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?

We’ve been in a strange situation for a long time whereby the only people who could afford large families were the rich or those on benefits. I agree with the two child cap on benefits as it made no sense that so many people who work have a reduction of income and/or massively increased costs each time they have a child (and plan their families accordingly) while people on benefits used to effectively be paid by the state to keep having more babies.

However, such a policy would be problematic as PPs say and I can’t see how it could be implemented without terrible human rights abuses. There’s also the (no doubt unpopular) point that the impact of people having more children wildly varies according to their circs e.g I bet few people really think that a family with three adult DC, all of whom are surgeons/teachers etc, really had too many children whereas some children in third world countries are from huge families and literally starving.

@Blackcat21 you are a full decade late at least.
In most countries, women have below the 2.4 children. It will take another 10~15 years to see the impact as population in some countries are young so they have children!

But all that is already happening wo needing rules like this. Educating women seem to be more efficient too

Overpopulation of the planet is in no way a myth, and I am with you OP, but people cannot see past the ends of their own noses on this issue.

Of course population control needs to be a thing (I'm talking about the global population, because it's a global issue. Is it fair? No. But do we want a planet fit for habitation and supporting life?). It's insanity to think otherwise. But when you get people who think the planet can support an infinite increase in people and animals because they think having as many kids as they want is their right that trumps EVERYTHING else, what can you do? When you have people crying 'BUT WHAT ABOUT MULTIPLES?' and thinking that's the end of the debate, where can the conversation go?

The planet has finite resources. Fresh water is a finite resource, believe it or not. Agricultural land is a finite resource. The planet can support a finite population and we're approaching the upper limit. It's a known issue, it's why some of the world's wealthiest people are buying farmland and land with its own fresh water source. They know what's coming, and they know it's not going to be pretty.

Before anyone has a hissy fit about China, wombs being regulated, second pregnancies being twins etc etc, why not read Ten Billion (it's short and very readable) and come back and tell me you think overpopulation of the planet is a myth rather than a very real impending problem that humanity could choose to solve.

(and yes I know people had kids in WW2 but they didn't have contraception)

Of course they did.

How? We've far too many people, we are concreting over our countryside, we don't have enough facilities, healthcare, education and you think we need more people?

We don't have far too many people. We don't have enough of all those things because we choose not to fund them, its got zero to with the birth rate. Which has been falling for decades.

Rather than limit the number of children per family which would be heavily opposed as state control etc it would be better to say no child benefits so people are free to have as many as they like but would have to support them until 18 with no assistance. This would limit family sizes but not take away choice.

I think in theory it's a good idea, but impossible to put into practice. And i agree with a pp, adoption is complex and not an easy answer for people who might want a bigger family.

Of course population control needs to be a thing (I'm talking about the global population, because it's a global issue. Is it fair? No. But do we want a planet fit for habitation and supporting life?

So tell us how you want to do that then? Details, not grand ideas. Tell us how you would stop women in Africa and Asia having children that you don't think they should have.
We'll wait.

We actually need immigration or more babies in this country.

70% of all population growth to 2039 is projected to be in the 60+ age group.

Reducing our birth rate further isn't going to change the above.

A declining population isn’t good economically and environmental improvements won’t happen if the working population has to support an ageing population due to there being too many other things to support.

So on that principle, you’d have to expect every couple to be able to have and want two children. That simply isn’t the case. I would say the average is two children but some are only able to have one child, some only want one child. We are fairly certain that we only want one child and have no desire to have two just to keep the population even. However, there will be a couple who want 3 or 4 children which will help keep the population even or at slower rate of decline.

I also don’t understand what you’d do in situations of death, for example. My aunt died having only had one child. Her husband has one biological child. His new partner has two biological children. Can he not have another biological child despite being under the quota because the person he’s fallen in love has two already? Even though there is a ‘surplus child’ because my aunt only managed to have one?

Also, how will you deal with families where one partner has 2 dcs already but the other doesn’t?

Are you saying it would be ok to say to someone they will never be a parent because the LAW doesn’t allow it?

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.

Does it annoy you when some men do the same?

@Blackcat21
Looks like the experts disagree with your assertion
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm

it would be better to say no child benefits so people are free to have as many as they like but would have to support them until 18 with no assistance

If you're eligible for CB (not everyone is these days unlike the similar benefit in the past). For your 2nd dc it's £13/14 a week, are people really having more dc to get £700 a yr?

The population is only growing due to the death rate slowing. The population will crash in a few years. There are far few children being born nowadays but less people are dying as health care improves.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/health-53409521

* 70% of all population growth to 2039 is projected to be in the 60+ age group.

Exactly. For those of you who want to control the global population, it would be much more sensible to advocate for compulsory euthanasia at a certain age, or state of health. So kill off all the old people or sick people if you want to save the planet.

Funny, I don't imagine any of you will be up for that will you?

I totally agree, over population is at the root of all the earths issues

It's really not. Overpopulation is a symptom of unequal distribution of resources. That's why the majority of developed nations have a sub-replacement fertility rate. The real root is over consumption by the developed world, with 80% of energy and raw materials being consumed by less than 25% of the total population.

Just to illustrate this point the average carbon footprint of someone in the UK is around 5.3t pa compared to 0.44t pa for someone Iiving in Nigeria.

Concern about overpopulation is just a great way of shifting the blame.

The best way to stop women in poorer countries having large families is through education, access to birth control and criminalising child marriage. Very few girls want to be a mother of 3 at 19.

What are you actually proposing the rule would be? Only two children and if you have more then...? It’s pointless because any sanctions would be unacceptable (forced abortion? Punishment for further pregnancies? Enforced sterilisation?).
We already have the two child benefit cap and that’s as punitive as it could get.

So tell us how you want to do that then? Details, not grand ideas. Tell us how you would stop women in Africa and Asia having children that you don't think they should have.
We'll wait.

Did you miss China's one child policy? That was in Asia. Nice casual racism, by the way.

Well, as mom to 5, I would be in big trouble. I'm not sure I buy the overpopulation premise. I think a more equitable distribution of resources would be a more realistic to tackle the problem.

Over population is a myth as others have said. It's just a convenient excuse because consumers don't want to consume less.

A two child policy is unnecessary if women are educated, given access to healthcare and patriarchal societies are removed. This is more likely to be successful than any child restriction policy.

We have 5 children because we wanted to. We might have another!

Did you miss China's one child policy? That was in Asia. Nice casual racism, by the way

You don't appear to have a point, and there is no casual racism in my post (which you seem to have misunderstood entirely)

@terribleg

We actually need immigration or more babies in this country.

70% of all population growth to 2039 is projected to be in the 60+ age group.

Reducing our birth rate further isn't going to change the above.

Yep.

The only reason the U.K. population is still increasing is immigration. Both because them coming increases number and because they are the ones who have more children.
Wo them, the U.K. would be like Japan (massive economic and social impact) or germany (who is pushing for lots of immigrants to come over to compensate)

The seas will be empty by 2048 anyway, so won’t be long after that that none of us exist.