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.

You are right, worka, there are a lot of very defensive people on this thread.

Newsflash: "judgemental" isn't an insult. It is good to exercise judgement, and to think about the consequences of your actions. We will all make different decisions, and we will all make compromises and mistakes. And just because we can't be "perfect" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be "good", or at least "better".

If by PA you mean preposterously amazing you are correct.

But this is nonsense. For a start, there is no exponential growth. In fact, population growth is slowing. For more than three decades now, the average number of babies being born to women in most of the world has been in decline. Globally, women today have half as many babies as their mothers did, mostly out of choice. They are doing it for their own good, the good of their families, and, if it helps the planet too, then so much the better.

" In fact, rising consumption today far outstrips the rising headcount as a threat to the planet. And most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population, while most of the remaining population growth is in countries with a very small impact on the planet. By almost any measure you choose, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

Let’s look at carbon dioxide emissions: the biggest current concern because of climate change. The world’s richest half billion people—that’s about 7 per cent of the global population—are responsible for half of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, the poorest 50 per cent of the population are responsible for just 7 per cent of emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2bn or so people expected on this planet in the coming 30 or 40 years will be in this poor half of the world. Stopping that, even if it were possible, would have only a minimal effect on global emissions, or other global threats.

Ah, you say, but what about future generations? All those big families in Africa will have yet bigger families. Well, that’s an issue of course. But let’s be clear about the scale of the difference involved. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians or 250 Ethiopians. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and, in the unlikely event that those ten children all live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or me. It is over-consumption, not over-population that matters. "

worka

arf

but no. of course not. I meant passive-agressive. you did forget to headtilt though

I think not zing we are breeding machines remember, we can barley speak our first languages.

well English is my second and I iz doin alreit wiv dat

it's so bloody cold still. i wish global warming hurried up a bit

That's very interesting, SpinDoctor, but since most people posting on a UK internet forum will be on the industrialised side of that equation, keeping an eye on how many industrialised consumers we do in fact have is also necessary.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread claiming to be an Ethiopian cattle-herder.

True, Annie, no-one on this thread is an Ethiopian cattle-herder, but a hell of a lot of posts come across as "well, I only had two children, when really I wanted three, so that's my part done".

A bit less of a self-satisfied focus on number of children, and a bit more of an introspective look at our personal lifestyle choices would be good. Possibly not so personally satisfying, but...

I haven't read all the thread but....

People talking about having 2DC to 'replace' the parents. I'm so confused by this argument. If you live to your 90s and had kids in your 30s you've spent 2/3 of your life coexisting on the planet with your kids. How does this qualify as 'replacing' population rather than adding to it?

Haven't read all the thread either (just two pages)

I would have loved more than 2 DCs. But I stopped at 2 for a (possibly) strange reason.
I've always worried that if I had more than 2 DCs, if my DH and I were killed or really unwell then someone would have to take my DCs on. I couldn't imagine any of my siblings or DPs having to suddenly bring up 3-5 of my children and also be able to have a great family life of their own. It was one of the reasons I stuck at 2.

Quite a depressing reason really, but I don't think enough people think about what would happen to their DCs if the future wasn't rosy. My friend has 4 DCs, elderly parents, a sister who is 'juvenile' (although she is 40 years old) and therefore there is no-one really to step in if the worst happened. She said she often wakes in a cold sweat about that one because she imagines her DCs would have to be split up.

I'm planning on three more children.

trust me, if you had my genes you too would realise what a travesty for the planet it would be not to pass them on en masse to future generations.

Cool, Lemonade.

How do you feel about supporting the meat-free Monday campaign, as livestock production contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions?

does it have to be Monday? thats steak and blow job day around here.

I could possibly stretch to a sausage free Saturday if that helps?

lemonyone, we have no family at all. No living siblings or parents. Should we just not have had any then? Do you not think that your adequate life assurance would allow your family members to upgrade their house etc to enable them to look after your children? When financial worries are removed then many more things seem possible.
I think regularly about what would happen to my 4 if both DH and I died. My eldest is almost 12. My youngest is 3. Im almost 50. Its a regular worry but one I'd have even if I'd stopped at 2.

pomeral

Lots of people in my family die around 70. Having DCs around 35 does replace us if each generation continues the same.

Myred - I'm not saying this is a decision that anyone else should take - it was a very personal concern. I had a really disrupted childhood and it affected how I shaped my own family.

TBH - I've also had discussions with very close friends about what might happen if the worst did happen. My best friend (who is childless) said she would be happy to take on my 2, but no more than that if we did die if my siblings were unable/unwilling. I sound paranoid about this, don't I? But because of my own circumstances I need to be.

You are right about insurance - we are insured to the hilt because of my concerns. But it's not about money necessarily. My Dsis has 3 kids, so suddenly having a house big enough for 7 would be a big leap, even with insurance, especially where they live. Of course it could be done, but with difficulty in a practical way.

I'm definitely not saying that this should even be a thought for other people, and they shouldn't' have the number of children they would want - I'm just saying it was an enormous fact for me.

I don't have children (for a variety of reasons) but find it comforting and reassuring that so many people have large families. The fact that so many -awesome MNts have large families is a bonus. Yes, the world faces challenges with regard to resources but we are an ingenious species and (I hope) we will find a way to make it work.

Lemonade30 you see, I have no talents or attributes worth passing onto anyone. Best let them be removed quietly from the gene pool.

SpinDoctor the OP didn't, that's for sure, though. Neither did I. I'm sure I make plenty of mistakes and too many compromises on too many things, but I am trying to improve all the time.

No I understand you're not saying everyone should do that. I'm just saying that as we have no family then I also think about this all the time. And having no family means the choice was kids if none.
If you had no family, would you have gone ahead and still had 2 or not had any? I ask through curiosity rather than a criticism. Our large 5 bed house would be paid for and we'd leave 800k of life assurance. I just hope we can hang on until ds1 (12) gets to 18.

Myred - It sounds like you have a good nest financially just in case in case the worst happens. That is so sensible. I think I get a little more bemused by people who just wing it, perhaps because i'm a planner.

Yes, I'd have gone ahead an done it anyway. It's a discussion I've had with each of my kids "godparents" and siblings. We've all agreed and keep revising this agreement, to make sure that our DCs are looked after if anything happened. As said, my best friend doesn't have children but adores my two (but is always glad to leave after a week!) so if my siblings couldn't look after them for whatever reason (for example, my Dsis DH is a bit of a funny fish and I wonder about whether he would truly have my two with open arms) then she said she would be fully committed to having them. I just felt that having 3-4 would be pushing it for asking someone else to take them on.
I'm from a large blended family, so know that blending isn't great at times and I'm fairly sure that one of the factors in my unhappy childhood was the strain on my two step-parents on suddenly having 4 kids drop-kick into their lives. (again, just my story, so I'm not saying any of this is universal).

It is actually quite funny thinking people have convinced themselves that they're having a small family because they care for the ENVIRONMENT!

I personally think the real reason is you personally couldn't cope with what it takes to raise a large family properly OP.

I have 4 and I am a lentil munching, Eco warrior superwoman

That's a bit mean. The OP said earlier in the thread that she's medically unable to have another child.