PowerSwitch

Imagine a future radical green government in a western nation, which has come to power via some sort of revolution but nevertheless wants to keep the public as happy as possible. It is committed to zero population growth, and has two options:

(1) A one child policy (with an exception only for naturally-conceived twins), leaving space open to take some refugees/immigrants from elsewhere and still maintain zero population growth (or falling, can be adjusted by changing the number of immigrants permitted).

(2) A two child policy, leaving very little spare capacity for migrants/refugees. This policy is less oppressive internally, but necessarily much more anti-immigration.

Which is easiest to implement, politically?

If they hold a referendum to choose between the two, which side do you think would win?

I suspect that the second option would be preferred. Many people are opposed to significant immigration.

Education is the key, let people know that childless people are just as happy as parents.

It's a difficult conversation to have though - telling your kids that they might be happier with none.

Catweazle wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 18:41 Education is the key, let people know that childless people are just as happy as parents.

I think the problem with that is it isn't true in many cases. Some people can be happy without children, especially men. So can some women, but for others it is impossible. For my wife, it would have been impossible. Although she always thought she wanted to two, and has changed her mind about that - one is definitely enough, especially if the future looks difficult. I guess I am saying the difference between none and one is much bigger than the difference between one and two.

Surely the answer lies in "has come to power via some sort of revolution". What's the state of mind of these revolutionaries? With today's UK there's no question we would accept a "radical green government" let alone any immigrants at the expense of our own procreation. However a radical green government, were it able to come to power and actually govern, may accept some refugees/immigrants.

adam2 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 17:52 I suspect that the second option would be preferred. Many people are opposed to significant immigration.

I wonder just how many exactly are many and how significant is significant?

A lot would depend on the incentives offered to reduce fecundity such as,
for example,financial rewards for having less or no children or a much more authoritarian
and intrusive approach.

Funnily enough if some sort of compulsory serialisation were proposed I would be very
surprised if it were suggested that men should be the ones to be sterilised!

Most people whom I meet want immigration to be significantly reduced, but subject to the following exemptions.
1) Anyone who works for them.
2) Cheap migrant labour for any business that they own or manage.
3) Front line medical staff.
4) Cute looking children.

Indeed and to which you might add anybody you are married to or related to by marriage.

i should point out that the average fecundity in the UK is already below 2. 1.65 in 2019, probably less now.

My initial thoughts would be for the second , two child lower immigration option.
However , it might depend upon just how this supposed government comes into being. I somehow doubt it would be a coup lead by machine gun toting vegans and environmentalists so must assume that it's democratically elected. I've several friends who are green voters and they all seem to be generally thoughful and compassionate people who are by and large against any form of discrimination towards immigrants so they would probably lean towards the first option. A far greater task would be convincing them that there is actually a problem with population numbers in the first place.

Interesting topic as always and as most people have realised by now the UK cannot really fit in 65+ million people in the small island of 200,000 square kilometres.

In New Zealand there is another interesting consequence to its own immigration policy from another country's one child policy. As you may know NZ has a relatively liberal immigration policy that invites in about 1% of the population annually. A large number of them are from China, maybe 10,000 per year most of whom are single children in their own country due to their government realising that land is finite but population growth is not always. There exist a visa in New Zealand whereby someone can sponsor their elderly parents to com to NZ too. I think this is capped to 10,000 a year with a long wait limit because otherwise you would get a twenty to fortysomething Chinese couple and four sixty-to-eightysomething parents ready to spend large on the state health system. The reason why this is newsworthy is because until relatively recently they could also immediately claim the old age pension, then there was a waiting time of 10 years in the country applied before claiming pension and this has just gone up to 20 years waiting before they can go on the scrounge. Some commentators pointed out that most will be dead before they can claim the pension and I think this was the governments intention.
One of my first impressions of NZ after arriving was driving around certain Auckland suburbs with large Chinese populations was seeing all the confused looking elderly Chinese wandering around with mouths seemingly permanently open, gaping.

In the same way immigrants to the UK from Pakistan always went and got a spouse from Pakistan so you could say you got two immigrants for the price of one with the spouse coming too.

Point is, there are always unforeseen consequences from immigration, mainly in the form of much greater numbers than were planned for. And much less productivity than was planned for.

It certainly would be one thing adopting either of these policies but of course it would be quite another matter trying to effectively implement them without draconian measures. Part of the problem is that two immensely strong and probably hardwired human urges, the urge to reproduce and to improve your situation, especially unbearable situations, are involved and people would be for ever finding exceptions, such as outlined by A2.

Also migration is not just an inter country issue but also goes on extensively within countries too. I am pretty sure many folk on this board have moved from one area to another in some way at some time to improve their situation with regard to job opportunities or lifestyle choices, retirement moves etc.

This is growing largely at the moment with many people wanting to move out of the cities in response to Covid. This is having major effects on sparsely populated areas, e.g. the south west of England, North Wales and the West coast of Ireland, with many new incomers with much more money than sense. These folk are egged on by posh relocation tv programmes normalising crazy prices. Impacts include pressure on limited social and health services, pushing up prices and making housing even less affordable for local pheasants etc etc

Very difficult to imagine a future radical green government in a western nation, committed to zero population growth......
However, I could imagine a radical right wing one (possibly left too)....

The current worked examples I can think of are (1) the 1 child policy in China (2) Mrs Gandhi's sterilisations of the poor in return for transistor radios (bribes) and (3) the forced sterilisations of certain indigenous populations in South America. There are probably many other examples.

However, I think there are some 'less radical' measures that could be introduced in the UK now, such as limiting Child Benefit to 2 children.
There are also probably other 'tweaks' that could be done to the Welfare/Housing systems.
Male views on this topic are likely to be quite different to female ones.

Mark wrote: ↑28 Jan 2021, 17:06
However, I think there are some 'less radical' measures that could be introduced in the UK now, such as limiting Child Benefit to 2 children.
There are also probably other 'tweaks' that could be done to the Welfare/Housing systems.

I've thought that would be a good idea. I've heard it said that if you can't afford to have kids then don't which has a certain logic to it. With regards to that point and at the other end of the scale i work for a guy who has both a lot of kids and plenty of wealth to look after them . I didn't fully believe it when i heard he had 12 children but it was later confirmed , 12 kids between 3 and 19 . All by the same wife by the way. I was working in his office just before christmas 2019 and overheard him talking about presents for the kids and he said that he probably wouldn't spend that much on the younger ones but would run to a thousand apiece for the older ones. I almost felt sorry for my own daughter who wasn't getting anywhere near.
Perhaps population control by limiting benefits will result in less poverty simply because there will be far less poor people left?

12 children is IMHO very excessive even for parents well able to support them.
Among other problems, so many children would be a considerable burden on the public purse if the parents suffered some financial loss and could no longer support them.