Two children

[newwave]

AIBU to consider two children to be more than enough.

We have a rising poulation in this country with ever scare rescources (housing etc) should we consider the effect of having more than two and is it a bit selfish.

I know the poulation is getting older and more young people are needed but then again this can be offset by working a bit longer.

Obviously no one can be told how many to have.

kidsncatsnwine I personally would love to have a larger family as in my opinion it can make for better rounded individuals who are less materialistic (Massive generalisation but you know what I mean)

The thing is, it's a bit of a non-question, really, so long as we take it the way you tell us we should take it, ie. applying just to you.

What can we reply, other than, "Why of course, if that's the way you feel".

It can only really elicit a more rounded response if it is extended outwards, towards others.

eg. "I think others of you should adopt this."

But you tell us we mustn't read your question that way.

Or am I being incredibly dense? It is late, so that is far from impossible.

Absolutely DandyDan - so our population is at steadystate replacement level (or marginally under) - without fannying about with reproductive rights like the NSDAP or the Communist Party of China.

newwave - you sound like an earnest 16 year old geography student who has been inspired by Malthus

(oops that was harsh)

animula, it came in part from the Child credit thread, I have always considered that it should only be paid on the first two children which lead me to my OP.

I do consider that we have to think about those who will follow us and not just ourselves and of course some make a far greater effort to reduce their carbon footprint than others.

I take on board the European birth rate but should we not consider the whole world.

There must be a finite limit to the world population or maybe some dont think so.

I think that New Wave has a bit of a point. We all have a fair idea that the planet is at breaking point. We know that an increasing population is a big factor in that. Why not stop at two?

It isn't something you should or can police.

Hello? - we are already stopping at 2. That's our average (well, 1.96) - which can be accounted for by the fact that some people have 0 children and some have 5!

Dear oh dear

hmc, i will ignore the sarcasm (which is hard) but I think that the 1.96 average is Westen Europe not the world which has an ever increasing population.

Hmm. I worry about finite resources, too. And I remember reading the "Rough Guide to Prague" many moons ago, in which the "Children" section was started off with an interview with two young Praguians who'd decided against having children on those grounds.

I suppose I thought then what I think now, which is that it seems slightly "cold", and couldn't possibly, really be the primary reason determining a choice as to whether to have children, or not, or I guess, to determine the number of children you have.

It always seems to me that people who really do make decisions about their bodies and their lives based on abstract principles/ideals are not what I think of when I think of mothers.

Which is odd, really. And I suppose ties in to how I think about women, and our reasoning.

But as for the finite resources, well, is it children that make the difference, or is it abuse of the resources we do have?

It is something that can be enforced easily, you have two, you get the snip. Dead easy. The question is should it be enforced? If not, then why not?

my single friend has a carbon footprint many times mine

lives alone in 4 or 5 bed house
attic extension
rear extension
drives everywhere
multiple overseas holidays every year.

we're in a 2 bed flat, do about 3k a year and last went overseas (Northern France) 2 yrs ago

Not that I'm saying you're "cold".

I was more musing on my own response, and what it indicated about the things I thought, and probably still do, at some level, and that, I suppose, determine my response now.

Dione - are you acting as provocative wing?

I think you know you're going a long way out there.

Exactly freefruit. Often kids are not adding substantially to the carbon footprint.I have single friends who consume and spend/chuck away without a thought for any implications on the environment.

I am sorry - I have been sarcastic, I should be more tolerant. But please explain to me - what is your point? UK is already stopping at two. Parts of the developing world are not. Are you suggesting forcible sterilisation in the developing world to bring them into line? - or some alternative, or what exacty?

I've changed my mind a bit, having read the posts of others.

I wonder if you are being a little unreasonable, and it would be more reasonable to direct your energies to changing global consumption of resources on a larger scale.

Making it all about how many children you have is a bit small-scale, and perhaps misses the point.

Though obviously, it is your body, and if it is a choice that helps you fell comfortable with your particular contribution to life on the planet, then it is reasonable for you.

Animula, I probably got the responses I expected, some like yourself can debate an issue and others let their "emotions" rather than logic answer for them, it does not bother me.

I can claim no great green credentials as I have two or three foreign holidays a year and we have two newish cars (fuel efficient ones I hasten to add) I was not claiming to be a green angel, but i did think it was a fair debating point obviouly others did not.

I'm not emotional - I was sarcastic granted, but have knocked that on the head now . I do want a proper debate (although perhaps not at this hour) - please, to start it off on a good footing, would you consider answering my question below?

"We all have a fair idea that the planet is at breaking point. We know that an increasing population is a big factor in that."

The way I understand it, and somebody please do correct me if I'm talking bolleux as I'm just condensing stuff I've read in the Economist/National Geographic/New Scientist etc, that's not wholly true. Increasing population can be a problem in the face of a country's ability or willingness to provide for its people, but the planet itself is not "at breaking point" but for the wasting of natural resources and the political economics of food and land supply and demand.

Africa, for example, is, as a continent, hugely abundant in natural resources and could easily support its population without anybody going hungry. People do not starve in Africa because the country cannot produce enough food; people starve because of the politics of food distribution and because of regimes mismanaging resources.

The EU, for example, destroys millions of kilos of grain every year in order to regulate grain prices. And isn't house building capped at certain levels to prevent an oversupply in the market? It's not simply population growth which is putting pressure on resources and economics. It's far more complicated than limit your reproduction = no more strain on the planet. Apart from the above it's also, as somebody above said very correctly, about educating the offpsring you do have to be aware of the human impact on the planet and make sound lifestyle choices.

Sorry, that should read "People do not starve in Africa because the continent...."