Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

If each country had a two child policy

528 replies

Blackcat21 · 07/04/2021 16:38

Just an idea and my opinion, and fully aware I will probably get flamed for this.

The population is rising, not shrinking, and with that is coming ridiculous house prices, global warming, running low on natural resources and foods.

Health services are stretched and school classes are increasingly full.

Wouldn’t an solution to this be only letting per couple or mother/father have two biological children each.

I must admit, it does annoy me when some women go on to have 3rd, 4th child etc just because “they want to” or want a large family, love being with children or love being a mother.

Motherhood is a beautiful thing but it could be restricted to two biological children only.

Overpopulation is impacting the earth too much.

If this couple wanted more children they can adopt.
There are thousands of children in the U.K. and other countries each year wanting to be adopted.

Doing this could possibly tackle overpopulation but increase the adoption of children.

Obviously I’m aware there is problems of how to monitor this, what if a woman gets pregnant against her will, accidental pregnancies etc but not that is the not the point or idea I’m trying to get across right now.

AIBU to think this could be a good approach?

OP posts:
terribleg · 08/04/2021 09:09

The 85+ age group is the fastest growing and is set to double to 3.2 million by mid-2041 and treble by 2066 (5.1 million; 7% of the UK population)

Who is going to pay taxes for the above & work in the HCP roles to care for them? Our average age population is already 40

fizbosshoes · 08/04/2021 09:15

I havent RTFT but I'm pretty sure populations are increasing because of better health care and people living longer, and that birth rates, certainly in the uk have fallen.

sashh · 08/04/2021 09:15

There is a simple, proven, effective way to decrease the number of children in a family. It is female education. World wide the more education a woman has, the fewer children she has. Yes there are a few outliers but that doesn't change the general trend.

If you look at India, where different states have different levels of compulsory education the ones that offer free schooling until age 18 have families with 2 or 3 children.

blowinahoolie · 08/04/2021 09:18

@nancywhitehead

The UK birth rate is actually falling. It's a problem - people in the UK need to be having more children if anything. Google it and you will find plenty of info.
I have already been saying this. We need incentives for couples having super large families.
JustSleepAlready · 08/04/2021 09:19

Just like mmetters to get the claws out. Op already said that they weren’t including those ‘other ‘ situations, ie twins etc. But THATS what is picked up on. Typical.

brushandmop · 08/04/2021 09:25

Until the gender stereotyping that is still happening in countries like the UK, I don't blame women for not wanting to get pregnant as often.

You only have to read a few posts on mumsnet to realise that parenting in the UK is still very much 'Mums' job.

AppletonP · 08/04/2021 09:28

We need to control our population. We can do it on nature will. It's disgraceful that we continue to build on every square inch and rape the planet just to fulfil our need for more and more babies.

FourWordsImMuNiTy · 08/04/2021 09:32

@FredtheCatsMum nailed it upthread.

Over population is a real problem but your maths is all wrong OP. The world population isn’t increasing because of women having too many babies but because “too many” women are having babies. We’re living in the after effects of the population increases of the twentieth century in the developing world.

Fertility rates are plummeting world wide, largely driven by increases in female education and access to contraception. If you give women and girls the choice, don’t marry them off at age 12, and give them the reassurance that their babies are unlikely to die before the age of 5, then they will choose fewer children. You really don’t need to round them up and sterilise them after their second. But there are so many women between the ages of 16 and 45 in the world, and so many girls aged 5 and up, that even if all of them have exactly two children, and even if their children have exactly two children, there is a large rise in population baked in over the next fifty years.

We should still keep going with female education, contraception availability and the elimination of curable childhood diseases, because those are all win-wins. But they won’t stop the population increasing.

Only a reduction in consumption will help us there.

CatsHairEverywhere2 · 08/04/2021 09:33

I would rather cuddle my third DC than finish reading the drivel written in the OP. Cheers Wine

DeadlyMedally · 08/04/2021 09:35

It wouldn't be possible without forced abortions and sterilisations.
I would feel very uncomfortable living in a country with a government that was comfortable with doing that.

venus22 · 08/04/2021 09:39

David Attenborough belongs to 'Population Matters'...............

Iwantanap · 08/04/2021 09:45

Well no.
Some people never have children through choice or otherwise.
Some only have one child.
The average family size is 1.7 children so the population is shrinking. Even with some women wanting 3-4 it is still shrinking. As long as i am a responsible adult it is noones business what I do with my uterus. You start doing that and you open up the door to illegal abortions and eugenics, people not getting the preferred sex of their child and then wanting to do something about it.
The problem is the distribution of wealth and resources and those who have power not effecting change. How about policing that instead of my family choices?

littleredberries · 08/04/2021 09:58

It needs to stay elective. People get extremely touchy about their fertility, and rightly so. It's fascistic to get more involved.
Education and improved awareness, not enforcement.
This from a one and done.

IceCreamAndCandyfloss · 08/04/2021 10:02

@DeadlyMedally

It wouldn't be possible without forced abortions and sterilisations. I would feel very uncomfortable living in a country with a government that was comfortable with doing that.
Not necessarily. Only if it were made law re two per adult.

Plenty of other ways to do it with no law needed and then people are free to still choose but knowing the consequences ie no state support, no paid for education or health care.

Plenty of ways to naturally limit families size without taking away choices.

MsTSwift · 08/04/2021 10:07

Absolutely. A clear education policy so it becomes socially unacceptable and withdrawal of state support for third plus child would do it.

terribleg · 08/04/2021 10:19

@MsTSwift what would be the UK target birth rate in your opinion then?

thebillyotea · 08/04/2021 10:20

first it's the number of children,

then it's the removal of the children "unsuitable" for society, wasting resources after all...

then it's the removal of anyone "unsuitable' for society (even if conspiracy theorists are having a field day about how targeted the pandemic is Grin )

Yeah, what a splendid idea.

terribleg · 08/04/2021 10:21

Also @MsTSwift what state support are you referring too?

Dadalus · 08/04/2021 10:37

There's a sensible middle ground between on one hand completely denying the problem, and on the other enforcing limits on families or the even more bizarre idea of culling the elderly.

As pp have said, education, awareness, plus better access to contraception (and religions such as Catholicism becoming more accepting of contraception) would all help bring birth rates down more quickly for the parts of the world where they are still high.

DeadlyMedally · 08/04/2021 10:40

@IceCreamAndCandyfloss

All that really does is stop poor people from having more than two kids. A different thing and I don't know if it really would lead to your outcome.
All of this also assumes that people will behave rationally in relation to something which is not really a rational choice (kids make your life harder and the benefits are wholly emotional). In reality I think you'd just have a huge underclass of third plus children with horrendous social outcomes.
Forced abortions and sterilisations would probably be the kinder way of going about it.

Rukaya · 08/04/2021 10:42

Plenty of other ways to do it with no law needed and then people are free to still choose but knowing the consequences ie no state support, no paid for education or health care

So you're saying that should a couple choose to have three children, the first two can have an education and health care...but the third can't go to school and if they get sick they can just die?

And you think that is a way to naturally limit families "without taking away choices"...state sponsored child abuse?

thebillyotea · 08/04/2021 10:43

it's completely anecdotal and only relevant in the UK, but all the "larger" families around me are from educated high-rate tax payers who can afford to support their kids...

Rukaya · 08/04/2021 10:44

There's a sensible middle ground between on one hand completely denying the problem, and on the other enforcing limits on families or the even more bizarre idea of culling the elderly

We can deny the problem in Europe, as its isn't a problem. Birth rates are falling too low, that's a fact. Culling the elderly is no more a bizarre notion that trying to forcibly lower a birth rate that is already too low. It's a ridiculous notion but if people are actually trying to reduce over-population, it would make sense to advocate for that instead. Oddly, they won't. Wonder why?

thebillyotea · 08/04/2021 10:44

Having more kids than you can afford should never have been socially acceptable in the first place. How is that fair on the kids?

terribleg · 08/04/2021 10:56

Culling the elderly is no more a bizarre notion that trying to forcibly lower a birth rate that is already too low. It's a ridiculous notion but if people are actually trying to reduce over-population, it would make sense to advocate for that instead. Oddly, they won't. Wonder why?

Yes, why is it more bizarre to talk about older people living longer with chronic conditions & the associated costs of that vs no healthcare or education for a third child.

Why when discussing overpopulation do people refuse to acknowledge the issues of an ageing population?