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.

Still with you, OP.

Yes but if we're talking about resources then my having 4 means that there's a wee bit more tax being paid to help sustain an ageing population here in the UK. If we all decided to just have 1 then our economy would collapse far quicker than having 3 would cause global catastrophe.

Why are you on this thread, idiuntno, if your only purpose here is to insult the OP? She asked a reasonable question. If you don't want to answer it, you are under no obligation to.

I agree with you, OP.

archery I did answer. I had four because I had twins and I had contraception failures. I just get very bored by being told I am an environmental criminal. It is a recurring theme on mumsnet. I tried to show that one could look beyond a single generation to the environmental imprint of a family over the generations before making judgement. I pointed (as an example but NOT as an attempt to extrapolate from one to many) out that my family currently have a low carbon footprint and many singletons could have a higher one.

The OP seems to want some sort of badge for being a singleton parent.

That is all.

I have 5 children. We dont fly abroad, I walk everywhere within walking distance (never take the car on short journeys) .All but one of my children is vegetarian. Meat eaters( beef farming) are not helping the planet either.

I agree with the op. We should be applauding those who have no children. Large families are a selfish choice and put a huge demand on the NHS and schools IMO.

Except that nobody is doing that, idiuntno. We are having a discussion. If the terms of the discussion don't apply to you then it isn't necessary for you to get defensive about it.

I agree with you! I haven't read every post, but I was at the orthodontist with my children the other day and there was a woman there with four children. It's a status thing in Ireland now. It's gone from poor catholic families having loads of children to the wealthy types parading their boden-clad, asparagus-snacking, gaelscoileanna, orthodontist-attending children in front of the rest of us who can't afford two!

Children put pressure on schools, who'da thunk it

Formerbabe, And what would happen if we all chose to have no children? Even if we all had one, that's not enough to economically sustain the uk ageing population.
And my children place no burden on schools.

Well I've heard it all now!
One minute it's abuse as you might ask the older one to keep an eye on the little one whilst you nip to the loo and the next it's done as a status symbol.

Stearilys - so you think that woman had four children so she could rub you nose in it?! FGS

Formerbabe, And what would happen if we all chose to have no children? Even if we all had one, that's not enough to economically sustain the uk ageing population.

People are living longer and are generally much fitter when older than previous generations...I think the age of retirement should rise to counteract this rather than more and more children being born.

And my children place no burden on schools

But they will all need homes when they are adults..they will use the roads, the NHS etc. More people use more resources...and the world is over populated.

Nobody is an island! Everyone who exists in the UK uses communal resources, from infrastructure to roads to the justice system to healthcare to schools (even if you homeschool, the people around you sustaining your life will not have been), to absolutely everything. You can do your bit, but you can't pretend your presence has no impact at all.

archery so the best form of defense is attack??

I didn't pile in here for a bunfight. However if you read the tone of a lot of the posts it is along the lines of 'aren't I wonderful for having few'.

In my case (once again trying not to argue from specific to the general but failing slightly) that is the way we happened. We are not well off. We are not totally poor. We just are.

AIBU is full of people saying their piece and moving on. The discussion I have with this thread is mostly in my head because I read all of it and it made me very cross.

We seriously considered having no children for environmental reasons. It's the biggest impact you can make on the planet as an individual. I think stopping eating meat/dairy is the next. Ultimately our selfishness and drive to have children won out but we will be having a smaller family than I'd ideally like and the primary factor is this.

Maybe you only notice larger families because you're choosing to notice them. It's like buying a car and only after buying it, you see them everywhere

I don't think there is a massive problem with overpopulation. As a PP pointed out, the earths population could live in texas in high density housing. The word selfish was also used by a PP in the context of, there is actually enough in the way of resources for everyone on the planet, but the selfish governments/business people/other people in charge of resources are preventing it from being distributed properly. Feel free to correct me if my understanding of your thoughts are wrong PP.

When I look at the generations in my family, families have generally gotten smaller, thank goodness as my GP had 13 DC! eek. Only one of Aunts had a large family (7) and the rest have had between 1 and 3 DC each.

I also understand where people with small families are coming from when DPs start dying, and if their siblings are also deceased. I've always said to DH that I wanted to have 3, in case we lost one, there would still be 2 to support each other. Well, now I've lost one, I've realised I could lose all of them.

OP, I don't really understand why you're amazed at it. Some have 1, some 2, some none, and some 4 or more. It does all balance out in the end.

All this aside, I'm pregnant with my 2nd and I can't contemplate how you can give equal and enough attention to 3 or more children. I think THAT'S more selfish than the above.

workadurka exactly. We all have to balance what we want with what we think is reasonable and responsible. I think taking the time to consider what this is and actively think and discuss this is a good thing, whatever choice you end up making.

I chose to have one child, though I'd have loved more. I have a friend who actively chose to have none, though he'd have made somebody a truly great dad. Other people make a different choice, and that's up to them. But thinking about it carefully is a good thing, and that's what this thread is about.

gosh thisis that is pretty offensive. Just because you can't 'imagine' it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

That's what you're noticing maybe, OP but what I'm noticing is people being childless by choice or circumstances, lots of only children, and many many many people sticking with 2.

Today 21:01 thisismypassword

All this aside, I'm pregnant with my 2nd and I can't contemplate how you can give equal and enough attention to 3 or more children. I think THAT'S more selfish than the above.

Well some parent's aren't as able.