Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

I would like euthanasia legalised. I don't want to spend my old age in a home and a liability.

Not so keen on limiting number of children.

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

Unfortunately the fewer children of developed nations have far higher environmental costs than the children of developing nations. So we need to both slow down or stop the population increase AND improve standards of living in developing nations AND reduce environmental impact of higher living standards globally

I think that saying we need to maintain the birth rate to care for the old and for the sake of the economy is wrong. There are many young people (and some older) who never achieve their potential, who don't get jobs and leave education with no qualifications. I know there are many reasons for this some social. But I just think that as a nation we should have less children but invest more in the children we do have so they can reach their potential and we won't need as many people.

I sympathise with his point of view. And the one child policy did help to keep the Chinese population down, arguably by several 100 million.
The number of women on Mumsnet who talk about having a 3rd or 4th child. No thought of the environmental impact. And no thought of how tough that child's life is likely to be: their lives will see a massive acceleration in the rate of global warming. I have 2 DDs, and I'm encouraging them to think very very carefully before deciding to have children. I hope they decide against, and consider adopting instead. I don't say that lightly. Humans have really fucked up.

Yeah, not in the UK where the birth rate is about to decline again... Maybe in India, yes.

Hm. I think we should be enthusiastically encouraged and incentivised to have smaller families, replacement or preferably less, for environmental reasons. I think that the time when we raise an eyebrow at those who elect to produce larger families is not far off, much like many of us feel that flying is an irresponsible decision. In the West, the carbon footprints of our offspring is far greater than those of their peers in the developing world.

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

And one who has not reproduced or will do, more than I can say for a great many dicks, male and female, who seem to think the world needs more and more of themselves. At least he walked the walk.

Birth rate in UK is 1.8 per woman which is less than replacement level as it is.

But I am all for encouraging smaller families and also women being honest with themselves about what they're able to handle v what is expected of them. There's still a stigma about choosing to stop at one child, which is totally at odds with research that shows they are just as happy (and in some cases happier) as those with siblings, as well as the current climate (literally), and I think it leads women to make decisions that aren't necessarily the best for them or their existing DC. Sometimes you can be a fantastic parent to one but more would stretch you thin, and that's fine.

Absolutely. We have decided to stop at one for many reasons as listed above. Another and we'd have to move house, i'd have to give up my job..we couldn't afford to risk it. Anyway being older and with no grandparents on hand to help, it's impossible. I'm coming to terms with it and as the pp says above, it's possible to be happy with one and even happier than having more

It is unlikely to ever become official policy but couples should definitely be discouraged from having multiple children. So in that respect Chris packham is right.

The argument that it will damage the economy and there will be no one to look after the elderly is insane. There will be no economy and no elderly to look after if we keep destroying the planet at the current rate. Surely people can see that reversing climate change is the priority here?

Also, I agree with others about pets. They are a massively unnecessary burden on the planet. Pet owners are very selfish (as are parents!).

British kids aren't looking after the elderly anyway - mostly immigrants are doing it, and now there's talk off shipping old people off to Thailand.

So we don't need replacement levels. There's plenty willing to come from less developed nations - which would have a better environmental impact.

I'm pretty sick of the bonkers argument that having children = destroying the planet, actually, userrandomnumbers. Consumerism is a lifestyle choice. Owning a fuel guzzling car is a lifestyle choice. Flying is a lifestyle choice. Eating meat regularly is a lifestyle choice. Why assume that every family and every child born must grow up to impact the planet in this way? None of it is intrinsic to being human or being alive. The vast majority of human beings have a far smaller impact on the planet than those in developed countries so it's not about numbers alone. Live differently.

And whilst there might be 'plenty willing to come from less developed nations' a) I'm pretty sure they have elderly people of their own who need looking after and b) seriously, think Brexit, the most xenophobic stance we could possibly taking to immigrants. You are dreaming if you think Britain is magically going to start welcoming millions of migrant workers again any time soon, quite frankly.

@RuffleCrow People have a choice to live differently but they are not doing it. There are plenty of other threads on mumsnet with people saying they refuse to fly less or eat less meat. People are not intrinsically responsible and couldn’t give a damn.

People absolutely do need to live differently but for a lot of people transport in particular is a real challenge. Public transport has not been invested in and it's just not possible for everyone to get a job walking distance from their home. Until a huge investment is put into public transport and safe cycle paths a lot of people are going to have to keep using their cars.

RuffleCrow, 8m people, even if they live a green life (by modern standards) are still going to have a huge impact on the planet.

Even among committed environmentalists (who are still a very small %) there must very few who use no fossil fuels, don't rely on commercial farming, don't use any plastic, don't buy imported goods etc etc

And yet you're expecting these same people to agree to have fewer than 1.8 children, user?

Government legislation and leadership on food, consumerism and transport is what's needed. In WW2 , the last time we had a crisis on this magnitude, the government didn't wait around to see people fighting over the last sausage in the butchers - they introduced rationing and started a forceful campaign to get everyone growing their own fruit and veg - and it worked. Sadly, government today would be terrified of doing anything that upset the 'markets'. And even their encouraging people to live more sustainably is controversial. We get the politicians we deserve, i guess.

The argument that a lot of us on here are making ruffle is that if the situation for women around the world was improved we wouldn't have to make people agree. Women would choose to have fewer children and population levels would start falling.

I absolutely agree that governments need to be doing a heck of a lot more with regards the environment though.

I'd have hated one, I know so many spoilt brat adults who were only children.

Some people just can't help themselves, can they? Yes, do trot out the tedious cliches backed up by your anecdotal data. Do ignore the fact that your judgement is supported by no scientific evidence whatsoever.

Do some people actually engage their brain at all before contributing their opinion?

I'd love to see a reversal whereby if people are buying fewer gifts at christmas that's seen as a positive rather than cause for panic, but as long as people's livelihoods and financial investments depend on people buying stuff they don't need, this will always be framed as a negative - just one example of the million barriers we face.

In Britain we can't actually afford for the birth rate to drop any further.

We can, but we'd have to permit more immigration to provide the number of workers required to meet the costs of increasing longevity and provide essential services.

Sadly, there is is a significant number of people in this country to whom this is anthema.

I think a fall in birthrate is western countries coupled with an increase in immigration from poorer countries is a good way of addressing global inequality.

I wouldn't welcome enforcing smaller family sizes, but see nothing wrong with encouraging it.

That has happened in Britain already to a large extent @EmrysAtticus. The problem is, waste and consumerism then has to increase per head to compensate. Growing up in the 80s (just from my personal perspective) we had no car one telly and a borrowed gameboy between us and the birth rate was 2.4 children per household. Just compare that to 2020 and the sheer number of environmentally unsound, slave labour produced, built in obsolete electronic devices in every home now the birth rate has dropped to 1.8.

I agree with what @AdultHumanFemale said ^^. I don't think it will be long until we do start thinking 3+ dcs is not great. Obviously, people who have them already can't just STOP being parents of 3+ children though, so it's a balance.

The problem with discussion around this issue, a discussion which absolutely needs to happen, is that some people genuinely seem to dislike parents and mainly mothers! There is an undertone of "oh she thinks she's so great with her BABY" to the very odd comment on threads like this. Is it mysoginy? Not sure, but it can bring out the odd spiteful poster who, let's face it, was never planning to have children, but who now uses this as a stick to beat women with. Payback for all the times they've had to see a new mother happy with their baby or had to sit near a toddler on a plane or something. Not that all people who don't have children are like this I have to stress. Far, FAR from it. I think people who choose not to have children are heroes at the moment. Especially if they do so for the planet.

This is just a handful of people in an otherwise good conversation. Normally, childless or otherwise, we manage a sensible discussion on here about this and most people agree that something needs to be done to continue to lower the birth rate here. Not NO babies, but certainly fewer. And I think most people agree with that.

Some interesting views here.
We have a huge problem with over population on the planet, which (according to some) will lead to massive climate change, which in turn will lead to mass extinction events.
So how do we avoid this climate change without reducing population? Maybe a mutated Spanish Flu virus world wide? Who knows, I don't.

We also have to be careful about not hoping for a Spanish flu effect. I is anticipated that there will be huge population growth soon. Where? The poorest parts of Africa. Who will be least able to defend themselves against illnesses? The poorest. Who did the damage which means we now want the population to be thinned out? The richest. Us.

But if, as I suspect, you were being tongue in cheek, I vote for the euthanasia bots .

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-born-in-80s-to-spend-retirement-fleeing-from-euthanasia-robots-2013121782112

Sorry, gallows humour!