Chris Packham - one child policy.

[Meadowland]

Reasonable or Unreasonable ?

I'm happy to have a robust debate on here. It's great. Doesn't matter if we all have differing views. We're at least talking about it!

World leaders and governments aren't, beyond little bits of lip service and things like plastic bag taxes (which while something, is such a piddly drop in the ocean). We need BIG ideas and BIG changes.

While I am in favour of people to be encouraged to have far fewer children, 2 max (except multiple births etc), I am not at all in favour of parents if larger families being persistently berated for their existing children, when any conversation re CC comes up.

No, I don't have or even really want large family myself. If I had been born at a time before CC was so obvious, maybe I would, but who knows. But that doesn't mean I am off the hook re doing bit for the environment and I certainly don't get to throw people's existing dcs in their faces at every opportunity, as some people seem to take thinly veiled glee in doing when they feel defensive. What would we have people do with their additional two or three dcs to rectify things, now that they are already in existence?

Even those big , hardline anti-natal groups let parents of large families join. They just have to say they won't have more!

I'm happy to have a robust debate on here. It's great. Doesn't matter if we all have differing views. We're at least talking about it!

Couldn't agree more! It needs to be talked about, even if we don't all agree.

I think it’s a good idea, our planet cannot cope with the growth in population and I think we need to put an end to poverty. However, agree it didn’t end well in China. It’s not very practical in reality, life isn’t that simple.

I think it’s for each family to decide for themselves. I think we need a reasonable birth rate to maintain a lower average age population to service the increasing numbers of frail, disabled and very elderly people.
I think forced abortion is always going to be heinous.

I can understand in countries where the child mortality rate is so high that women choose larger families to ensure some reach adulthood. Where healthcare improves the birth rate falls. A better solution than dictating pregnancy options is to support improved global healthcare and equalise access to sanitation, water, vaccinations and food.

I suspect much smaller families also create more anxiety for the children and families. Singletons are more likely to be obese. Singleton pre-schoolers have worse social skills and reduced self control.

Unfortunately the birth rate is falling more rapidly amongst the well educated women nationally and internationally which will, over time reduce the country’s and world’s intellectual capacity. China’s one child policy had significant detriment on the children raised as lone children. People born after the policy, and who are single children because of the policy are significantly less trusting, less trustworthy, more risk averse and less competitive. They are also more pessimistic and less conscientious. That rather suggests that mental health problems are more likely in singletons - which makes sense when you consider increased expectations and the opportunity for exploration of social norms and relationship building afforded by fighting with siblings.

I don’t think it’s as simple as limiting children will stop flooding.

I think the law should be no more than 2. I do not understand the mind set of anyone who has numerous children. I stopped at one.

I don't like him tbh. He seems arrogant

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

😂😅

Jesus, excuse typos^^! I was trying to walk and type at the same time.

If he only wants to have one child, that's a matter for him

Moonbeams I get what you're saying regarding people who are now in their 50s plus who had larger families. My dad's parents were Catholic (Irish) and he is one of NINE.

He and my mum (now in their late 60s) had me. One child.

The nine collectively have had 23 children between them through 14 marriages). Some of those children have had three children. Do the maths. I have second cousins I have never met all over the place.

Now, back when my grandparents were having their family in the 1950s and early 1960s, there was no talk of climate change, overpopulation (the latter really kicked into effect at about this time, actually).

But anyone in their 30s or younger cannot possibly be unaware of all the talk of climate change, seen the deforestation, seen the famines in Africa, seen all the other ecological issues. Those people who chose to have three or more children (putting aside twins etc) did so in the knowledge what state the world is in. They don't NEED to have more than two. They WANT, so they HAVE. Seflish, as I said.

So while I get your comment, and I don't berate gleefully, how long do we keep using the "already in existence" as an excuse?

This debate can be broken down into theoretical, and actual though. In theory, if every couple on the planet who want to have a child had just 1 between them, and successive generations also did the same, within 100 years the population worldwide might be approaching a manageable level. But in reality, there are religious beliefs, societal factors and ignorance about how behaviour and events all over the world affect the entire planet, and that we in the West are not immune to being affected.
I have one child for a variety of reasons, and am happy with that, although other people do regularly comment on it. But what kind of world will our now children be living in when they are our age? It makes me really sad to think of the issues my son will face in the future. There could conceivably be nothing but plastic in our sea, wars over food and the last of the oil and gas reserves, and increasingly polluted air. Not to mention the worrying climate crises such as fires, floods, droughts etc.
Everyone has and will have differing opinions on this subject, but those who are offended or appalled by people mentioning the population increases seem to not be thinking much about the future. People like Chris Packham and David Attenborough might have different views to you, but their careers have been spent witnessing the extinction of species at our hands, and the ongoing ecological destruction caused by humans.
There is such a gulf of difference between countries and regions of the world, that this issue will not go away. Antibiotic resistance and the evolution of viruses to become untreatable might be a consequence of so many people living in such close proximity. And that will affect everyone, regardless. Including us in the UK.

Oh and Ruffle on your point berating Attenborough for having two children (which is 0.2 above national average) both his children are in their 50s, and therefore born when world population was around 3 billion and wasn't the thing it is now, nor was climate change. So it's a false argument. It's people who chose to have more than two children in the West who have known about the issues in the last 30-35 years who knew full well what they were doing.

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

He is saying this, because the biggest threat to all birds, including blue tits (and probably badgers) in this country, is not cats killing them or any other natural event; it’s habitat loss due to human activities!

Mainly destroying the homes and sources of food for wildlife, I imagine, given the constant desire for new homes and roads, built on green belt in this country!

Human overpopulation is the biggest problem facing the planet and any naturalist knows it!

I don’t think anyone is suggesting putting down any children already in existence. David Attenborough’s two children were born in the 50s I think when the world’s population was a fraction of what it is now. I don’t think he has suggested a one child policy, just made the point that population growth is a critical issue for all of us.

I find it frightening that the world’s population has almost doubled within my lifetime. Now that it’s getting close to eight million, it’s hard to see why anyone, in a developing country, who’s concerned about the environment would choose to have a large family.

*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.*

@Somemore.. you are a genius

I also get what you're saying @ShatnersWig.

So while I get your comment, and I don't berate gleefully, how long do we keep using the "already in existence" as an excuse?

Yes, I definitely get why you say this, but the difficulty is what do we do about existing large families? We can't punish people for their existing children. I am sure you are not suggesting we do. But would DO we do?

I would definitely be in favour or incentivising keeping families smaller.

Yes, people in my age group and younger should know enough about CC and overpopulation not to choose to have larger families, but you would be amazed how ignorant people can be. There was someone on tv just after the EU referendum result was announced, who did not know what was going on or what the EU was. It isn't surprising to me that someone might not be aware that having a larger family might be a problem. This is part of the problem. We need much better education on this.

In favour of*

@BooseysMom thank you, I do try to do my bit... Obviously I stuffed it up with the four kids but you know, reuseable straws and I made them walk to school today even though it was raining

David Attenborough’s two children were born in the 50s I think when the world’s population was a fraction of what it is now. I don’t think he has suggested a one child policy, just made the point that population growth is a critical issue for all of us.

Right, but have they had children too? They are still causing damage, even though David Attenborough was not aware how bad things were at the time. Morally, he has a better defense and I suppose most people are saying 2 is just about ok, so he maybe wouldn't even need to defend himself today either. But the damage is the same.

I do not see the value in now punishing people for having larger families, which already exist as the damage is done now.

I definitely think that the tide is already turning and large families are no longer seen as aspirational in some areas (overpopulated areas, like where I live, in one of the most densely populated areas in the country). That is a good thing.

Focussing on children born 20, 15 or even 5 minutes ago, is about as useless as berating someone for any other decision they made some time ago. That long haul flight, that time you drove to the shop, that time you went on Atkins, bought a fridge full of meat, fell off the wagon, couldn't face it and threw it in the bin*.

Again though, I am in favour of smaller families being encouraged in some way and think 3+ is a bad idea.

*before anyone says it, yes, I know that children cause more damage to the planet than those things, however, they also potentially benefit society and the planet as well, so it is actually impossible to compare like for like. Even carbon footprint calculators tend to assign children their own footprint as they are separate human beings.

how about a debate on the position of the Catholic church on contraception? Especially in Africa where millions of children are born to die in pain and suffering due to famine, AIDS, no matter how much money we pour into it. That's not the developed west, is it?

If women were emancipated and contraception was freely available, you'd find women in developing countries ignoring the Catholic church's prescriptions on the matter within a generation, as they do in the West. ( Poland is 90% Catholic and yet has a birth rate of 1.32 children per woman. I could go on. )

People talk about the inverse correlation between women's education and family size as if it's black magic, but really, it's not. It's an obvious consequence, because having a baby every year is tremendously hard work, physically and mentally. More unites humanity than divides us, and one of those things is the sensation of exhaustion.

20 years, 15 years or eve 5 minutes ago*

Sorry. I'll stop attempting to multitask .

One last thing; anyone thinking "who cares if children born today benefit society? I hate society. I want us all to die out asap anyway". Try living without other human beings. As in no shops, no food to buy (grow and hunt all your own), mo hospitals, no police.

This is aimed at the very small number of people who show up on these threads and loftily say with a wave of their hand that they don't care about human beings and want us to die out anyway. Try dying out with none of the comforts you probably take for granted, provided for you by other humans. There is dying out and dying out. I don't fancy doing it without any sort of civilisation.

It's a huge topic at the moment. Environmental Politics etc and how we organise ourselves.

Saying "don't want anything to do with humans- just die off already" is not helpful or well thought through imo.

@Somemore..I read the whole thread and found your post the most enlightening .
I am a terrible person as i have just chucked out a box of plastic straws. I can't think of anything i can use them for. We did use half the box for a homemade made marble run but now that's fell to pieces we are at a loss as to what to do. So in the bin they go.
But we only have one DC so that's ok

Of course nothing can be done about already large families but quite a few people are still having large families. The majority of my neighbours have 3 or more children. My next door neighbours have 3 and are talking about having a 4th even though they said number 3 was an accident.

Neighbours across the road are only mid 20's. They have 3 children and, again, are talking about a 4th.

So many posters here admit they never even gave overpopulation/ climate change a thought when they had their children. It's frightening how many people seemingly just have children without any real thought.

Of course what doesn't help is the amount of couples who marry 2, 3 or more times and want children in each new marriage/relationship.

One of my friends has 4 children. Of those 4, one is in her second marriage and has 4 children by her first husband and 2 by her second, another is also on his second marriage - 1 child in first marriage and 2 in second. A third is on his 3rd marriage and has 4 children by his first wife, 2 children by his second wife and (so far) 1 child by his third wife!

Humans, on the whole, are just so selfish. We are doing a damn good job of fucking up the planet and yet still keep bringing children into the world knowing they are likely to face a pretty bleak future