So........is it socially unacceptable to have more than two children these days?

[electra]

I have three. I have one friend in particular who has regularly makes snippy comments about how many more am I going to push out.

Recently I took dd3 to the GP and dd2 was with us. The GP is one I have known for years but have not seen for a while. She looked at dd3, looked at dd2 and back again. And then looked at me and said

'So....how many have you got now??

Do the rest of you encounter this? Is it worse if you're a lone parent perhaps?!

Ooh I don't know, pregnant with dc3 now.... everyone assumes I'm pregnant with my first, when I tell them my eldest is 10 they are always gobsmacked....guess I look a bit younger than nearly 30 lol. I know quite a few people with 5 children, that seems loads to me, but fair play to them! I think 3 is an ok number?!

1DAD2KIDS

How many kids do you think the average Indian or Chinese women has?

Also, the 'third world' is a lot bigger geographically. In terms of consumption, one British child probably consumes ten times what an African child does.

3 seems to be the new 2 where I live.
I stopped at 2. And have massive respect for parents who have lots of kids and still manage to retain their sanity!

Besides, given the developing world is just trying to catch up it seems ridiculous to begrudge it.

If you can afford it why not. We can't, otherwise we would have a third.

Im one of 5 and DH is one of 3.

Yes the 3rd world is hugely more populous than the developed world. And per head we consume more. A consumption that is not set to increase much. As the developed world population sets to remain the 3rd population sets to shoot way way higher than it is now. So in terms of proportionality it is a stupid argument to say that there is something wrong with a very small few western families say having more kids as their global impact is negligible and the numbers are very unlikely to increase.

Lets compare the UK to a very poor African nation of a similar population such a Tanzania. If we talk food consumption people need so much food a day to live. In terms of food someone from the UK on average consumes far less than 10 times the amount. In fact the food consumption in Tanzania is about a 1/3 less than the UK. Now here's the interesting bit,

the average child per woman is 1.5 in the UK but in Tanzania its 5.
In fact all the nations with 5 or more children per woman are 3rd world African nations and this is why the UN are particularly worried about population boom in Africa.

Only as long ago as 1998 Tanzania's population was about half of what it is now. In 1998 the UK population was the same. In 2040 the UK population is set to be about the same (stagnated) as the Tanzania population is set to double what it is now. By 2070 its population is set to be four times what it is now. To think a population that has grown about 400% its size in just over 50 years. Over the last 50 years uk population has grown by 15%, a rate that doesn't set to increase much and may decrease.

The point is that a few families having more children has so little impact on the world as western populations are stagnating due to the lack of child birth. But the 3rd world population boob will have a huge effect. Simply a few of us choosing to have more kids is not going to do any a harm. Despite more consumption per head it is purely is a drop in the ocean when you compare developed populations to 3rd world population (that is expanding at an alarming rate).

2 children just seems so much easier logistically.

I heard something on the news a couple of days ago that said only 14 % of UK parents have 3 or more children and I found that surprising. I have 3 and at my childrens school it's seems 3 is quite common but I always said I only wanted 2 and I remember having a conversation with a friend about how we couldn't understand why anyone would want more than 2 (my number 3 was a surprise late baby totally unplanned). I have never had any negative comments though and I expect that parents of only children get worse stick.

I have 3 but was told I was selfish to have more than 2. Bearing in mind gm was one of 7 and one of her sisters had 14 yes. 14. DGD was one of five. I think that 3 is not excessive.

My friend has 4 and people assume they're not same dad/family because they planned it and had age gaps 4 years- people literally can't understand it 😂

The point is that a few families having more children has so little impact on the world as western populations are stagnating due to the lack of child birth.

I can certainly agree that birth rates are very unlikely to be affected by large families in the UK - is that really the point?

The more radical point to be made here is that it's not even close to sufficient for birth rates to level off, or stagnate. They have to go below replacement levels to rebalance the earth's population (I will put my hand up here and I say I haven't done my part - I have 2 kids).

It makes a lot of sense for the WHO et al to target countries having worrying birth rates and leave the west to get on with it. This is a reasonable and pragmatic approach. This does not mean that it's somehow more ethical to have large families in the west.

Well I suppose that is just a matter of ethical disagreement MuseumOfCurry. It seems very poor to imposes on peoples free will and freedom of choice to make a family of their choosing in a society that can accommodate them when we consider there will be a negligible impact on humanity. For me in this instance freedom of choice is the trump. Of course if every western family wanted 10 kids that would be problematic, but the reality is they don't, its rare. So when no harm is done who are we to preach 'Oh you must not have more that 1 or 2 kids its immoral'?

In terms of the 3rd world large amounts of birth rates per woman is problematic. Many bodies recognise this ticking time bomb that is set to cause real issues in the next 20-30 years.

There's hardly any imposition on free will in the West. That is reserved strictly for women in poor, developing countries.

So families in the West shouldn't enjoy the joys of a large if they wish if it does no harm because it may impede on a moral code? They should be have their wishes and dreams smashed because of some scene of guilt about the 3rd world? Do you propose we sterilise western people after 1 or 2 kids? For me the problems of consumption and the 3rd world are very different from a hand full of Westerners wanting bigger families. To say we shouldn't have the families we want when it does no harm to me is a level of moral Policing that I think is wrong and serves no purpose than to hurt people.

Also do you own the museum of curry and/or is it a really place? I would very much like to visit.

Assuming equal consumption, it's no more of a problem for one couple in the developing world to have a big family than one couple in the west. Of course as you've noted, we can't assume equal consumption.

This is an ethical rather than moral issue, by the way.

I don't have a museum of curry just yet, but hope to one day. It does sound pretty amazing doesn't it.

I think 3 or even 4 children is fine, as long as you can afford them. People that have 5+ is getting silly & must cost the country a fortune in terms of education & NHS. The country is massively over-populated & having loads of children is wrong for that reason alone. And I don't want to hear the 'looking after me in my old age' bullshit. The moment I can't look after myself, I ain't sticking around.

I have two, MIL constantly reminds me how much easier it would have been with only 1. DH is an only.
3 is well within normal for a family size! relax.

I'm a single mum of six. I get nothing but praise xx

MuseumOfCurry although I understand the basis of your ethical concern or at least the theory of it but personally In practical terms I think it is silly. In practise you would be limiting peoples choices and happiness to what end, to what advantage to humanity?

NathanBarleyrocks if you are taking about the UK I have to disagree with the over population per se. If anything the problem is more a over population in the older age groups. We have an aging population that causes many potential challenges for our nations future. Similar to what has been seen in Japan's aging population mixed with a growing reluctance for the younger generations of Japanese to have children. A problem that has forced Japan (traditionally fairly hostile to immigration) to open up to the prospect of increased immigration just to keep society moving.

I guess to put it fairly crudely we either grow our own future generation or import it (immigration)? That is a choice we make as a society when we consider how many babies we have. The other option is to let the age demographic become too unbalanced but we do that at our peril.

Also I am sure as 3rd world (especially sub-Saharan African) populations explode in the future we can expect huge mass migration. Throughout history people have moved from lands that can not support them to abundance somewhere else. For example thats what the Vikings did. I don't think people will stay in a place that is crowded and struggling to feed them when they see the abundance in other parts of the world. Basically these growing populations will want a bigger slice of the cake. I believe due to climate change, better access to information (about how the other half live) and growing populations we are already seeing this. Sorry I digress.

MuseumOfCurry although I understand the basis of your ethical concern or at least the theory of it but personally In practical terms I think it is silly. In practise you would be limiting peoples choices and happiness to what end, to what advantage to humanity?

Why do you keep returning to me limiting people's choices? I have never proposed any kind of fascist diktat, despite the WHO etc having widespread support among Westerners for spreading small-family propaganda all over the developing world. I'm guessing from your posts that I could even include you in that group?

Rather, I'd really like the mainstream press to publicise a bit better the fact the world is desperately overpopulated and cease its PR for the unsustainable pyramid-scheme pension/elder care arrangement. I'd also like to force every single manufacturer to make every single product with zero footprint, and the government to provide no support for childbearing so that large families reflect their actual cost.

I noticed once DC4 was born that every professional I came into contact with spoke to me about contraception. Literally every different midwife, hv, doctors receptionist

Aside from that I get the TV comments and "are you done now?"

Often people will comment on me having my hands full but this tends to be strangers who think I am extremely young due to how I look not people I know who are aware I'm not that young

MuseumOfCurry OK so your objection to westerners having large families is more a personal standard rather than something you would expect from the rest of us? Fair enough if that's your personal choice for the ethical reasons you state. In general are you OK with familes choicing to have as many kids as they want as long as they can fully support them?

As to small family propaganda for the 3rd world. Now there is a more difficult one. On one hand there is the idea of everyone's right to chose. But on the other hand there is an issue of social responsibility. Is it ethical to have kids you cant feed and support. Of course a lot of the problem is that often these children are not planned. I must admit it doesn't seem right to me to have large volumes of children in an environment that can't support them. Of course there are many factors to why it can't support them such as the distribution of wealth. But the fact still remains that the ballooning populations in the 3rd world is only set to cause more and more pain and misery. This is not a problem with stagnating western populations. So in a very pragmatic way (dispite uneven consumption per head) it is exploding 3rd populations that have a real impact on additional consumption, not a handful of larger western families. So yes I suppose I do suppose the a reduction in 3rd world births.

To make the world sustainable is a whole different kettle of fish. And of course global population is a huge factor in sustainability. In the west we are at the top of a big pyramid scheme. The trouble is when your at the top of a pyramid scheme it's very difficult to want to go back down. To make a truly fair globe you would have to do something radical. Although most people say the want a fairer world in reality I think most people would be secretly loathed to give up their privilege and the good comfortable life we have in the west. It's sort of the elephant in the room. Because to admit it makes us sounds like horible selfish people.

Also I see no problem with a government helping to support kids in a country that need a younger generation too (within in reaso). I am lucky enough to need no state help as I have a very well paid job. But the reality is most families rely on some sort of help such as child benefit or tax credits or free school dinners. With so many families relying on this aid it tells you without help many family's would not be able to have kids. But our society needs a healthy influx of the younger generation.

I was about to comment and then realized I already did back in 2011. I need to get out more.

But the fact still remains that the ballooning populations in the 3rd world is only set to cause more and more pain and misery

The same is true of poor families in the UK. Does think the distorted childbearing choices that unfold in the poorest sink estates are good ones that result in happy childhoods and productive adults? But if we were to question these choices, we'd be accused of social cleansing.

I don't really know what I think, except I don't differentiate between big families in the developed and developing countries. They are the same to me.

"People should have as many as they can afford"

I assume you mean "only as many" (although I'd point out that there is no way of certainly predicting one's income for up to 25 years ahead, so the statement is fatuous) - the idea that people should have as many as they can afford? No, thanks.