to be amazed at how many people are still having 4 or more children?

[JackShit]

Yikes! I'm going to get a new one ripped here, but this has been bugging me of late.

Our planet isn't in a particularly marvelous state. Overpopulation is a very real problem. We are responsible for the legacy we leave our children and surely part of loving them is to be concerned for their future quality of life on this planet.

I know there are a lot of people with larger families on MN and I need to understand why, in full knowledge of the facts, people continue to have so many children? Just read a thread on facebook where a woman was proudly stating she has 11! 11 ffs!

I don't go for the argument about some having only one or two so it cancels out and I also don't believe in replacing our ageing population problem with an even bigger one.

So what am I missing here? Do people just not really give a shit? Does biology take over?

I have 1 btw.

Phew. Where to start? Well lets begin with your assumption that global overpopulation is an issue. You will need to really research a little better to support that statement. Much of the european countries have falling birth rates. Many others outside of europe too. Look at turkey - trying to convince it population to have three kids. China is another example. Germany's birthrate is dropping at an alarming rate. Even India has dropped to having about 2 kids in average. These countries understand some basic economic issues with falling birthrates. Overpopulation is really less about too many kids born in the uk and more about overpopulation of desirable towns and cities - those where the work is in many cases. Mainly London and it's surrounds. There are of course areas where average number of children is over 10 - big countries that are growing at an alarming rate causing other problems. However, many world experts have statistically projected that the global population will grow but plateau naturally as the underdeveloped but economically progressing countries become more educated and wealthy and reduce their average number of children. It's also worth noting that without a growing population in the UK we will risk a shrinking economy and also have no one to support our growing elderly population who live for longer requiring more medical care and financial support. There's so much more to add... But in summary please do some research before you make sweeping statements which only serve to incite those who have chosen to have more than what you deem an appropriate number of children.

Sorry but forests are cut down so big business can continue to make vast profits. It isn't directly related to population, more a desire to sell to people. No one needs half the stuff that is wrecking the planet so it can marketed to us. The problem is irresponsible corporations and governments.

If it makes some of you feel better, I do feel guilt - at times (I don't have the energy to feel guilt all the time as life is exhausting enough) - that two of my 4 children have additional support needs. But it is what is it. We couldn't predict it at all. The conceptions all felt like a good idea at the time and they are all lovely people. We are as a family fairly 'green', much more so than many friends who have fewer children. No car, no flights, a lot of very diligent recycling, etc.

JackShit I have to say I agree with you, even though it's clearly an unpopular view.

I come from a family of 4, and loved having so many siblings when I was young. Always thought I would have 4 or even 5 children myself, but my husband and I deliberately chose to stop at 2, even though I would have loved to have more. The main and over-riding reason for only having two children (i.e.: just replacing ourselves, in terms of the global footprint), was the impact on the planet, and its ever-rocketing population.

The organisation Population Matters says, "We cannot confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental destruction unless we address issues of population"

From the fast-deteriorating environmental health of this planet and global food production, to our own small island and over-burdened NHS, it is simply irresponsible to bury one's head in the sand about the population issue. If we carry on this selfishly, there is estimated to be at least another 2 BILLION people on the planet by 2050. How can the planet comfortably feed, sustain and care for such a bloated population? There will simply not be enough resources to go around. So everybody suffers, with hunger, thirst, illness, cramped and unhygienic living conditions, lack of employment, financial strains. The list is endless.

Sure, in Victorian times people had larger families...because many children perished before reaching adulthood. And there was less access to safe, reliable contraception. With modern drugs and healthcare, these are, thankfully no longer typical concerns - and average life expectancy is around 80-95 years.

It really doesn't take a genius to work out that if we all had 4 children living for nigh on 100 years, the planet is going to struggle to host so many needy inhabitants. An unfashionable view maybe, but if things don't change, I fear that time will prove its validity.

I have 4 dc and the reason why is because I really wanted to. I felt that urge to have a large happy family. I always thought though that I'd have three, four seemed a little mad. However, my first dd was stillborn, and I knew from that point that I wanted four dcs - can't explain it. I also experienced infertility. For so long for me, having children was out of reach.

Now I do get that overpopulation is an issue, however, the overall birthrate in the uk is low. The focus is all wrong. Across the world, so many women are denied the right to control their own fertility. Abortion is illegal in so many countries, and access to contraception is blocked for many also. Many women are just there to produce children - religous, cultural reasons. If each women was able to control the number of children they were to have, surely the birthrate would be similar to countries where women to have that control?

Just as i would be upset if we were denied the right to contraception or abortion, I get a little upset at being criticised regarding family size. It's not the norm to have 4+ children.

I see your point entirely i often find myself surprised by people having lots of children. Although there is nothing to be done about it its the persons choice just as its my choice have 2 (due our 2nd next month) that whole business in china where they were told to have as many as possible and now due to overpopulation are only allowed 1 each (hence the high terminations and adoptions from there). I think people who cant afford the kids they have are irresponsible and people with 7+ kids i dont know how they do it how do you get quality time with each of them? Xxx

OP I'm with you. I wish more people gave a shit about the planet, but they don't.

I think the reason is just this: that having children is not a logical decision, it's an emotional one.

People have children because they want them. Full stop.

You can talk till you are blue in the face about overpopulation and saving the planet but it doesn't matter how good your rational argument is, it'll never win over the gut-wrenching desire for another baby (should someone want one, that is).

And for all we know, the 6th child of someone or other turn out to be the person who will save the world from environmental crisis/bring an end to world hunder/cure cancer.

give a child a life of later selfishness or even lonelyness? Choosing to have an only child, is selfish in my eyes, of course if it is an actual choice rather than circumstance.

pumpkinsweetie perhaps you wouldn't be able to bring up one child without turning them into a selfish or lonely person, but plenty of the rest of us can. Please don't project your own shortcomings onto other people.

One of the "old fashioned" reasons for having lots of children was because of the high mortality rate as children never survived to adulthood although the same can't always be said nowadays there are still reasons children die young (accidents, health complications, birth defects etc) although there are also medical advancements which mean many of these "issues/problems" are either cured or many children can live with them.

People either have lots of children nowadays because they can and/or want to.

Personally I'd love lots of kids but know it's not feasible for me, I can't afford to feed. clothe, treat, etc lots and lots of kids and live what I feel would be a comfortable lifestyle and so thus currently have 1 child and we are planning another all being well (Que sera sera) as we feel we can afford this and will not leave us depraved and both children will then still have luxuries and things and so can we. If in the future we then choose to have a 3rd then will may do so but that is something to think about then.
I have 2 other siblings who both have kids, 1 has 2 and the other has 4. The kids have never wanted for anything (not spoilt though) and some older and starting successful jobs and are sensible about money and respectful of others and that is what I hope mine will be like.

Personally I don't like struggling along, I like to keep a bit of saving in case something happens and we suddenly need some or so we can go on a nice holiday or buy something fancy. Not everyone has the capabilities to do that and it's their choice.

The biggest thing with choosing to have a big family really is the happiness and comfort of everyone involved. As long as everyone is clothed, fed, educated, happy, etc. the number shouldn't really matter.
The only "big families" that annoy me are those that don't care for their child(ren) and the kids are left in ratty horrible clothes and left to their own devices all the time. I understand not everyone has money to throw around and some families struggle paycheck to paycheck but they look after their kids and that's all that matters really.

Yes overpopulation is a problem but that's because there's a lack of jobs and money and in some places food to make it sustainable.

And yes to the pp who said expecting older children to care for the younger ones is tantamount to child abuse.

I was a young carer to 2 siblings throughout my teens, due to my DM passing away and my DFs health problems. I don't think it was child abuse, it was definitely a learning experience and i had to grow up quickly but it wasn't abuse.

There are children with caring responsibilities for their parents who may be ill and there are families where a parent has died, where the circumstances have changed radically. Choices you make are on existing circumstances and all it takes is a lost job and a long illness and anyone can end up in a bad situation. Family size is a private matter - I would resist any state intervention in managing family size because as always the poor and vulnerable are disproportionately affected. Education, and good and free contraception is essential.

^^This

Aside from third world countries of course, where they continue to have children to replace those who die in childhood.

I have four. The 'why' is a combination of failed contraception and multiple births.

I think we should look at our footprint as a family right now rather than in the future. That is absolutely the one thing we cannot predict. DH is one of 4 and he is the only one to reproduce so if you look at it over the generations you could say that we are a small family. We drive very rarely , never travel by plane and have minimal food waste. We are not perfect but we are not bad just by being many.

Self righteous singleton parents who are 'doing it for the environment' really get my goat. You are probably going on long haul holidays etc. etc. and generating way more emissions than us because with 'just' one you may be able to afford it.

I think I'll have nine.

I am a bit surprised at the hostility towards the OP. It is an interesting question and I have been interested reading the different view points. The nastiness is a bit uncalled for but people do get nasty when asked to justify their actions, the main reason being 'because I can'.

I think OP raised a valid question. I do have concerns about the planet and over population and in a number of ways try to be green. I recycle, reuse, am veggie, try not to waste food and resources etc. I do have a child though. He took 4 years to conceive and was very much wanted. Hormones kick in and adding to any population problems never came into it. I always wanted to be a mum. I would have liked another but it wasn't meant to be. While I would have liked another, I expect my urge for children would stop at 2 or 3. Obviously for some this isn't the case but it is hard for me to imaging thinking I have 8 kids let's try for no 9 as there just aren't enough hours in the day! I don't think when people talk about not being able to adequately parent large families they mean those with 3 or 4 kids. I know a few people with 3 or 4 kids who do just fine but when you get say into double figures I struggle to see how that is possible.

My son is 8. I think about adoption but my marriage is up the creek so it isn't something I can do right now. Maybe one day. I would never criticise anyone for having a big family so long as they can afford it, I may not understand why they want so many or how they cope but it is their choice. It would be nice if people didn't criticise me for having 1 child.

Having lots of children is not good for the environment that is a fact. Lots of other things are just as bad. Lots of us do our bit to some extent and some more than others but a lot of the time I think we forget because we can't see the consequences or we think our small actions make no difference (which isn't the case). We buy to much and waste to much. Often we don't have the motivation to do what we think we should. For example I am motivated to be veggie both for animal welfare and environmental reasons but although I bought cloth nappies full of good intentions, found them to be a complete pita and they ended up on eBay!

At the end of the day we are all human

OP, if comments on how many children you have are upsetting to you, why did you think it was ok for you to comment on how many children other people have? And to encourage other people to comment negatively on how many children other people have?

Because inexperienced parents just testing the waters to see if they actually want/can care for children is absolutely what a traumatised chid needs.

?? One example that sticks out for me is a family friend who was desperate to adopt, they were a couple that had raised their own kids, swere working, own house and she worked and had qualifications as a childminder.. they were declined i can't remember the reason (was a few years ago) but i know it was something to do with box ticking that got them completely exasperated. I've heard and seen reports of people being declined due to their ethinicity, not being home enough, something minor on a criminal record from many years ago and for smoking e cigs.. surely common sense would say for a child in foster care (as long as safeguarding is taken out obv) then a loving family of their own is more important than if someone smokes an e cigarette!

idiuntno57 read the damn thread

I have repeatedly stated that I do not fly. At all. Been on a plane once in my life and I'm 40.

Well the OP hasn't helped her argument with all her, ' how dare you criticise me for just having 1...but I'm more than happy to criticise you for having 3 or 4.'
I appreciate that medically, she had no choice and that has a massive emotional impact.
But where's the empathy from the OP that some parents lose a child and that spurs them to want to have a large family? Or that some did feel lonely growing up as an only child (some do, many don't) and therefore want to give their children 2 or 3 siblings.

Both my parents and PIL stopped at 2. DH and I have both lost siblings and all parents with the net result that we have literally no living family. When my mother was mown down by a drunk driver and my father died practically of a broken heart shortly afterwards, I had no one to share that grief with. Being just us can be a very lonely place, emotionally. I hope that my children will be a great support to each other and that my grandchildren have a better chance of having cousins.

But the OP's post was about the environmental impact of having lots of children, not whether families benefit or not from having cousins and siblings.

Nobody can ban anybody here from having as many children as they want. But, since each of our children does have an effect on the environment - and some of that effect will be positive, and some of it (much of it) won't, it's valid to have a discussion about what we think is reasonable and what isn't, bearing in mind that we are all human and have emotional needs, including for many of us for children, and we are also all rational beings who can balance "what I want now" with "this is what is good for my future of my family and the wider community, bearing in mind that environmental damage and climate change is gathering speed".

jackshit shan't

just because you don't doesn't mean others don't. You don't need a medal. And that was my point.

I have at no point used the word selfish in this thread. Not once. I do feel that we have our heads in the samd though.

I don't have fertility issues, but a serious medical condition.

I'm not trying to be rude, just noticing a lot of 4,5 & 6 child families around me and wondering how resources will cope and whether people give it any consideration.

jackshit but with what end?.. the self appointed medal for services to humanity perhaps??