Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

The problem is Africa.

No it's not.

Ah thanks Faces in which case I support Chris.

I wouldn't take notice of anything he says ignorant man

I don’t have children or pets, would I be allowed to transfer my ‘allowance’ to someone else?

I wouldn't favour an enforced one-child policy, but certainly discourage people from having more than 2 or 3 children. Human overpopulation is at the heart of the environmental crisis we're all facing. Even if we all recycled, went vegan, boycotted air travel etc -- our ever-increasing numbers cannot be sustained.

He mentions “immediate emancipation of women” across the world, which would lead to fewer births through choice. I agree with him on that.

Child numbers are economic and linked to prosperity. They are based on the VALUE OF WOMEN'S TIME.

As societies become more prosperous, the number of children go down.

Therefore, the key is education of girls. Even primary school level has a huge impact on the GDP of the country.

UK isn't having enough children to care for our elderly.

Also, uk population is a drop in the ocean when you look at countries such as Africa. Restricting UK women to having one child each would be pointless.

www.dw.com/en/preparing-for-africas-population-boom/a-45649699

No one should have more than two.

“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.”

Impossible for me to disagree with that.

I'm with @AutumnCrow on page 1, on both points.

I wouldn't be against a 2 child policy and I wonder if that might lead to less of the problems which happened in China..? Also, very much in favour of the option to choose to die for people in this country and I would definitely choose to live a shorter life than my gps did.

This is such an important topic though and I'm glad it's getting more and more coverage, even if people are against it.

Clearly this isn’t the answer but I do think we need to address the over population elephant in the room.

everyone is different and it’s their right to decide how many children is right for them

Rights are a human concept. The ecosystem doesn’t give a fuck about what humans think is nice or right or fair. Like any other creature, if we exceed the planet’s capacity to support us we will start dying back until we regain equilibrium. Like any other creature, during that period we will scramble and fight for the resources that are available.

It’s not a message anyone wants to hear, it’s certainly not a message that people want to vote for, but it’s reality. We either cut ourselves back voluntarily or nature will do it for us.

It's not the U.K. birth rate that's the issue, there are still countries with 4+ kids the norm. My bug bear is people having kids when they can't afford the ones they have when most of us are sensible and stick to 1 or 2, 3 tops

The countries with the highest carbon emissions have the lowest population growth. And he does talk about places like Africa in his program.
His girlfriend owns a zoo by the way.

It's all very well, but when the Catholic church frowns on contraception, how are people in many parts of the world going to be able to comply?

@Blibbyblobby. Excellent post.

It's not realistic for now but might need to be in the future. At the moment the future of the planet is in peril if we continue. If people don't like it or if it has negative consequences (which it almost certainly would) then it will just be tough. Better some people survive than none.

How about incentivizing vasectomies for all men who have fathered two children.

While I understand the appeal, I'm not sure this is very practical. Even if nine out of ten men were sterilised before they had any children, the remaining one would be perfectly capable of ensuring the corresponding ten woman had as many pregnancies as they would have been able to in the absence of any sterilisations.

I read somewhere (probably here) that the reason men are risk-takers is that from an evolutionary biology point-of-view, they are more disposable. Any number of men can get themselves killed before they breed without it affecting long-term population numbers much. It's women whose ability to reproduce needs to be protected if you want to protect/increase population numbers.

In Britain we can't actually afford for the birth rate to drop any further. If you think of the population as a barrel, the middle-bit, the baby boomers, are just beginning to hit olf age and this will continue for another thirty years or more. We already have a care crisis and people being born now are desperately needed to look after the massively expanding aging population. And then there's Brexit which will mean it's much harder for non-Brits to fill those roles.

Without any offence to CP i do think the detail-orientated bias to ASD is not serving him well here looking at the bigger picture. He's a baby boomer himself, after all.

If those of us without can sell our voucher for one to a woman who wants two....

Not this myth again that we need to keep breeding like rabbits to produce carers for the elderly.

My ds also has asd and again, great at details, not so great on the bigger picture, and this is a recognised autistic trait, before anyone accuses me of ableism.

Worked really well in China as a million other posters have said. Baby girls left to die.

Twins/triplets?

Accidental pregnancies where the woman doesn’t want to be forced to abort just because she already has a child?

Basic human fucking rights perhaps?

That's your cliche not my words @glorioussilence and do you have any evidence to back yours up? Thought not.