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?

Did I say I thought other posts were better?

No.

PerspicaciousGreen

Pretty much the same as maternity leave, if you were going that way, you take the circumstances at the time of conception.

@Bishbashbosh101

Did I say I thought other posts were better?

No.

Oh I think other posts are WORST

[quote terribleg]**@Blackcat21 how should we tackle the UKs ageing population? [/quote]
Light in your hand that goes out and say 70?? Then the death squad come for you.

I wanted to see what other people’s opinions were on the half baked idea, not be bombarded with hundreds of reasonable questions necessary for proper debate.
Did we qualify what happens to my last born, child 3, of twins @Blackcat21

Overpopulation is an issue but predominantly due to increased life expectancy. Clearly the answer is voluntary euthanasia from 65 once no longer productive and compulsory euthanasia from 80 as you have used your fair share of the Earth’s resources by then.

I’m not serious however as neither this nor state proscribed family size is an ethical or practical solution to overpopulation

This is why supporting efforts to relieve child famine and to save lives ultimately is something I can never contribute to are you angry that your taxes are wasted on the NHS when we should just let people die? The advancement in reducing maternal deaths through birth must really bug you too, C Sections to save the baby or Mom? Perhaps you can start a petition to pee all NICUs and PICUs

Exactly. And those promoting such a policy probably won’t want it applied to them once they turn 80, or whichever age is decided upon as the age for compulsory euthanasia, are they?

I’m reminded of the 1970s film ‘Logan’s Run’. (Though the age for compulsory euthanasia was 30 in that film.)

@Hoowhoowho

Overpopulation is an issue but predominantly due to increased life expectancy. Clearly the answer is voluntary euthanasia from 65 once no longer productive and compulsory euthanasia from 80 as you have used your fair share of the Earth’s resources by then.

Don't be ridiculous. They only got 30 years in Logan's Run, 80 is preposterous

Culling the elderly is no more a bizarre notion that trying to forcibly lower a birth rate that is already too low

The population of the world is approaching 7 billion (might already be more than that). When I was a child, it was 6 billion. How is the birth rate "already" too low when the population has gone up by 1 billion in 40 odd years?

Yes people are living much longer, but we are still adding to the population too much at the bottom, too.

There is another thread at the moment about the crazy house prices in the UK. Have people not joined the dots that we have too many people for the houses we have?

Before Brexit (and covid) everyone blamed immigration, but that argument has gone. Now people will have to accept the fact that population growth is fuelled by people having lots of children, too, but people don't like it because they see it as "policing their wombs". Well maybe eventually the climate emergency will become so serious that people will finally get the message.

From a survival perspective tho Poppy we need babies more than very old people. Babies grow into adults who will work, care for the sick, contribute to the economy and have kids. Old people just use resources. Even the "well they do childcare and spend money" can be worked around - most of the grandparents doing childcare won't be aged over 75 and theironwy will still get spent once it's inherited

@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

Doesn't sound too unreasonable but how you would implement it I have no idea.

There is a particular problem at the moment with the level of incentive to produce children even with no means of supporting them.

If you're single and childless you're fucked if you lose your job - truly fucked - because the level of benefit you get is in no way sufficient to have you homed and be able eat in even the most meagre fashion.

If you happen to have a child you're in a much, much better position.

It has to be that way to protect the child, but it does result in a perverse situation.

No idea how to resolve that, though.

If you can afford your own kids then have as many as you want. If you can’t then don’t. This country’s in enough debt without the added expense for extra kids.

@SleepingStandingUp

Babies grow into adults who will work, care for the sick, contribute to the economy and have kids. Old people just use resources.

And what do those babies become in 70yr's time?

You're simply advocating a giant Ponzi scheme here. Just think how stupid it really is...

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.

Morally repugnant and also incredibly stupid.

Families in poverty-stricken areas have more children, not less. Your creative and disgusting use of famines does not wipe them out in the way you hope. Societies with better access to education and health care have smaller families.

So it works out to be kind.

If I held your views, I would feed a child and remove myself from the equation before letting a child starve in good conscience.

@poppycat10

Culling the elderly is no more a bizarre notion that trying to forcibly lower a birth rate that is already too low

The population of the world is approaching 7 billion (might already be more than that). When I was a child, it was 6 billion. How is the birth rate "already" too low when the population has gone up by 1 billion in 40 odd years?

Yes people are living much longer, but we are still adding to the population too much at the bottom, too.

There is another thread at the moment about the crazy house prices in the UK. Have people not joined the dots that we have too many people for the houses we have?

Before Brexit (and covid) everyone blamed immigration, but that argument has gone. Now people will have to accept the fact that population growth is fuelled by people having lots of children, too, but people don't like it because they see it as "policing their wombs". Well maybe eventually the climate emergency will become so serious that people will finally get the message.

Poppy the global fertility rate in the 1980s, which is what drove most the population increase in your lifetime, was between 3 and 4 children per woman. Now it’s about 2 and a half and still falling.

I’d wouldn’t argue that 2.5 is too low, but neither do I think it’s disastrously high. The problem is that all those girls born in the 1980s and 1990s are having their babies. If we wanted to keep the population stable in the short term then we’d need to implement a global one child policy not two, and that, as well as being draconian, would store up terrible demographic problems for the future.

[quote SofiaMichelle]@SleepingStandingUp

Babies grow into adults who will work, care for the sick, contribute to the economy and have kids. Old people just use resources.

And what do those babies become in 70yr's time?

You're simply advocating a giant Ponzi scheme here. Just think how stupid it really is...[/quote]
Culled. If we're doing ridiculous population control under force, then you use up the workforce until it's no longer effective, give them a reward to encourage people to keep going til that age (so retirement at 65, 5 yr generous pension, culled at 70+1week)

Well it's completely unnecessary for starters.

Most rich countries have total fertility rate of less than 2.1 - generally considered replacement rate.

Improving life expectancy and immigration keep populations growing in richer countries. Living longer is generally a good thing so we probably should keep that up. Immigration is more controversial but most economies rely these young tax payers shoring up their aging populations.

It would be far more effective to focus on women's education, women's rights and a reduction in inequality and this would avoid the rather horrible prospect of families having babies surplus to requirements.

13:50CharlotteRose90

If you can afford your own kids then have as many as you want. If you can’t then don’t. This country’s in enough debt without the added expense for extra kids.

Problem is, people can often afford 3 or 4 or more at the time they're conceiving them but things change and that many to provide for when hardship hits is way harder than 1 or 2. Sounds obvious but clearly isn't to many!

It is a nice idea - I think it averages out some have one some have none.
The resources saved by reducing DC is being used up by the insane amount of pets mainly meat eating dogs, nearly every household has some pets those who don't they're neighbours will have two.
I'd start reducing that before DC.

Birth rates in the EU are on average 1.6, so below 2, as they are for many other countries. Bit pointless really. Actually the ageing population is a concern in many countries and they worry that not enough children are being born.

What we have to focus on is education throughout the world, as soon as girls in particular can stay longer in school it decreases the birth rate in that country.

@WireFan

13:50CharlotteRose90

If you can afford your own kids then have as many as you want. If you can’t then don’t. This country’s in enough debt without the added expense for extra kids.

Problem is, people can often afford 3 or 4 or more at the time they're conceiving them but things change and that many to provide for when hardship hits is way harder than 1 or 2. Sounds obvious but clearly isn't to many!

I just don't know how much peril one is expected to foresee in one's own future. What's the threshold for unlucky vs "should have thought of that, you idiot"?

My friend's SIL has been diagnosed with a late-stage aggressive cancer and she's only 35 with three young children. She's got maybe six months left. Obviously her husband is terrified. But should they have predicted that and not had any children?

Many people spend some time out of work, and I agree that it shouldn't come as a total surprise to people that this happens sometimes, and they should prepare for it. However, hands up who thought about the likelihood of a 1y+ pandemic when TTC. Anyone?

If you're always thinking about the worst case scenario you'll never do anything. And half of people will be luckier than average. Are people to be blamed if they plan their childbearing around what they think are moderate, likely scenarios - even if they end up being one of the incredibly unlucky ones?

The population of the world is approaching 7 billion (might already be more than that). When I was a child, it was 6 billion. How is the birth rate "already" too low when the population has gone up by 1 billion in 40 odd years?

Yes people are living much longer, but we are still adding to the population too much at the bottom, too.

So you want the population to reduce? Then you are advocating for no children not 2!

There is another thread at the moment about the crazy house prices in the UK. Have people not joined the dots that we have too many people for the houses we have?

If you are actually join the dots house prices are not ridiculous in this country simply because we have too many people.

I vote we just cull the stupid people!

2 is fine of we're not forcing people who want less or non to also have two. A cap of 2 would automatically rule out an average population growth of 2 per woman. Esp if you stop any fertility assistance

@WireFan

13:50CharlotteRose90

If you can afford your own kids then have as many as you want. If you can’t then don’t. This country’s in enough debt without the added expense for extra kids.

Problem is, people can often afford 3 or 4 or more at the time they're conceiving them but things change and that many to provide for when hardship hits is way harder than 1 or 2. Sounds obvious but clearly isn't to many!

Depends on what you mean by afford. For some parents that seeing how much in benefits they will get.

Linking to tax bands is interesting, although you’d have to go with the lower tax bracket out of the two parents to be fair and equal.

I’m not sure more education is the key, both sexes get the same schooling and the same opportunities. It’s the adult role models that they have that are likely to be different and a major influence.