Having large families impacts the environment, so couples should only have two children. Right now it’s only a suggestion but eventually you know that the politicians will get involved and ban the activity that they believe is causing global warming. Once they do, choice will be out the window and it won’t be “a women’s body is sacred and you can’t tell her what to do with it.” There will be forced abortions as they do in China. But the rich won’t be affected by this because they’ll just buy their way out as they do in China. Think I’m exaggerating and it won’t get to this? Maybe, but they’re starting with the light bulb (and here and here), what’s next?

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.
“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
[…]
“The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

When do you think they’ll realize that the problem isn’t that we are having too many babies, it’s that we’re living too long. What do you think their solution will be then? Voluntary suicide of the elder? Assisted suicide?
(via)