Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

I know so many spoilt brat adults who were only children

how do you know they were only children? Most people don't talk constantly about their siblings.

@Newmetoday

But you can't really compare using plastic straws to having children. Plastic straws are not an investment in the future. While babies being born will have a negative impact the environment in the future, if we are to continue as a civilised society for any length of time, we actually need SOME children to be born. They are both a detriment and a potential benefit to society. This is not true of your old plastic straws.

Also, you can't dismiss the opinion of someone who may know more than you do on the subject simply because they have more than one child.

You can stop using plastic straws right now. Don't buy anymore. Done.

Someone with two existing children cannot stop being parents of two children. This does not make their opinion on your use of straws any less valid on its own. Different if their opinion is useless in the first place of course! But if they are, for example, an environmental scientist with two children, you cannot say they don't get to voice their opinion. If that is the case, then Greta Thunberg's dad should stop helping her do what she does. (He has two girls). David Attenborough should be disregarded as he has two children.

Is there a link to what he actually said? I find it impossible to believe that a man of his education and intelligence wants a policy like that of China. I very much doubt he does.

I haven't seen his remarks but there have been human life on Earth for approximately 70,000 years. In the last 200 years that population has increased from c. 1bn to towards 8bn people.

I can't see a one child policy being the answer but "something" needs to be done if we're not to start having major wars over food/energy/water supply. What are the other options?

without the explosion in population and the increase in city dwelling we would not have the technological advances of today

Is he also going to agree to a “no pets” policy. After all they’re totally unnecessary and when I took an online carbon footprint test the other week it was being a pet owner which pushed me up.

By all means neuter pets but are we now supposed to stop taking them in because it would put our carbon footprint up? My cats are from a shelter. We can choose how many kids to have but pets can’t, unless we choose for them.

I like Chris Packham but he’s stepped right over the line here.

The explosion in population is ruining the planet.

If I wanted Chris Packham's opinion, it'd be on blue tits or badgers.

Remarkable' decline in fertility rates

There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having, say researchers
...
it is being put down to three key factors:
...
Fewer deaths in childhood meaning women have fewer babies
Greater access to contraception
More women in education and work
In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.

I'd have no problem with anyone trying to increase those factors in the few coutries remaining which still have a high brith rate or even further in countries with relatively low fertility rates.

I've also read that part of the decline in babies born isn't just family size being smaller but increasing numbers of women having no children.

We still have an increasing population despite this success because of another big success that is again not spread evenly but is a global trend- longer life expectancy. People don't die at the same rates they once did.

So depends - any draconian measure I'd be against but the three factors mention it's hard to be against.

If we could get to a stage where there were no more unwanted animals in rescues, I would be the first to cheer. And after that - number of pets owned could be regulated, perhaps deducting pets from your overall carbon allowance which would also include your children.

By all means neuter pets but are we now supposed to stop taking them in because it would put our carbon footprint up? My cats are from a shelter. We can choose how many kids to have but pets can’t, unless we choose for them.

@Emmapeeler1

I agree with you; neuter all pets and also ban breeding pets. Continue to take in pets which can be safely homed, ensure they are neutered and this should thin down the current overpopulation of pet animals.

I don't think it should be compulsory but then I am pretty sure he didn't say it should.

We do need to be having less children. I think 1 or 2 is enough surely for anyone?

Me and DH chose to be child free partly because of overpopulation and we made that decision nearly 40 years ago!

I just don't get how people go on about not flying, recycling, not using plastic etc and don't mention overpopulation. It is one of the main, if not THE main, causes of climate change.

I know we have an ageing population but keep having more children cannot possibly be the answer although I don't know what the answer is.

Even if the planet was not overpopulated and there was no threat of climate change the UK is overcrowded as it is. Hospitals and GP surgeries can't cope, schools can't cope, there is not enough housing, not enough work, the transport can't cope and let's not even start about the traffic on our roads.

neuter all pets and also ban breeding pets
yep, too many 'fur babies'!!

Given that most developed countries have falling birth rates surely this is something that would have to be pushed/imposed onto developing nations. Exactly how does anyone propose this happen without violation of the human rights of people who, by and large, are not to blame for the current climate crisis and have far less than their economically more affluent contemporaries?
It's a Western solution to a Western problem that would most impact those with no agency to advocate for themselves on a global stage.
A nightmare. That's what it would be.
Education and increasing economic prosperity is surely the gentlest road to take. But I understand this may take too long.
Please God I hope we can find another way.

MorrisZapp

“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.”

inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/chris-packham-7-7-billion-people-counting-bbc2-world-population-growth-1364343

And Drabarni has just given us a perfect example of the horrible stuff people come out with with regards only children, completely ignoring the actual scientific research.

We should at least be discussing our overpopulation problem before mother nature solves the problem for us with global warming.

@MoonbeamsAndCaterpillars I agree. I have seen a few ‘don’t have pets carbon footprint’ comments lately... bit worrying when you think how many pets are in shelters waiting for homes.

As for CP, from a (very) brief google he seems to be talking about having one child becoming the trendy thing to do, like not eating meat and not drinking from a disposable cup! Actually I can imagine this becoming the case in future.

He seems to be suggesting education and female emancipation to get the birth rate down from global 2.4 to 2.1 to stabilise population growth.

That doesn't seem that unreasonable.

@jaxhog or an epidemic.

The population has doubled in Packhams lifetime... and he’s hardly an old man. Everyone who is throwing their arms up in air in horror at the thought of imposing such limitations, do you think the rate of growth in numbers can continue without massive consequences? A solution will need to be found, and if the human race were more responsible, we wouldn’t have to have restrictions imposed... we’d see it as our responsibility.
But in a country which rewards young single females for getting pregnant, with a home of their own.... that won’t happen any time soon.

Well - it went so well in China, didn’t it. Female babies being killed or abandoned (In orphanages where many died) because families wanted a son, but had a daughter first. Doctors selectively aborting female foetuses. Generations where, instead of the balance between male and female being roughly equal, there are far more men than women, with a knock-on effect of men who can’t find a wife, so the birth rate goes down even further.

That's because there is no welfare state in China.

Culturally the son supports his elderly parents and so does the woman he marries. Woman don't support their aging parents in China.

That's why people all wanted boys. There is also a deeply sexist attitude that boys are superior to girls.

With a one child policy that would not happen here as boys and girls are valued equally.

But in a country which rewards young single females for getting pregnant, with a home of their own.... that won’t happen any time soon

Which country are you talking about? Because the UK's birth rate is below replacement level.

Even as a member of the EU with a free flow of workers from many nations our NHS and care systems are chronically understaffed and we can't seem to get our act together.

Exactly. There is no shortage of people in the UK that are potentially capable of doing these jobs. The fact that there is a shortage of those immediately capable is because the sectors are government controlled, and the government has fucked up planning and/or pay levels. (If the sectors weren't government controlled, market forces would solved the problem very quickly, or, more likely, it wouldn't have arisen in the first place.)