Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

That was to warrenerswife

Also judging by the amount of I cant cope with 2 threads I've seen in a short space of time, a one child policy may suit some

are some people suggesting euthaniser for the elderly? Slippery slope anyone??? - Actually with some of the restrictions on medical care maybe we are going that way - Many older folk are either looking after: disabled &/or older relatives, volunteering for the community, employing & paying for help privately (sometimes for things like gardening) which employs & pays younger people directly, & as child carers either for their working offspring or sadly for grandchildren whose parents have issues (& in the case of the latter there are more than anybody realizes or recognises). As stated previously birth control & one child per couple gets confused when you have family relationships/marriages break ups & one or both partners gets a new partner who has no children - look at the issues round funded ivf.

With regards to China's policy, it's better thought of as a one successful pregnancy per family policy. Allowances were made for multiple births.

@mumwon

I can't speak for anyone else on the thread, but, yes, I most certainly am suggesting that euthanasia be made available in this country. I am far from the only person who thinks this is a good idea. There are huge campaigns for it led by slebs and everything . It's hardly a shocking idea.

I am not suggesting mass geronticide, but I know that my gps would have liked the option to die at home before having to go into care and be kept by a huge team of doctors. I would like that option too.

I am not saying this is a substitute for not having too many babies in the first place, but I think the time will come when we need to consider both parts of the problem. In this country, the ageing population is as much an issue as birth rate, which, as has been said, is already below replacement level here, which is a good thing imo. Fine if you're having a lovely quality of life and want to continue with that life, but for many, including me, the choice to die before needing constant care would be a welcome one.

No, it isn't nice, but it's CC. It isn't nice.

Be kept alive*

I don't agree with this, even though I can see where Chris Packham is coming from.

And all children should be acknowledged, especially by fathers (Mr Johnson for example should own up as to how many children he has).

I massively support decriminalised euthanasia, for myself. Loads of people do.

I also completely support decriminalised euthanasia and legalised assisted suicide. Also the legality of advanced directives.

one or both partners gets a new partner who has no children - look at the issues round funded ivf.

Why is this an issue? No one is entitled to a child, or another child.

I know several people who have decided not to have children; a large part of that decision being environmental.

I also know a few people who have stopped at one for eco reasons

I have 2 and wanted more but stopped at 2 for eco reasons.

All the people I mention do loads of other things to try and live an eco lifestyle.

I think it might, slowly, becoming fashionable to have fewer children )amongst non celebrities anyway )

TFR is 1.8 children in the UK. So women already have less than replacement rate. And I think this number is raised by the immigrants who live here otherwise it would probably be lower. Half of the world's population lives in contries with a TFR below replacement. Even India is at replacement of 2.1 now. I think encouraging people to be mindful of the impact of having children is good. Enforcing a faster population decline in developed countries to compensate for developing countries high birth rate isn't the answer. Education, healthcare and access to contraception is the answer.

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.

This would solve itself within two generations.

Better than no planet.

"Women should only have one child each"

Why just women?

Men should only have one child each. If they couldn't go around impregnating at random, perhaps they'd be more careful where they sowed their seed, and would be more inclined to look after the one baby they had even after a break up.

I've got rescue dogs, so I don't 'buy' from breeders - my dogs would exist regardless of whether they were with me or not. I'll quite happily stop having dogs as pets when the rescues aren't needed any more and there aren't any more stray/abandoned/dumped/mistreated dogs.

How many times have you seen threads where women mention their greatest achievement and reason for living is their children? Do you honestly think women like this are going to limit their families due to environmental concerns? Are they fuck. Until we stop obsessing about women's sole purpose being her womb and if she has children or not, overpopulation will be an issue. Women need to find another reason to live and find something else to do with their lives instead of obsessing about babies. I would impose a 2 child limit and ban Fertility treatment- people are too selfish and not responsible enough to limit their families, so I fear draconian measures might be the only way.

How many times do you hear all the women in the office going all gooey-eyed and weak at the knees when someone brings their baby in? They all fight over it and can't help themselves. There's nothing wrong with being nurturing and maternal, but for gods sake, find something else to do.

@SchadenfreudePersonified I agree!

Far better to plough money into countries that have a high birth rate to provide education and contraception.

Our lifestyles are not sustainable, but the UK birthrate is around 2 anyway which is only replacement level.

Better than no planet

We're aren't facing no planet, we're facing a massive reduction of or wiping out of the number of humans on it.

How many times do you hear all the women in the office going all gooey-eyed and weak at the knees when someone brings their baby in? They all fight over it and can't help themselves. There's nothing wrong with being nurturing and maternal, but for gods sake, find something else to do

Why don't you find something better to do than posting on a thread on a website for mothers to have a go at women having entirely natural maternal feelings?

I just knew it would be women's fault, and more specifically, mothers. It always fucking is.

More proof not that we need it, that Chris Packham is a dick

How many times do you hear all the women in the office going all gooey-eyed and weak at the knees when someone brings their baby in? They all fight over it and can't help themselves. There's nothing wrong with being nurturing and maternal, but for gods sake, find something else to do.

Well, they do have something else to do; they are working, in an office apparently, not sitting at home, endlessly making babies.

There's nothing wrong with being nurturing and maternal

There's nothing wrong with being nurturing and maternal, just don't display it by looking at a baby when someone brings it to work. It's ok for women to feel maternal, I just don't like it when they're all in my face about it...

You say 2 child limit and women, on average in the UK, already have fewer than 2 children, so we aren't exactly going bonkers and having 5 each.

Many women, or men, who don't have and who never will have children, tend to like babies and feel protective of them and want to nurture them. It's healthy and part of our nature. That doesn't mean that we only value women by their wombs. It means we value other human beings. Babies aren't just some symbol of whatever it is that you are obviously feeling so contemptuous about. They are very vulnerable members of our society and if you can't bear to see other human adults who like babies, to the point where you're ranting on MN about it, then I feel a bit sorry for you.

I have four children but they all have reuseable straws!

Seriously though I didn't think about the environment at all during the time I was reproducing. Knowing what I know now, and with a few other factors, I would have no children at all!

That said I'd still have my dog, he doesn't have a reuseable straw but he is from a rescue and was over 10 when we got him so won't be around indefinitely. I won't get another dog when he goes though.

What others have said. If you emancipate women and allow them control over their own bodies, they sort the problem out by choosing to have fewer children.

Most developed nations where women have better rights and opportunities, the birth rate is already replacement only. Nothing more draconian needed.