If each country had a two child policy

[Blackcat21]

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?

YANBU but climate change, largely caused by over population of humans, will wreak havoc on our planet and the human race in the next 20-30 years so this probably won't be an issue then.

I wanted to see what other people’s opinions were on the idea, not be bombarded with hundreds of questions confused

Raising questions is part of discussing opinions on ideas.

My opinion is that there are plenty of ways to incentivize a lower birth rate without actually making it law -- and the UK already does many aspects of that; however the decline in birth rate over the last decade or so and it's continuing on won't stop us having to go through the population bulge, unless you want to recommend euthanasia for certain parts of the population. The population bulge has a lot of issues in both in human issues and the wider environment, but removing reproductive rights won't make going through it easier.

The issues with concreting the countryside and services being stretched have a significant part to do with people living longer, and living longer with disabilities that killed and/or were largely out of sight with family and institutional care in the past, changes in lifestyle (more people living alone means we need more houses - there are ways we could incentivize people living together but we'd need to balance it with the risks of overcrowding), and political choices in how resources are allocated.

Of all the ways to handle the environmental issues, I don't see the point in prioritizing how many children come out of a woman's uterus. It's quite possible for fewer people to consume more if they've the power to do so - we can already see that. We need incentives to get corporate & government consumption under control, to make them more responsible for the damage they've done through their practices, and then onto incentivising people who are over-consuming to consume less, share more, and better resources to ensure women have education, reproductive freedom, and that their children survive at similar rates to those better off.

@Blackcat21
*I’ve said before I’m not interested in debating the “what, how and why” because that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

My point is population control and how it will benefit the earth, not if someone is having triplets. Common sense is nothing can be done about that so idk why people keep drumming on about it.*

You know nothing can be done about it, and you have no interest in debating how it might in reality work - so why bother posting about it?

Equally if reducing the world population is the objective, just stop vaccinations for childhood illnesses and let people die. It has the same end result.
Don't employee any any peace negotiation in wars until enough people are dead. Same end result

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating either of those suggestion either, as they are inhumane and unethical.

grrr bold fail above

Also, are we really suggesting that a family of 4 or 5 kids in a developing country has that same environmental impact as a family 2 kids in a western consumer driven society?

Surely if this suggest was about environment impact the quickest solution would be to reduce consumerism and disposable culture....

@MsTSwift

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

I just don't understand what you (and other posters who have expressed this opinion) would do with the third child. The poor wee innocent babe, brought into the world through no fault of its own - denied healthcare (including basic childhood vaccinations), denied schooling, no access to the state pension when they're old... All while its two older siblings live a life blessed by the state in which they are allowed to remain healthy and have a chance at getting a job and contributing to society and supporting themselves.

It would make more sense to me to just dismantle the welfare state in its entirety. No schooling for any children. No NHS and preventative care. No tax credits or payments for ANY children.

But no, #1 and #2 get the world handed to them on a plate while #3, due to bad luck in birth order, can go and live in a box and pick over rubbish for its food.

The poor wee innocent babe, brought into the world through no fault of its own - denied healthcare (including basic childhood vaccinations), denied schooling, no access to the state pension when they're old

If those kids manage to grow up are they really going to be productive members of society after being treated worse then criminals?

I don’t know what would you do?! We can’t carry on as we are can we? Do you really think everything is absolutely fine as it is and we can all have as many children as we may fancy? Let’s hope you are right!

Culling the elderly is a totally different proposition to nudging people to limit family size 🙄🙄.

@MsTSwift But people aren't having as many dc as they fancy are they hence the declining birth rate?

Perhaps those extra dc don't need an education, judging by some of the stupidity displayed on this thread they won't miss out on much.

I was freaked out by the Thomas Maltheus theory at school and have been concerned about over population ever since!

Ah, OK, so you have the mental capacity of an anxious teenage girl on this issue. That makes sense.

Global population is NOT predicted to increase. The United Nations predicts that we are basically at peak global population and we will shortly see a significant decline. So if we carry on as we are, global population will reduce. So we SHOULD carry on as we are because overpopulation will be LESS of an issue.

Main source: andune.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-birth-life-death-ruling-world.html?m=1

It's true a family in the third world has a much lower environmental impact than one here.
Reducing population (without Draconian measures) is hard, reducing environmental impact per person (without Draconian measures) is also hard, so I think we need to pursue both these approaches to make whatever gains we can, so that the multiplied result of people x footprint is as low as possible.

I was freaked out by the Thomas Maltheus theory at school and have been concerned about over population ever since!

So concerned that you decided to learn nothing about it 😆

This is why supporting efforts to relieve child famine and to save lives ultimately is something I can never contribute to. The earth can only support so many people at a lifestyle that we would consider ok. Like it or not bringing people out of poverty increases their consumption and effects on the planet. Because of this we need to have poverty we need disease to maintain the population at a stable level. As a childless person I have done less damage to the environment than anyone that has a child.

@sillysmiles

Also, are we really suggesting that a family of 4 or 5 kids in a developing country has that same environmental impact as a family 2 kids in a western consumer driven society?

Surely if this suggest was about environment impact the quickest solution would be to reduce consumerism and disposable culture....

That is fine but it means we need those people to be on poverty permanently unless you are expecting them to die before reproduction age. By bringing a new person into the world you are bringing in their decedents too and all of their consumption.

@Hophopandaway

This is why supporting efforts to relieve child famine and to save lives ultimately is something I can never contribute to. The earth can only support so many people at a lifestyle that we would consider ok. Like it or not bringing people out of poverty increases their consumption and effects on the planet. Because of this we need to have poverty we need disease to maintain the population at a stable level. As a childless person I have done less damage to the environment than anyone that has a child.

Lol, me too! People who work for Oxfam should be ashamed of themselves, saving and improving all those lives! It's disgusting! 🤣🤣🤣

But if we continue like this, with declining global birth rates, everyone living til they are 100, I guess it won't be that long before human race dies out?

Probably a good thing for our poor planet though. Let's hope the animals take better care of it.

@thebillyotea

Two children used to be the "norm".

what on earth are you talking about, when was that ever "the norm".

I'm pretty sure that ten children used to be "the norm" on the basis that most of them would die before reaching adulthood.

@MsTSwift

I don’t know what would you do?! We can’t carry on as we are can we? Do you really think everything is absolutely fine as it is and we can all have as many children as we may fancy? Let’s hope you are right!

Culling the elderly is a totally different proposition to nudging people to limit family size 🙄🙄.

If you want people to have less children, make sure women everywhere have access to education and convince them that climbing the corporate ladder will give their lives a sense of purpose and meaning. Women in societies under those conditions are current giving birth to children at below the replacement rate.

This might be offset by their increased spending on disposable consumer goods and air travel, but overpopulation is the problem, right?

I don't know if this question is even worth thinking about tbh. Humans have a very large ecological impact, but we're part of the ecosystem like and other animal.

If our population becomes to large for our habitat to support, we will die off (in an unpleasant manner) until numbers become manageable again.

You could also set different caps depending on family income and resources.

The higher tax payer you are, the more children you are "allowed".

Even if the OP is not interested in debating HOW that would work in practice

@thebillyotea

You could also set different caps depending on family income and resources.

The higher tax payer you are, the more children you are "allowed".

Even if the OP is not interested in debating HOW that would work in practice

Genuinely, though, this would be a nightmare to sort out because people's circumstances change. Someone with a household income of £150k could be in a car crash tomorrow and one dies, the other is unable to work, suddenly their household income is peanuts. How many children are they allowed?

Unless you had a sponsor, like for immigration?!

Our family financial circumstances have been different when we conceived each of our three children (one currently baking!) What should I put down on the children's permit form?!

I know a lady with 5 children, her and her husband own a Mideast home, they buy used rather than new, grow their own veg and eat mostly vegan. The kids pass down clothing and they make lots of the things they use. They are 'plastic free' people, try to purchase as little as possible in plastic and will choose glass etc over plastic and either repurpose or recycle. I see the mum in the charity shops picking up clothes etc and they are all smartly turned out.
They have 1 car that is used for appointments/ work and they walk/ cycle everywhere else.
Their impact on the environment is far less than that of a family of 2.4 with 2new cars, new everything, holidays abroad, largely meat/fish eaters.

The higher tax payer you are, the more children you are "allowed".

Poisonous suggestion.

That only works if the five kids stay vegan non-flyers when they grow up though monkehsee. And if each of the five kids have five of their own (because if they’re following their parents’ example in some things, why not in others) then even if they stay vegan non-flyers those 25 grandkids are probably going to use more resources than a more average family’s four.

@Bishbashbosh101

The higher tax payer you are, the more children you are "allowed".

Poisonous suggestion.

because you think other suggestions were better?

That's the point.. people start to react when they feel targeted.

The whole OP is goady as fuck and completely absurd. SOME posters have made sensible points but most of the thread is nonsense.