2.0 children
neil | 18.02.2009 21:50 | Bio-technology | Culture | Gender | South Coast | World
The Optimum Population Trust wants you to have fewer children, or preferably none. The UK population alone is expected to increase from 61 million to 77 million by 2051 but the OPT believes the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.
“The more couples decide to have just one or two children, or even remain childless, the more they can relieve pressures on rapidly deteriorating ecosystems and alleviate demand for dwindling energy and food resources,” says policy director Rosamund McDougall.
If women in the UK stopped at two children, this would cut the UK’s forecast population by an estimated seven million by 2050, the OPT suggests.
They say on their website:
GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT
The Optimum Population Trust is absolutely opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.
Apart from a few well-meaning vegans, who will select themselves out of the gene pool by not reproducing, is this going to have any real traction in our society? There are major cultural issues relating to the issue of the number of children one chooses to have. Round here, for middle class parents, three is the new two.
At the risk of sounding like an RCP Furedi acolyte, isn’t all this Malthusian nightmare material anti-human?
If women in the UK stopped at two children, this would cut the UK’s forecast population by an estimated seven million by 2050, the OPT suggests.
They say on their website:
GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT
The Optimum Population Trust is absolutely opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.
Apart from a few well-meaning vegans, who will select themselves out of the gene pool by not reproducing, is this going to have any real traction in our society? There are major cultural issues relating to the issue of the number of children one chooses to have. Round here, for middle class parents, three is the new two.
At the risk of sounding like an RCP Furedi acolyte, isn’t all this Malthusian nightmare material anti-human?
neil
Comments
Hide the following 5 comments
Migration Watch
19.02.2009 07:42
a
Seems
19.02.2009 08:36
sphatt
Overdue
19.02.2009 10:14
While we may research and argue about what the natural limits of our earthly resources are, and how many people living what kind of life style those resources can sustain, it is simply fantasy to think that our numbers can grow indefinantly and that earth's resources will infinitely grow to support us. It is estimated that if everyone on earth lived as the British do there'd be enough resources for 2 billion people, so either we need to live much more frugal lives or have less of us around, or a bit of both.
Even if technology finds another way to suppport greater populations on existing resources, like the agricultural and industrial revolutions, I seem to recall each revolution increases the hours worked by each individual to support that system by about 10 hours.
If the Optimum Population Trust are in fact not the right people we need breaking this taboo and making us aware, that doesn't mean we don't need somebody to do it.
The worlds poor are not as responsible for resource consumption as the worlds rich, and the worlds rich are not as prone to rapid population growth, but when the poor are raised to 'western' living standards suddenly having fifteen children all needing a car to get to school and a mobile, xbox, packaged food, disposable fashions etc etc is the opposite of sustainable.
We all, rich and poor, have a lot to learn about how the type, and number, of lives lived affects our shared resources and the discussion of population as part of that is way overdue.
McQn
Malthusian nightmare material is pro-human
21.02.2009 02:01
No, I think it is pro-human.
Basically we have two choices:
1) keep on expanding the population and eventually reach a crunch point where millions of people are going to die or live miserable lives due to food shortages, environmental destruction or whatever.
2) self-regulate our numbers so we can all have a nice standard of living.
Sounds to me like the first option is the one chosen by human-haters.
Most animals tend to self-regulate their numbers based on availability of habitat and food sources. If resources are short, there will be less breeding pairs that have offspring that year. Humans have got too clever for their own good, and need to remember a few common sense ideas.
anon
.
21.02.2009 05:44
anon