UK: Having two children should be limit

[pepperbear]

A report to be published next month by the government’s Sustainable Development Commission will state that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.

Jonathon Porritt, chairs the Commission and has said that green campaigners and political leaders should stop avoiding the issue of environment harm caused by the expanding population. Mr Porritt has said that contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/266319

That is one interesting choice of words.

edited to add: Don't you think adoption would also be a good thing to promote?

[anonymous171]

1. Interesting priorities.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

2. While I support making it harder to have a kid...

...I think this is ridiculous. Did they learn NOTHING from China's limit?
Duckie

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. What measures would you support along those lines?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

11. I have no idea.

I just know that we could curb our child abuse rates, child murder rates and an entire generation of idiots if it is harder to have a baby than it is to drive a car.
Duckie

[EndersDame]

27. Tax incentives to have only two kids

the more money to have less kids. Proggressive fines on each kid past the second. Free birth control and abortion.Better, realistic Sex ed.Better education and more educational opportunities(and that is really the main thing because women who have more educational and career opportunities available will generally delay having babies and will also have less look at america vs. mexico)

[surrealAmerican]

30. Your user name is strangely appropriate for this thread.

Welcome to DU.
I've got to disagree with you about the fines, though. It would punish children for being born. There are already plenty of financial incentives to have fewer children. If we just made it easier for people to not have children, it would go a long way toward solving the problem.

[EndersDame]

35. I guess we shouldn't punish thirds....

That kind of extreme action should be taken only when we get to the breaking point of population. I think though that is one of the harsh truths that humans (not just Americans and Western Europeans) are going to have to face. Land for people, land to grow food, land to raise live stock, and other resources are finite.I think we should as a species start to seriously think about researching the possibility of colonizing new planets or building artificial habitats for our growing numbers. I believe a need for them will come in the not too distant future. We are at a point were science fiction is becoming science fact(cloning,chips being implanted in brains

[LWolf]

28. restructure tax deductions.

Do away with deductions for supporting children. Give the biggest deduction for those who adopt children who need families. The next biggest to those who have none. A small deduction to those who have only one. No deduction to those who have two, and after two, tax them per head. A carbon tax.

Perhaps a large life-time tax credit for vasectomies and tubal ligations.

I'm not the one you asked, but that's what I suggest.

Personally, I agree with the article in the OP; more than two is irresponsible. I wouldn't make laws against it; I'd just make it harder to have more, and offer more incentive to have fewer or none.

[bluestateguy]

3. While I frown on having large families

A government mandate is a remedy worse than the disease.

[ChazII]

5. True! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. A policy of abortion?

That's a pretty significant leap from "choice".

[stray cat]

6. Native Britain's have fewer children than immigrants - this is to prevent immigrant expansion

by disproportionate immigration I bet.

[Captain Hilts]

17. That's 'native Britons'.

[anonymous171]

23. That's what I figured.

Sounded a bit BNP-ish.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Porritt is so far from the BNP it's unbelievable

No, this has nothing to do with racism.

[Warpy]

7. There are only two ways to stop overpopulation

and the best is to raise the expectations of women in the third world who now have value only when they produce male offspring.

The only other way is the unconscionable means of denying their children vaccination and all other health care so that most of them will die.

It turns out it's rather easy to raise women's status, just give them small loans for microbusinesses. You don't have to build universities or anything else, just teach them enough to do rudimentary math to be able to count and read simple language and they'll do the rest.

The first thing they do is go looking for birth control.

You can't decree birth control by fiat unless you want the rather brutal system the Chinese have had, with busybody intrusion and forced abortion.

And the system of allowing children to die through lack of care is evil.

[JitterbugPerfume]

9. educating women

is the answer!

Every woman wants a good life for her children, and limiting the size of her family is part of the answer.

[Matariki]

33. There are many, many places in the world where children are the only 'social securiy' that exists.

Having many children, and by children i mean boys, ups the odds a woman will be taken care of in old age.

Addressing worldwide poverty, education, and the status of women are all neccesary to address this issue.

[jkshaw]

8. "UK: Having two children should be limit"

Quick! Send this news to Utah-all-the-little-spirits-are-in-heaven waiting to be born! It has the highest birthrate in the nation, last I heard. Vigorously encouraged by their church.

[BlooInBloo]

12. (shrug) If that's the goal - and not just demagoguery - then make people more wealthy...

Tried and true: the wealthy have fewer kids than the poor.

But I bet he doesn't *really* care - he just wants to tell people what to do.

[Matariki]

32. And educate girls worldwide

another thing tried and true. Women with educations have less children and societies with educated women tend to be wealthier.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

We set our limit at four...cats. Easier to herd and cheaper.

[seabeyond]

13. so a female has two kids and is fixed. a male dna goes in computer and all babies

run.... once his name pops up twice, snip snip.

[elocs]

14. Well, I'd reckon on that this idea would get a round of applause and standing ovation here at DU.

Especially if the mother cannot give the defined quality of life and education and other periferal expectations. Maybe for a 3rd pregnancy there should be either mandatory abortion or adoption--mom's choice since we are in favor of choice.

[Subdivisions]

15. I daresay that fighting climate change is a deflection...

from the real issues, the ones they're not telling us about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity">Carrying Capacity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil">Peak Oil. Climate change, though a definite problem, is not as pressing an issue as is carrying capacity and Peak Oil.

Peak Oil is currently upon us with only 3 major oil-producing nations still in pre-peak production. Those are Saudi Arabia, where crude reserve amounts are a state secret, Kuwait, who have admitted they fudged their reserve numbers, and Iraq, which some suspect holds more oil than even Saudi Arabia.

Human carrying capacity may have been exceeded on Earth. Here is how West Virginia University defines carry capacity:

http://www.rri.wvu.edu/WebBook/Briassoulis/glossary/carrying.htm

Carrying capacity: The maximum number of individuals of a species than an area can support. Alternatively, the maximum persistently supportable load of an area (Catton 1986 cited in Rees 1996). The carrying capacity of an area is usually constrained by limiting factors - such as water, nutrients, etc. Besides the environmental, the social and the economic dimensions are important in determining the carrying capacity of an area.

Some sources suggest that the Earth's carrying capacity has been exceeded by as many as 2 billion people. And depending on contraception and abortion may not slow the growing population down.


More info:

Peak Oil:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5026
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/60625.html

Carrying Capacity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1361.html
http://www.dieoff.org/page13.htm

[RC]

16. Human Beings are the weeds in the lawn of life.

We are crowding out most other life forms, except those we use for food and and species like rats that out smart us for our own food supply.
We have mostly fished out the oceans.
We kill so we can hang its head on a wall in our living room or mount the carcase on a stand by the fireplace.
We pave over or plow under wildlife habitat, then get upset when moose, deer and bob cats roam in our back yards.

We arrogant humans are the main problem and we absolutely need to rein in our numbers or Mother Nature will do it for us when the cheap energy of oil runs out. If we don't have it together by then, it will be our turn for mass extinction.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Pay 18-20 year old males $200 to have a reversible vasectomy, if they choose to have one.

If they want to reverse it, make them pay the $200 back on top of the regular costs.

[Thickasabrick]

19. I've heard some people want to tax people who have more than

two kids. I haven't figured out how I feel about that yet. In a way, it seems fair.

[eilen]

20. Why tax people more for having kids?

After all, someone has to pay for my social security.

[Thickasabrick]

21. I understand that but I think the people who support this are talking

about the costs of educating them, etc. and it isn't fair to the people who only have two or who have none at all. Again, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. *

C'mon. Who's up for a good porn thread? PETA? Olive Garden? Anyone? Anyone?

[seabeyond]

24. i love this picture..... and

please, lets not... to the other thread possibles you mention

[Warren DeMontague]

26. It goes in cycles. I haven't completely figured out the pattern, yet.

But it's something like PETA--->porn--->breastfeeding--->breeders v. the "childfree"--->smoking bans--->???

Right now, it would appear we're on kids and smoking bans.

If we could harness the energy DU wastes fighting these same fights over & over again (no one convincing anyone else of anything, of course) ... we could probably power a small town.

[EndersDame]

25. This is just oneof the many harsh truth that no one wants acknowledge

Preventing the really nasty effects of global warming means more than taking your green bag to the grocery store or buying an organic coffee from starbucks.We only have a short time (>ten years http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/tenyear-warming-window-closing/2007/05/11/1178390554472.html) I think we humans arent willing to make the real and tough sacrifices/changes that are needed to keep the earth sustainable for human life.We as a species would have to impose harsh laws and enforce changes (real changes and stop re arranging deck chairs)or invest in finding new ways to get off this rock..But that is just the cycle of life the Earth will go on without humans and new species will evolve adapt and thrive to the new climate.

[Scout]

29. "Don't you think adoption would also be a good thing to promote?"

only of children who are already born and waiting to be adopted.

don't "promote it" as a solution to unplanned pregnancy. don't outlaw it either of course, just don't promote it. promote contraception, abortion and abstinence.

[juno jones]

31. And the two doesn't always work out that way.

I knew my second pregnancy would be my last. I wound up concieving twins. Are women to be punished for extra ovum?

Smaller families are a desired outcome, but govt coercion in the process isn't going to help.

I find it interesting that right now as a society, many people are gaga over big families like the Duggars and the Octuplet-lady. It reminds me a lot of the hero-worship bestowed on champion breeders by the Nazi and Soviet regimes. I'm with the people who wish to educate and elevate women beyond the status of brood mare. The first choice a woman makes is not primarily sexual or reproductive, but concerns economic and social opportunity.