so should we all be limited too 2 kids/ family to save the world????????

[bigmouthstrikesagain]

I am from a large family (6) and have a sister with 7 kids.

Have been listening to Womens Hour discussion about large families are a threat to the environment (use of resources etc.) - I will try and sort out a link.

Can't help thinking that large families are a rarity in the uk and hardly the biggest threat to the environment we produce.

Is it really necessary for this to be a serious topic for the attention of Government - should there be a disincentive for women to have more than 2 children???

What are your thoughts????

There are also more and more people deciding to have one or no children so can't see the argument tbh.
Ridiculous anyway IMO.

I thought the government of the UK had decided that they needed people to have more chn, otherwise the workforce wouldn't be able to support an ageing population.

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/02/2007_27_thu.shtml

here is the link...

exactly there are fears that the population in western europe is an inverted triangle with a dwindling population supporting an aging majority - but perhaps by the time we get to 65 we will be expected to work till we are 90 anyway.

I understand the argument about resources but I do not think the situation is at all cut and dried. It is entirely possible for a large family to live in an environmentally responsible manner - while small families are equally able to use more than their share of resources (loads of long haul flights, electrical goods etc. etc.)

for population stability the ideal would be 2 per family (or just over to allow for "wastage").

I think big families probably use less per person pro rata even if they use more in total.

If everyone had a big family (eg Africa where much of the population are children) then it would be a problem - but in the western world I don't think there are enough of them to make it an issue.

(Me - I was going to have 2 - but had twins second time round - should I be penalised for that ?).

The reasons that used to exist for having large families no longer exist - i.e. high levels of infant mortality, no contraception.

There are loads of twins in my family Throckenholt - you should get a medal for raising twins not be penalised imo they are lovely but blimmin hard work

I thought that one of the women made a good point in suggesting that as families with a larger number of children had less disposable income they were less likely to be as wasteful as fmailies with one chld who could jet off around the world.

I think that there are so many other things which could be implemented to reduce environmental damage before trying to limit the size of familes. Our growth rate is higher than many countries it is true but it is not yet high overall.

There has not been a convincing argument made or requiring pop control measures in the uk. However all families need to live responsibly that should be the focus.

exactly growling tiger...

The economy needs workers tho' - hence nurses etc being invited to come here and work. We need a big population to have a big work force.

Large families probably a bad thing theoretically in countries where you are lucky enough to feel pretty safe about your children reaching adulthood. Think idea would be that population shortages in developed world would be met by immigration ie there are too many people on the planet but if we shift them around a bit we could use resources more effectively. Although more people in developed word = more use of scarce resouces... we need an international sustainable demographics expert to sort this one out!

Yeah, but developed nations always want economic growth which leads to environmental disaster as we consume more and more of the world's scarce resources. So limiting the economy would not necessarily be a bad thing. If all developed countries could agree on that...

They also discussed this point on Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 last week. I was overwhelmed at the number of people who agreed that we should limit families to one child. I too though that we needed to encourage more people to have children, as so many more women are choosing a career over a family.

If we teach our children how to live more environmentally friendly lives then it surely doesn't matter how many we have. Having 2 children and being wasteful is surely worse than having 4 and environmentally aware.

I know what you mean mung - I think it is the ultimate issue where 'other people' are the problem - it would be a mistake to make it seem that simply restricting your family size is all you need to do to save the world.

Although I can see the issue in China - the one child restriction has lead to millions of children (mainly girls) being abandoned. The issue of procreation is far too messy and emotive to be legislated in such a way.

Limit families to having one child? God we are a communistic bunch!

Surely the ratio of those people;
a) Deciding not to have children
b) Deciding to only have one
c) Deciding to only have two

Against that of someone with a larger family, would actually even itself out?

It's a sorry state of affairs when these discussions pop up in the media.

Don't we live in enough of a 'Nanny state' already?

My personal feelings (mostly with regard to overpopulation of the planet) led me to only ever wanting one - period. DH felt the same (only more over fiscal considerations), and after many years of infertility struggles, we were blessed with twins.

We went from "one and done" to "two and through".

I wouldn't change a thing, as I could never imagine one without the other, but it really is a personal choice.

Excess world population is best solved by giving women in the developing world more control over the reproductive rights (changing cultural attitudes to put less emphasis on male virility and women only having value as brood mares, and everyone having better access to birth control).

Focusing on family size in the rich countries is a red herring.