces and nephews and any children they may have if they change their minds (all 4 say they are not having any).

Even if CC or overpopulation was not an issue, it is completely insane to call someone selfish for not having children .

Equally insane not to worry about the future of children born today. It is an enormous worry. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

@MoonbeamsAndCaterpillars I don't understand how anyone can not be worried about the future for children but some people don't. A poster on another thread said along the lines of "you never know what kind of life/future your children will face so no point worrying about it"!

I worry, as I say, about my nieces and nephews (the youngest is 25) and about the future in general for children.

There is an extra tax on SUV's but people (mostly parents) keep buying them

I didn't realise there was an extra tax. Clearly not a large enough one.

Overpopulation will kill the human race, it is inevitable. Humans will only have been a tiny blip on the radar of time
Either that or antibiotic resistance

Though antibiotics have only been around since WW2, and people survived to ripe old ages before that. We obviously need them, but it wasn't the case that everyone died from tiny cuts. However, it might kill a lot of people and solve the problem and then those who want 5 or 6 kids can have them again.

you never know what kind of life/future your children will face so no point worrying about it

Ha! I actually say this all the time, but without the "no point worrying about it" part.

Both are true. It is a huge worry, but at the same time, nobody can predict their child's future.

It isn't a big surprise that you and I disagree on this though @lynsey91 as, unlike you, I have taken the gamble on having a small family. For you, the risk wasn't worth it, but for me it absolutely was. Even if we all died in a flood next week, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

We need Thanos maybe

I've got a lot of time for CP and think he is talking sense.
Humans are a plague upon the planet.
Arguing about whether or not Britain's population is stagnating is irrelevant. We're talking about a global problem. Women in the slums of Nigeria having 15 babies in the hope that some will survive, for example.
I can see a time in the future when Governments will be talking steps to encourage their citizens to be more responsible; tax breaks for smaller families,etc.
As for me, well I already have my two children, but would happily sign up for voluntary euthanasia so I don't have to face the same indignity my 92 year old parent is currently experiencing in the hands of the NHS.

Sorry to read about your elderly relative @Parsley65. And I agree with you. Sign me up too!

100 companies produce over 70% of global carbon emissions. How about we stop "birthing" new companies, new tech, new stuff? Oh, that's right... capitalism.

He's on BBC The One Show right now and sounds very reasonable. Not at all smug or sanctimonious at all. He reminds me a lot of my son, who has autism.

I didn’t know who he was but limiting it to one seems extreme.

I’m ok with messages getting out there though because people might consider the overall number more.

@eminencegrise Chris has a diagnosis too

www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/news/2018-07-18-chris-packham-visits-callendar-wood.aspx

Though antibiotics have only been around since WW2, and people survived to ripe old ages before that. We obviously need them, but it wasn't the case that everyone died from tiny cuts. However, it might kill a lot of people and solve the problem and then those who want 5 or 6 kids can have them again.

Assuming they survive all those childbirths. Medical interventions that break the skin are risky without antibiotics to fall back on if an infection takes hold.

He's been flamed on here but he did not come across as anything but reasonable on this latest piece.

There’s an article in the Guardian today

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/17/chinas-birthrate-falls-to-lowest-level-despite-push-for-more-babies

No need to enforce one child in China anymore!

Packham was on the one show this week and he did not say anything about bringing in a one child policy, love how people are criticising him without reading or listening to what he actually said. He wants us to have a conversation about population and he's right as the world can only support so much. The OP was wrong to have just put his name up with one child policy and Packham, no different from putting Attenborough and one child policy

In case anyone wants to listen to what has been said by Packham

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dcjt/the-one-show-16012020

BBC How do countries fight falling birth rates?

According to the UN, two-thirds of countries in Europe have introduced measures to increase fertility rates, from baby bonuses and tax incentives to paid parental leave, with varying degrees of success.
...
Anne Gauthier, professor of comparative family studies at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, told the BBC that such cash policies "usually have very little impact on the fertility rate".
...
She says that while they may lead to a small increase in birth rates in the short term, with some people choosing to have children earlier, "it doesn't translate at the end of the day to a higher fertility rate. They have been used in a lot of countries and we see the same pattern".
...
But Prof Gauthier does note that even Scandinavia has begun to see a fall in its fertility rates, showing that the real key to higher birth rates remains unclear.

I read this the other day on BBC news site. It does seem once switch to fewer children and more child free women has been made it's quite a long term trend - so it does look like he's onto something.

When the child free trend really takes hold governments will be shitting themselves and doing everything they can to try and make women devote themselves to the business of producing more humans
This will all be in vain because women will not give up the freedoms that they gain