Should one child per family be made law?

[SteveT]

As we are an over populated country should we adopt the same ideas on population control as China, one family one child?

[daizie]

Yes I think it would be a good idea . One family two children . No one needs more than two unless its for organs . People generally have more to 'fill a gap' or because the two they have are the same gender .

[Ladymuck]

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As we are an over populated country should we

> adopt the same ideas on population control as

> China, one family one child?

I'm not sure about that one - seems a bit drastic...what if a second child were conceived, would the Government order it's abortion...as they have done in China?

However, I do not think that it is right that when couples have children that support for that child should come out of the public purse (child credits etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should I start a separate thread?).

[Moos]

Birth rate in this country is already drastically dropping - it is currently below the death rate.

[Narnia]

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes I think it would be a good idea . One family

> two children . No one needs more than two unless

> its for organs . People generally have more to

> 'fill a gap' or because the two they have are the

> same gender .

If you agree why are you contradicting the opening remark?

[Ann]

I spoke to some-one from Bejing recently who told me they have whole hospitals set up just for abortions. I got the impression from her , although hardly representative, that among city dwellers one or no children were the norm. Although this was not the case in the villages where perhaps children were needed for economic reasons such as farming.

Also , I wonder what our society would be like if we were all only children? No doubt there are forumites without siblings. No doubt most are well adjusted individuals, but what would our world as a whole be like if that was the case?

[silverfox]

No

[????]

I don't think 'our' birthrate is the problem...gestimating but isn't a sustainable birth rate something above 2 or you get a population decline in the long term? increased life expectancy is what is largely to explain for the UK's increase in population. Globally the problem is 3rd world birthrates...historically the way to reduce birthrate is by taking people out of poverty. Simple.

[silverfox]

There is a problem with questions like this SteveT and the problem is people are not prepared to address the serious implications of what is being asked.

The population question is without doubt an easy target - with the argument that too many people means too much pressure on (limited) resources.

1. I don't agree England is an over-populated country. By what measurement etc?

2. China is now asking some of it's population to have more than one child. It's limited to booming cities such as Shanghai etc at the moment but the reason is China's one child per family policy is now starting to backfire with too few young people bearing the burden of maintaining an older population who are living longer. The western world is also waking up to this problem (increase the age before you get your pension, too many old people putting a burden on the NHS and too few young people generating the taxes to pay for it etc)

If you are suggesting 'over-population' is a bad thing (whatever over-population means) then consider the following and some possible solutions:

Have a look at Global Footprint Network (globalfootprintnetwork.org) among others, a serious scientific attempt to establish and monitor our impact on the environment (carbon footprint). Not only does the organisation say that

it rejects suggestions that reducing the size of the Earth's human population would help the environment, claiming this focus is a critical distraction from tackling over-consumption in wealthy countries but it also points out that one person in the US will, by 4am on the morning of 2 January, already have been responsible for emitting as much carbon as someone living in Tanzania would generate in an entire year.

It says that a UK citizen would reach the same position by 7pm on 4 January.

There is a simplistic quiz for all to take part in, with a serious scientific purpose behind it, that told me that if everyone in the world had my life-style (admittedly an American bias) we would need 4.6 earths to sustain such lifestyles. Questions asked (among others) were; do you live in a house/apartment, does it have water/number of bathrooms, do you drive a car/take public transport, how much meat do you eat a week? etc

So before we start dictating to people how many children they should or should not have (and children are the future) let's see what else we can do.

a) Why not ban all pets - dogs, cats, guinea pigs, budgies, goldfish etc, put them all to sleep. All these parasites need feeding and contribute nothing to mankind. By all means keep beasts of burden.

b) Bring in compulsory euthanasia for everyone over 65. Thus no pension burden for old wrinklies who contribute little to society and burden our health facilities and more room for people to have more children that may make more of a contribution to society.

c) Bring back a form of rationing cards so no one person can eat more than one pound (500g) of meat a week, can use no more than 50 gallons of water a week for drinking, washing, bathing etc

Okay, we can get as silly as we like but I object to the perennial bleat of 'over-population' which often means no more than 'I and people like me are in danger of losing our way of life if more people have children who also want a way of life like mine'

[Huguenot]

'over-population' which often means no more than 'I and people like me are in danger of losing our way of life if more people have children who also want a way of life like mine'

Some splendid nails, hitting and heads there!

I think that legislating on reproduction asks some very serious questions about what it means to be human.

I do think that we shouldn't be bankrolling them out of the public purse. Crazy idea this 'child support'. If you can't afford them or provide for them, don't have them.

[candj]

The Chinese government is not asking families to have more children, however, in wealthy cities such as Beijing or Shanghai, wealthy couples are paying the penalty fees and having more than one child. Also in cities such as Shanghai, these only children go on to higher education as they had all resources available to them, and in the end achieve high paying jobs and would rather work and make money than have to raise children (one child even). In Shanghai, the financial capital of China, it's all about the money.

After some thirty years of 'one child' China's society is lopsided with the inverted pyramid effect where one child has to support two parents and four grand parents. They now realise that producing one (preferred) male heir and spoiling him rotten because he is the only one creates the little emperor who becomes self centred and has no interest in helping/supporting anyone, but himself. Furthermore, the little emperor has no hope in hell in finding a little empress as they don't exist or exist in very little numbers. It's a social disaster in Chinese society although Beijing will never admit to it nor will they change it overnight as it would be admitting fault and losing face.

Ann is right, the one child policy did not apply to those in rural areas for labour purposes and does not apply to ethnic minorities (although China is doing its best in limiting these numbers in other ways). And you do hear horror stories of the abortion squads that would drive around in rural areas checking on people and forcing them to have abortions. I believe the rules are you must be married and 21 years of age to have children.

One of the saddest things (among the many) about 'one child' is that the Chinese language has specific names for elder brother, younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, paternal and maternal aunts, uncles, cousins and grand parents and now there is a whole generation of people who will never have to use these terms.

[The Chair]

However, I do not think that it is right that when couples have children that support for that child should come out of the public purse (child credits etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should I start a separate thread?).

Start a new thread please!

[Ladymuck]

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> However, I do not think that it is right that when

> couples have children that support for that child

> should come out of the public purse (child credits

> etc.)...(Chair: is this still in-topic? or should

> I start a separate thread?).

>

> Start a new thread please!

OK - cheers!

[Ladymuck]

Ann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I spoke to some-one from Bejing recently who told

> me they have whole hospitals set up just for

> abortions.

Yes, that's the reality in China - rather Barbaric to my mind.

>

Also , I wonder what our society would be like if

> we were all only children? No doubt there are

> forumites without siblings. No doubt most are well

> adjusted individuals, but what would our world as

> a whole be like if that was the case?

An interesting thought Ann.