Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

And I’m being a bit sarcastic btw as I know he has dogs

Which has the bigger carbon footprint, a dog or a child? I was actually thinking of another child. Got the dog instead as cheaper and shorter term :).

I actually agree that we should be trying to reduce the earth’s population. Not final solution style obvs, but people should have more of a social responsibility.

But like pp i don’t think it can or should be enforced. Possibly incentivised- child benefit increased for one child, possibly two, tax breaks for the child free.

My most nippy vegan environmentalist friend has four children, so this may be something I have muttered under my breath more than once... but of course, it's ridiculous to limit family sizes.

Better eduction about the environmental impact of multiples, stopping the 'only lonely' stereotype, challenging a patriarchal culture that values women more for the fruits of their womb rather than the fruits of their brain might help reduce the birthrate, but I am against any 'official' policy moves to restrict a woman's right to choose their family size.

It doesn’t really matter what he thinks though does it?
We wanted two children, because we didn’t want one to be alone in the world. Also because two is the number of children we can afford to care for and have enough time for. We didn’t feel done after having one.
Everyone is different and it’s their right to decide how many children is right for them. I also have pets, many and always will. I love animals and they make me happy. My pets would still exist in the world without me it’s not like I bred the animals.

Some researchers argued the one child policy was unnecessary in China, because fertility rates were already falling due to more education for women, the voluntary “Later, longer, fewer” campaign (later marriage, longer birth spacing and fewer children) and rising GDP. All the one child policy has done, apart from cause suffering for millions of people, is radically alter the age distribution of the population more quickly than would have happened naturally!

Fertility rates in most Western and East Asian countries are already below total replacement rates, except among migrants.

Chris Packham needs to focus his efforts on the countries with high fertility rates, like in Africa, etc - but rising education and prosperity for women would achieve that anyway.

As a biologist said to DH recently, it’s not the human population that’s the problem, it’s that everyone wants to be middle class!

How about incentivizing vasectomies for all men who have fathered two children. Would also mean many women can stop pumping themselves full of artificial hormones for years on end.

As a suggestion fine, as policy no. My feeling is one child per person rather than per couple is a good idea, so we’re doing no more than replacing ourselves in the future.

How about incentivizing vasectomies for all men who have fathered two children. Would also mean many women can stop pumping themselves full of artificial hormones for years on end

Ooh i like this one! Especially as someone whose body does not like added hormones.

Or tax nrp per child and set up a centralised maintenance system?

He's not wrong but I've been slated on here for saying that having kids is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.

No amount of veganism, recycling and stopping flying will overcome that though, people don't want to here it though as it's inconvenient to their desires to have kids.

For the record I'm childfree by choice, and one of the reasons is environmental.

How it would be imposed though, I don't know. PPs are correct that it didn't work in China.

Labrador in average 1.6tonnes a year
St. Bernard 2.3 tonnes a year.

The Average Brit about 11tonnes a year
The average Chinese person about 4 tonnes a year.

So dogs are generally better than people. Though the difference between a large dog and a Chinese person isn’t that much.

People tend to live longer though so will have a higher overall footprint. But if you replace your dog every time one dies and always have one in the house that probably cancels that out.

You can't and shouldn't enforce something like that but I do think the stigma around only children needs to be addressed. It needs to become completely unremarkable for people to have one child. I have one DC and have had people tell me how selfish I am as well as the ones who just think you will change your mind and chuckle when you say you are certain.

Using two forms of contraception when you definitely don't want to conceive should also be the norm. Vasectomies should be offered on the NHS everywhere and shouldn't be refused due to only having one DC or being in your twenties.

The way to tackle high population levels isn't by enforcing or lecturing it is by ensuring women receive a high level of education and contraception is free and easily available to all.

my pets would still exist in the world without me it’s not like I bred the animals.

But if everyone stopped buying pets the breeders would stop breeding them.

It’s like the air travel arguement that people say the plane is going regardless of whether they’re on it or not. If everyone stopped flying they’re not going to fly empty planes round the globe.

How about incentivizing vasectomies for all men who have fathered two children. Would also mean many women can stop pumping themselves full of artificial hormones for years on end

This. Also end the cut in funding for female sterilisation on the NHS (and male sterilisation as is already happening in some trusts). Coils are simply NOT suitable for about 15% of users, they are not a magic bullet and some women cannot tolerate a copper one due to heavy periods.

Until you make male and female sterilisation more available and acceptable, then the burden of birth control is placed on females and there are not enough suitable non-hormonal options at present.

Personally, I agree - though I would say maximum of two successful pregnancies* or two children - whichever comes first - after which BOTH parents are sterilised.

Replace yourselves in the world. Those men/ women who drift from relationship to relationship and cement each one with a baby? It would reduce that - it might make people think more carefully before jumping into parenthood.

*I'm not a monster - if you have quins the second time round, you can keep them all

This planet is grossly overcrowded. Even if we didn't have global warming to worry about, to continue to breed at the rate we are is not sustainable.

My cats are adopted after being abandoned. They would exist whether I had adopted them or not. All pets should be adopted IMO.

It might help the environment, but in other ways this would be a bad idea. In a few decades there would be a massive struggle to pay for the health care and state pensions of retired people by a dwindling number of taxpayers.

Trouble is that if fewer people are born, you just end up with a massive old population which can't be supported by the working-age people. We already have that problem, which is why we need immigration....

The problem is Africa. The population is predicted to double - double by 2050 - that's one billion more people.

It just seems pointless us hopping around giving up plastic straws and trumpeting about not sending Christmas cards when this is happening, yet no one seems brave enough to speak out about it. What about Greta Thunberg?

Encouraging people to have smaller families is fine.

This thread is a bit like reading the red tops. Only a small portion of the story is given..

“If you were to rub a lamp and give me a wish, it [population control] would be [achieved by] 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.”

I agree Faces the only way to tackle population growth is to ensure all women receive a high level of education, are able to participate fully in the job market including all the way to the top and to have financial indepence and access to affordable, effective health care.

He gives me the creeps

Yes but African people have less of a carbon footprint than us westerners so it isn't really that comparable.....

The UK birth rate is already falling, so I dont quite understand. If it was increasing then yes something needs to be done. But it's down 10% since 2012 and continuing. We do still need people to have children.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/01/birth-rate-in-england-and-wales-at-all-time-low

Well what was it he said?
If it was -
"Women should only have one child each". I agree.
"Women should be only ALLOWED to have one child each" I disagree.

And before anyone shouts SEXISM population numbers are always measured per woman. And I have three children btw but still think just one child would have been better for me planet.

Thanks @EmrysAtticus but that's actually a Chris Packham quote - though appreciate I did not make that clear

In fact, other than headlines I cannot find anything saying Packham supports a strict one child policy. Just that he is keen to surface a debate about how we achieve a more sustainable balance between people and the rest of nature.