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?

@VladmirsPoutine

Over population is a myth - a nefarious one at that. Unequal distribution of resources among a host of other factors should be redressed first before we start regulating wombs.

And what of the environment?

What about countries where the predominant religions prohibit contraception and or abortion?

*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.*

Well said. Though I think everything would be better with a somewhat lower population. Say 5 billion. But even with 5 billion we might struggle with current practices if the whole world insisted on polluting as much as the average American/European (not to mention offshoring manufacturing to developing countries which, in terms of CO2 emissions per country/per capita is another way to cheat the figures).

@FoxyTheFox

it's not punishing anyone not to give anyone a lifestyle they can't afford because they can't or can't be bothered to work to afford it

No one is expecting a luxury lifestyle on benefits but it should be enough for a family to afford all necessities and, currently, it isn't.

Benefits should be enough to support a family whose circumstances have changed through no fault and no decision of their own, yes.

The whole system needs a complete overhaul. Instead of benefits as such, some kind of private "insurance" included in your work package would work. Should you be unable to work due to illness or accident, the new help system kicks in.

But you would need to be already in that system to qualify for something, a bit like paid maternity leave.

Fairer and simpler.

We don't need any policy (including the stupid 2 child only benefits rule!), we are below replacement level. If you want women to have less children, give us access to contraception and family planning, to economic independence, to equality, and watch the birth rate drop. Want it world over? Fight for women's rights everywhere

It is a proven fact that every major catastrophe, like a war or famine, is followed by a huge rise in births during the following ten years.

So the best way to avoid further population explosions is to improve people's freedom from war, famine and disasters

so forced abortions forced sterilisations, forced implantation of contraception baby girls left to die are just unfortunate consequences of an otherwise good policy
I think if you proposed compulsory DNA tests of children to determine father and once a man had fathered two children he was forceably sterilised people would soon think that it was unreasonable policy but when it applies to women it was just a unfortunate consequence!!!

Interesting thoughts, how would it work with blended families?

Father has a child then marries another women would they only be allowed to have 1 child?

With regard the op. I think you've got a point. I don't think I law should be in place but incentives to have fewer children would be good. I wouldn't want to see 'extra' children suffer though. Off the top of my head.
Remove child benefit completely
Reduced state pensions for those having more than two children.
People without children at fifty can claim six months state 'maternity' leave and £20,000 each, 10,000 and no leave if you have one child. This is some of the money the state saved on schooling etc for children.

Well if people actually used their brains and stopped being so selfish in that "I want a child so I shall have one then two then three" people would only have 2 children.

If the population in the UK is shrinking then why the hell are we so overcrowded? Hospitals can't cope, schools can't cope, not enough housing, not enough jobs, the roads are so packed every journey takes far longer than it should, commuter trains are getting like the overpacked trains in India.

Two children used to be the "norm". Now it seems almost every family has at least 3 children if not more.

Just why every time some re-marries they have to have a child I really don't know.

Something needs to be done but, as this thread proves, so many just don't see the reality.

Posters asking what would happen if the second pregnancy was twins are just being stupid. Of course it would be an exception just as it is now with the second child benefit change

I am one of 3 in total my parents have 5 grandchildren.

My dh is one of 4 and in total His parents had (both passed) 8 grandchildren.

So we are 1 human down over the 2 families. but the children are not in the families in pairs of 2.

I think it would be horrible. Why would you want to create a world like that?

@Formulation123

Interesting thoughts, how would it work with blended families?

Father has a child then marries another women would they only be allowed to have 1 child?

Yes. People that marry a second, third or whatever time do not need to keep having more children

Two children used to be the "norm".

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

Who says its over populated ? Who gets to decide how many people is too many ? It's anti human and a really popular catch all argument.

Less people live in poverty as a percentage than any point in history.

Climate change, deforestation, soil erosion, plastic pollution, species extinction rate, heavy metal pollution in the oceans and food chain - these are all caused by inappropriate management of our recourses - it's too simplistic to say less people = less damage. It's how we have so far built our systems of economic development and we recognise it must change and it is albeit slowly.

Rome isn't built in a day -perfecting a planet wide system to better manage our resources while respecting the other animals we share this beautiful home with will take time - if we ever can do it. But we are talking apes with a tiny window of knowledge I just think maybe sometimes we should admit that.

Also more people could mean better ideas ? Who's to say the person who could come up with a great solution to any one of the myriad problems we have hasn't just been born in the Central African Republic ?

The glass is half full from where I'm sitting

@stayathomer
Of course there were some very unpleasant consequences of it
And horrific human rights issues with all of it. I watched a documentary on it and then went down a rabbit hole online of how people felt in the wake of it

Of course, but sometimes to escape from a terrible situation of national poverty, governments must choose between two bad options. Today, per 1 million births, fewer than 10,000 infants die in China compared to 30,000 in India. The two countries were in roughly the same place poverty wise in the 50/60 years ago. So hard choices must be made, the only question is when and where.

Populations aren't rising exponentially though, it's actually slowing down. I recently did a lot of research for a book on this, none of the people who were saying that the population is rising could actually back up their theories. Some had highly worrying ideas, eugenics ring a bell? www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/02/17/eugenics-is-trending-thats-problem/

Actually, infertility is rising and the population will eventually start shrinking.

The population is getting older, people are living longer and less babies are being born.

The only places that show growth are Africa and Asia. So, by limiting their population growth would mean non-white lives are seen as less important or less valuable. Women would have to take contraceptives or have forced sterilisation. Racist much???

theecologist.org/2020/apr/16/debunking-overpopulation

@Potpourriandpennysweets

We don't need any policy (including the stupid 2 child only benefits rule!), we are below replacement level. If you want women to have less children, give us access to contraception and family planning, to economic independence, to equality, and watch the birth rate drop. Want it world over? Fight for women's rights everywhere

The 2 child only benefit is far from stupid. It was about time something like that came in.

Most women in the UK have access to contraception and yet there seem to be endless "accidents"

You’d hate me op, I’ve got 8!

Where are these women having multiple children all on their own?

People without children at fifty can claim six months state 'maternity' leave and £20,000 each, 10,000 and no leave if you have one child. This is some of the money the state saved on schooling etc for children.

if you start going on about money "saved"... you are starting an incentive as well for people who stay away from obesity, or from smoking? How much money do they save the state?

and what about pregnancy lowering some risks of cancer? Saving being acknowledged too there?

As soon as you start opening this door, the consequences can be pretty nasty pretty quickly. We'll end up with some eugenic policy whilst we are there.

The two child policy in the UK, according to a survey by BPAS, has contributed to a rise in abortions with over half of the women they surveyed saying that the policy factored in their decision to end the pregnancy. They quoted women who reported that they had no choice but to terminate whereas, without the policy, they would have continued the pregnancy.

@ghostyslovesheets

worked so well in China didn't it?

YABU and totally daft

Exactly

If the population in the UK is shrinking then why the hell are we so overcrowded? Hospitals can't cope, schools can't cope, not enough housing, not enough jobs, the roads are so packed every journey takes far longer than it should, commuter trains are getting like the overpacked trains in India.

You really need to read a bit more...

Just why every time some re-marries they have to have a child I really don't know.

Is there statistical evidence for this?

Two children used to be the "norm". Now it seems almost every family has at least 3 children if not more.

Again any facts?

as this thread proves, so many just don't see the reality.

Quite

The money spent on education surely is recouped in tax when they work?