Population policy needed for the UK

[* star *]

The biggest contribution UK couples can make to combating climate change would be to have only two children or at least have one less than they first intended, argues an editorial published on BMJ.com today.

Population policy needed for the UK in order to combat climate change

[Greenrewards]

that's right - every human being should consider this - there no point in quantity, but quality - having many children doesn't make your family better and/or happier, but it makes more people on the earth. having less children gives chance to educate them properly and make them useful in future for benefit of civilization.

[Andrea]

Will a government ever adopt a population stabalisation policy though, much less a population reduction one?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Greenrewards

Having less children gives chance to educate them properly and make them useful in future for benefit of civilization.

But there are more people on Earth than ever before and more of them are highly educated than ever before, so not really.

[altyfc]

With that statement, you could also argue (and I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here) that it's OK for more affluent people to have more children. They can afford to pay more for their children's education than those on more meagre means.

[include]

From an ecological point of view though, the wealthier people are going to consume more resources than the poorer people. In terms of carbon footprint, how many Africans would it take to consume as much as one Australian?

[Richard]

It's the poor countries that have the worst environments though, so I'd argue that it's lack of economic progress rather than absolute population numbers which is the more important factor.

[annes]

Yah! we all know in big families you have always someone tells you something nice or does some surprises. But with regards of issue will they have good future for giving them good education which parents must always consider. Financially and emotionally supported.

[imp]

Originally Posted by altyfc

With that statement, you could also argue (and I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here) that it's OK for more affluent people to have more children. They can afford to pay more for their children's education than those on more meagre means.

Excellent point. It is true to be sure that liberalism and radical environmentalism are philosophies that are rooted in eugenics. They definitely want control over not only how many children, but who has them.

[Greenrewards]

Originally Posted by Richard

It's the poor countries that have the worst environments though, so I'd argue that it's lack of economic progress rather than absolute population numbers which is the more important factor.

- exactly, hence maybe it's true, that 'lack of economic progress' is strongly connected with the number of people aiming for 'progress' - undeveloped country are in most cases 'overpopulated' - e.g. in Sweden lives more or less 5mln people and they are doing much better than Nigerians, for instance. Humans have to do something more than 'just breeding'