to think that it's completely bonkers to want a large family?

[slightlystunned]

I read a recent thread where a mom is contemplating having a 4th child and the responses were largely (and cautiously) supportive.

If she had asked the same question to someone from my country, she would have been considered a freak.

I come from a country that is struggling with over-population and poverty and a large % of crime and thus a lot of orphans / abandoned children. I am also enough of an environmental nut to realise that 2+ children or 4+ humans per household means more consumption of natural and artificial resources.

And, face it, in the western culture the child leaves home at 18. The rude behavior and ingratitude and f&ck off attitude starts well before that, around 13, 14 years? So I genuinely don't understand why one would sacrifice their best years & money for that relatively short period of time (13+years), to bring up 3+ children, who may or may not stay together, or keep in touch with you, or worse, hurt you. I have lived extensively in US and Europe, and ALL the families I know see their children only during holidays, about once a year. In fact, one of my British-born, Caucasian friends is in deep emotional and financial crisis and none of her 5 siblings have time to spend with her, they are all well off and can help her, but they politely looking the other way while she a single mom is struggling with a day job.

This is not just a one-time observation, even the people in my acquaintances who have good relationship with their siblings or parents do not help out, saying that "I can't be involved, I have my own life to lead". So if large families do not teach other to help each other, what else is the purpose?

In my grandmother's generation, it was common to have 6 or 8 or even 10 children every household. More children was sign of ""manliness" and ""fertility"

In my mother's generation, 2 and 3 were common. 4 was considered slightly overdose.

In my generation, just one or at the most, 2 seems to be enough. And the trend right now in my country is to have one ""womb" child and one "heart" child (adopted). Which is fairly a good idea, considering the number of orphans and destitute children in the world.

So my two questions are: 1. is this what it is in the West - a trend, a statement to say that "I am a domestic goddess" and have a large family? Do people actually realise the social, financial and emotional consequences of having a large family in today's world?

1. If there is any other valid reason, why this craze to have children from own "blood"? If a person is lucky enough to have financial security and the means to raise another child, why not share it with a child from "outside" who is not so fortunate?

I don't wish to hurt any one, I have been plagued by these questions for many years. I just want some perspective. I am not married, nor do I have children.

I'm baffled too exit, especially since I don't advocate "certain countries falling way below replacement level while other countries still have much higher birth rates". I don't think the planet can really afford to have an above replacement birth rate anywhere, in any country.

As for the problems caused by the imbalances you talk about - since you say you don't mean resource wars, I'm stumped. The only other things I've heard people mean in similar contexts are rather sinister.

I ain't talking demography semantics Exit. I'm trying to communicate about the fact that we don't have a pre-existing 'right' to populate any stretch of land at a given density. In ecological terms, there's no such thing as 'underpopulation'.

I'm glad it's not just me reluctanttownie. I'm off and ashamed at derailing the thread. Sorry OP.

There is nothing stopping us either. We can populate as we will, thats how it has always worked.

"ecological terms" are pretty meaningless. Define your terms better.

Ecology is not a meaningless term. It means how organisms interact with their environment. It's always meant that. It is often thought that we've lifted ourselves out of the ecological contraints that limit our population, but we haven't. It will be a delayed population crash and one that could be avoided.

thebigjessie its not so much offensive as boakingly twee.
It also shows a total lack of understanding about adoption. I hate the flippant way people just offer up adoption as an alternative to giving birth.

OhDoAdmitMrsDeVere, you must have a pretty boring job, because online here, (you think) you are a clairvoyant. Just because you hypothesize that I am lying to "be safe", doesn't make it the truth. I know what I am. If you do not choose to believe it, it's your problem, not mine.

HecateHarshPants, I think I have got the one good answer for my OP. Your post has made me realise a lot of truths. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. (and yes, a GP did made me take a test when I was a child).

AbsofAwesomeness, I get your point about "generalisations". I accept I have made sweeping ones - I say that without any shame, because it is what I believed then and my views are now changing, thanks to all the posts here. However, they are not totally changed. Just like how most find it difficult to believe my explanation reg female infanticide (as against believing well-research article on a paper like The Guardian), I too find it tough to immediately believe the posts here about large happy families (against what I have personally seen an heard from close acquaintances so far in my admittedly little time spent in the West). But I have started the process of changing, about tolerance and accepting others decision without finding it questionable, thanks to a few people like Hecateharshpants who have given me logical, polite and perfectly sane answers to my OP.

Bats, thanks for your support. I was starting to think that my English totally sucked because I personally do not find anything offensive in my post, yet here are so many people who are incensed. I will practice writing better english from now on.

"There is nothing stopping us either. We can populate as we will, thats how it has always worked."

Can, yes. Should? No. Would you do anything you wanted just because you could? Or agree that everyone else should live by that principle?

That's how it's always worked - never the best argument in any context.

As for there being nothing stopping us - I'd argue that our awareness of the food and water shortages already increasing around the globe, the changes to our climate, the civil unrest they bring with them, combined our capability for foresight would be enough.

I was not incensed. I just wanted to know why you use 'near autstic' rather than mild autism. I still don't understand. Because it sounded like you were saying you have autism but not quite.

I am not sure mrsDeVere's job sounds boring.

If you want clarity it might be sensible to chose a phrase that people understand to avoid sounding trite about ASD.

thanks for responding slightlystunned. I am very impressed at how you're coping with your first (I assume?) round of MN flaming - very noble of you.

Do I have children because I want to and I can? Yes. No water shortages here, thanks, no food shortages either, no civil unrest.
Which begs the question: why focus on areas when none of this is affected and most have massively falling birth-rates (often to the detriment of their countries) instead of the swathes of the globe that do have all of these issues, and increasing birth rates?
Your focus is entirely bogus, rendering it nonsensical.

Hello, I have just read your thread about large families with absolute shock - I just cannot understand how or why some people have felt the need to be so horrible and insulting towards you in response to your post.

I could spend a long time pointing out how ridiculous and contradictory many of the posts are, but it would take forever.

How can people be so rude to you about your 'generalisations' and 'sweeping statements' , and then almost in the same breath, make sweeping generalisations about infanticide, poverty and adoption in India, and what's more, hold that against you personally.

How can people condem you for perhaps not understanding some aspects of a culture that is foreign to you, and then make such ignorant sweeping statements about Indian culture?!

There are so many differences between different nations of the world (understatement). We cant all get uptight and insulted every time someone from a different culture doesn't understand and wants to find out more.

I'm glad some people responded to you with helpful information.

Some people are just so eager to be insulted!

OP - I don't personally think the issue is your use of English - I have spent most of my career working with non-English speaking countries (including America ). I suspect your issue is immaturity. Extrapolating across a population using a very small and limited time exposure to this country is not fair - and your rosy trite view of adoption also smacks of inexperience and is likely to offend those of us who live with adoption in our lives.

You may also be comparing your small town upbringing in india with big/inner city issues in the UK - which isn't exactly like for like. I grew up in a small town in Wales and the issues were significantly different to those in London even 30 odd years ago. I have also seen a similar divide in other countries.

You surely must also be aware that having 4 children in the UK (whilst not exactly freaky) isn't the norm by a long way. But would you say that because China has a single child policy that every country should have one?

In fact your experience of smaller families doesn't apply to India as a whole as the live birth rate per 1000 of population in India is 20.97 compared to the Uk at 12.29. The world average is 19.15 which makes India slightly above the world average and the UK significantly below. Your argument that we shouldn't have large families here is being preached to the wrong country.

Exit you are very deluded. The UK is an overcrowded country that can't feed itself unless it ships in food from other countries. That makes us specatcularly vulnerable in terms of energy and food security. The UK population is rising, not falling. Demograhic change within a country is much more complicated than you are make out. Its pattern is not a simple one and more babies is not the answer to a decade long post-war baby boom, believe me.

Sorry OP, I didn't mean to be condescending at all and you write perfectly well!

I don't seem to, though!

Countries ship in food from other countries...thats commerce and appetite, not an inability to feed themselves, don't be so ridiculous! Import and export have been going on for thousands of years, from when the populations were relatively tiny.

I'm not in the UK though, as I've already said. Shame you don't bother to read before you call people names.

The " craze" or "trend " to have children!!!
Just odd. If having children were a trend It's been a very long one
I have 4 fab kids I am trendy & crazy quite obviously. We even have a 17 yr old who is lovely....shock.....
Also I see my mother with dementia every week. Phone my sister twice a week & saw my brother yesterday. DB incidentally has 3 adult children, one lives in the same street, one lives with him & the other is God forbid expecting a trendy child!

I know you aren't in the UK, Exit, and you are still deluded. Oh, and the UK can't actually feed itself.

The UK has chosen to move into finance and industry rather than agriculture. Is there any evidence that we couldn't produce enough food to feed our population if we chose to switch back to an agricultural economy?

We are a tiny country - it doesn't make sense in the modern world for us not to specialise in those things which we are good at which make us the most money in the smallest space that we are (arguably) competent at.

I could grow enough vegetables to feed myself if I gave up work. However it is more efficient for me to work as an accountant and earn money to pay for food. If we go back to a barter economy or food becomes significantly more expensive no doubt I will start growing my own food as my grandparents did.

It can't NOW, because you are not an agricultural society. You COULD if you all decided to become farmers and cleared lots more land for food production.

You're the deluded one, you can't seem to grasp some very basic concepts.

and the UK is not particularly densely populated either, being one tenth as densely populated as the most. You've quite a lot of room, you just congregate in the same places.

You seem to have far more faith in your psychic skills than I do in mine op

You hypothesise that I have a boring job based on what exactly?
That I dispute your claim of being diagnosed as near autistic?

You might find my job dull. I work with autistic children. I find it fascinating :)

OP

I think your english is excellent!

I think you have incensed people a bit by making some rather sweeping generalisations that all

chin up

Exit I'm NOT focussing on any particular areas, you are! You keep talking about particular areas that you (very subjectively) happen to deem 'under-populated). I have only ever applied my opinion to the planet as a whole - indeed viewing the planet as a whole rather than disparate countries all pursuing their own agenda is central to my attitude on this. (Read about 10 Billion to see what I mean). I did make one specific reference way back to the UK's pyramid scheme for funding elderly care

YOU are the one who, when presented with the argument that the planet is already experiencing worsening problems with resource competition, says Oh, irrelevant, because it's all hunky dory where I am thanks.

Why do I not focus on the areas of the world where these problems are more immediately felt? 1) Because I believe everyone, no matter where they are in the world should practice what they preach. 2) Because I think the areas of the world where people like you think there is no problem are a large part of the problem. (See this about country rankings by ecological footprint).