Population control thought experiment

[PS_RalphW]

In case you hadn't noticed, the Tories introduced a limit of 2 children for full child benefit some years ago. 3rd and subsequent children get about 40% less. Family sizes in the UK are already at an all time low, well below replacement levels. I cannot find a graph of family size against family income, but income is generally correlated with education, and education inversely correlated with family size. Universal education is by far the best way to reduce family size, and poor children suffer disproportionately in the education system, especially under current lockdowns, so the best way to reduce family size is to improve the lot of poor children, not withdraw benefits.

It is true that Poland has the lowest family size in the Europe, and the patriarchal right wing government has just effectively banned abortion, reversing a policy introduced a few years ago after a referendum to allow it. Women are proposing a national strike.

[Mark]

Apologies - my mistake - here are the rules - some exceptions
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-be ... e-children

Last I heard, the idea was proposed and then rejected..., I must try to keep up

Regarding the general point, we can't have it all ways.
If we want to reduce population, we will have to make some very tough decisions.
I'd prefer that we start with financial measures, before we get onto anything like sterilisations....

Side point - watched a programme this week about a dysfunctional family who couldn't control their 3 kids, so were seeking support from a childcare expert (psychologist ?). Mum was 25, dad a bit older and the household was in a state of permanent chaos - he was on the point of leaving....
The rider - she was pregnant again.....,

[Catweazle]

I've heard it said that if you can't afford to have kids then don't which has a certain logic to it.

On the surface it sounds reasonable, but then we are open to the richest simply "inflating" away the excess population by ensuring the poorer can't afford families. I'd prefer a number limit that applied to all strata, not just the working classes. "We're all in it together", remember ?

[Lurkalot2]

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.

I wouldn't disagree , any more than two seems excessive to me and we have just the one daughter. The guy himself is one of four siblings and i work for his father as well. Another conversation i overheard was the father looking at taking the family away for his 65th birthday . Adding up all the adults and children it amounted to more than a couple of football teams.

[Lurkalot2]

I've heard it said that if you can't afford to have kids then don't which has a certain logic to it.

On the surface it sounds reasonable, but then we are open to the richest simply "inflating" away the excess population by ensuring the poorer can't afford families. I'd prefer a number limit that applied to all strata, not just the working classes. "We're all in it together", remember ?

Solving poverty by simply reducing the number of poor people wasn't really meant as a serious statement , sorry if it came across that way , I'd agree with you as to a broad spectrum of limits across all classes. Course there could be the argument that if a rich person is only allowed two kids when that person dies his inheritance is shared between only two and it will serve to keep wealth to a relatively small number of people.

[PS_RalphW]

I am one of 2 (surviving) children and both my parents were one of 2. One uncle had 2 children and the other none. My brother had 1 child and I adopted 2. Neither of my cousins had kids, nor my nephew (yet). once my generation dies all the accumulated wealth ( mostly from selling family homes) will concentrate in my nephew and adopted kids. Genetically our branch of the family is going to die out.

I don't see any problem with excess population in my family. That said, our adopted kids birth parents both went on to have 2 more kids each, and were themselves each one of several siblings. They are all poor, and poorly educated.

[BritDownUnder]

Solving poverty by simply reducing the number of poor people wasn't really meant as a serious statement , sorry if it came across that way , I'd agree with you as to a broad spectrum of limits across all classes. Course there could be the argument that if a rich person is only allowed two kids when that person dies his inheritance is shared between only two and it will serve to keep wealth to a relatively small number of people.

Something called inheritance tax gets in the way of that idea. While it is only 1% of total tax take it probably pays the annual child benefit bill. I hear both the Conservatives and certainly Labour are thinking of increasing the tax take from this tax.

[Lurkalot2]

I'll have to admit to not having experience in this field . When my parents died i was already on the deeds to their house and the remaining estate didn't reach any threshold so no tax to pay. I'd always assumed it was those inheriting that paid the tax but looking at the government website it seems it's a tax on the estate of the deceased person
https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax
So if i'm understanding that correctly it shouldn't make a difference to the amount of tax paid if the deceased has one or twelve children?.
I'll stand to be corrected here on what is very simple maths i've been thinking about while plodding through the day job. Not even back of a fag packet maths if i'm honest and obviously i've left out certain variables .
Lets take for example 100 familes living in poverty. Let's say each family has four kids , that makes 400 children , 200 adults 600 in total living in poverty. Now let's assume a two child policy is in place gives us 200 adults and 200 children. Child poverty has been halved and overall poverty has dropped by a third . There's probably the same amount of benefits to spread over a smaller number of people too . What government wouldn't want to be behind reducing poverty?
Incidentally with regards to Adam's comment about anyone having 12 kids and subsequently suffering financial problems the guy i work for with all the kids works alongside his father and siblings in a family business that is over 80% reliant on the pub trade. Most of the workforce has been furloughed and will stay at home till at least april.

[Catweazle]

Solving poverty by simply reducing the number of poor people wasn't really meant as a serious statement , sorry if it came across that way , I'd agree with you as to a broad spectrum of limits across all classes. Course there could be the argument that if a rich person is only allowed two kids when that person dies his inheritance is shared between only two and it will serve to keep wealth to a relatively small number of people.

Something called inheritance tax gets in the way of that idea. While it is only 1% of total tax take it probably pays the annual child benefit bill. I hear both the Conservatives and certainly Labour are thinking of increasing the tax take from this tax.

Local conservatives won't like any hike in inheritance tax. Some years ago I used to work (comms support) at the party conferences for the newspapers - FT, Mail, Standard, Telegraph and more - and every year at the tory conference there would be a speech about inheritance tax, which always raised the biggest cheer of the week, a cheer that was often filmed and tacked onto coverage of keynote speeches. The photographers always got ready for that part.

Incidentally, if you've never been to one of these events, they reek of power - you can feel it in the air like nowhere else I've been. I'm not prone to imagining things - it is tangible.

[kenneal - lagger]

In most countries now there is no need for a population control policy as most countries in the world have a birth rate below 2.4 children per woman. It is probably only in the poorer Islamic countries where it is above that rate and that is because women aren't being educated.

In the UK we would have had a decreasing population since soon after WW2 had it not been for mass immigration designed to fuel economic growth. Universal education to a high standard, women becoming an economic asset and consequent "relative" affluence have made certain of that and that is what should be aimed at in all countries. In poorer, stricter Islamic countries where an educated woman is feared by men because she may get above her "station" in the household there might still be problems with a rising population for a number of years.

The only problems we have in this country is that mass migration is used as a tool to fuel "essential" economic growth. In a long affluent country like ours it is difficult to get the rate of spending to increase by the 2% to 3% per year that economists see as a desired rate of growth so they turn to an increasing population instead. A few national industries such as house building and construction are totally reliant on immigration to fuel their customer base. If it weren't for mass immigration our national housebuilders would have disappeared long ago and we would be left with local and a few regional building companies relying on the occasional new house or houses but mainly on extensions, refurbishment and maintenance.

The other problem we have is a Green Party which supports unlimited immigration and is completely blind to the fact that unsustainable mass immigration is being used to fuel the unsustainable economic growth that is the cause of much of our increase in carbon emissions. All the Green Party members and supporters in my area are wedded to this ludicrous notion that we have to take in all waifs and strays from the rest of the world to give them all the riches that we enjoy despite knowing that we live in a three to five planet economy that cannot be rolled out across the whole world. They live in an emotional cloud cuckoo land in which they demand the government does all sorts of things to reduce carbon and yet they support the sabotaging of those efforts by supporting mass immigration.

They can't see that they are supporting a sort of reverse colonialism which strips the economic assets of poorer countries by stealing their largely more affluent and educated people in the form of immigrants. Surely if our economy needs a constantly growing population to remain healthy so do those poorer countries. By stripping them of some of their best people we are damning them to constant poverty. Keeping those potential migrants at home and helping them develop their own economies with a concerted, targeted aid package is the only sustainable policy option. In 2050 when the world population starts to decline we will be doing double damage to those poorer countries and the Green party should be ashamed of themselves.

[Mark]

In most countries now there is no need for a population control policy as most countries in the world have a birth rate below 2.4 children per woman. It is probably only in the poorer Islamic countries where it is above that rate and that is because women aren't being educated.

I disagree - have you seen this:
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Despite COVID, wars, famine etc., global population is rapidly approaching 8 billion - the planet can't cope as it is !!!
Eastern European countries are the only ones with hopeful data....
Nearly every African country is way too high and needs reducing, but how ?

[clv101]

Indeed Mark, but remember the lag, lots of babies today because of high fertility rate 20 years ago. Today's women are, in most countries, having a lot fewer children. Ken's right to focus on fertility rates.

[Mark]

According to the UN, world population is expected to reach 9.7 billion in 2050 and could peak at nearly 11 billion around 2100
https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/ ... -2019.html

Lord help those who are around then.....

[clv101]

Yeah, but most of that increase is focused in just a few areas. Basically, I think those forecasts are going to turn out wrong. I don't think Africa will ever have 2bn for example.

[Catweazle]

I've read that methane emissions from livestock make quite a contribution to global warming, and this is often used as a reason for people to eat more veg and less meat. Makes sense to me, but will there be a significant amount of methane coming from 11bn people on a mostly veg diet ?

Is it the case that although the planet can grow enough veg to feed all those people the climate can't stand it ?