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.

Well it wasn't my opinion. I know the video was meant to scare us. But I think the stats are right.
Someone posted it on Face book but as I said I haven't got a clue how to put it on Mumsnet.
I suppose you could google it. With a heading such as statics about population growth in Europe amongst the indigenous population versus the Muslim Population.
I suppose they get the Stats from forms filled in at the maternity Hospital.

The problem is neither space or resources simply the selfishness of the developed world. I have 7 dc

I have five.

You need to understand it? well there isn't much to understand.

Two of mine were conceived on bc, but it boils down to the fact that I had five because I wanted them.

Did I think of the impact on the environment when I was thinking through my options with my children conceived on bc? it didn't cross my mind.

I think your point is a valid one to be honest. I think you may have got some different responses if you worded your op better and didn't demand that you needed to understand.

Frances indigenous population growth, was according to the scary video was very low.

Well I have 4 close friends. Between us we have 4 dc between us. (I have have 3 but only planned two) So you could say in order to have enough population to support us when we are elderly than some people need to have 4 or more.
plus some people could say you are selfish op for only having one dc. When my parents died I had siblings to share the sorrow and the good times. Conversly my nephew who is an only child lost his mum (my sister) in his early 20's. He only his his dad and aunties and uncles now.
maybe I am biased though as I come from a large family.

birth rates ARE high particularly in third world countries least able to cope with population explosions. india is a typical example.
birth rates are falling in developed countries such as germany and japan, which brings a whole other set of problems for the future.

the overall global population is rising at an exponential rate and the planet will not be able to sustain this growth in the future.
this is a fact and it is not up for debate.
it is acknowledged by every credible demographer, geographer, researcher and statistician.

Purple

That is so nasty!

Read my posts. I medically can't have another.

Vile thing to say. I have enough only child guilt and arsehole comments do deal with already thanks.

That's what I mean champion

Apologies didn't realise that. Obviously doesn't apply if it wasn't a choice. Indeed my sister wanted more but wasn't able to.

Me too. I wonder how long it will take the powers that be to decide to have a campaign in all countries to reduce the birth rate. Hopefully before it's not too late. Two children is quite enough for anybody.

Would a voluntary campaign work though? When you're up against the "because I want to" crowd

It will take a bit more than a 'hey people, have fewer babies' campaign to reduce the birth rate in countries like Mali and Uganda. The poorer the country obviously the higher the birth rate.

holeinmyheart - why is it "scary" that the birthrates of different population groups vary? That's just a factual statement, and it is what it is. The proportions of different colours/races/religions in the population changes over time and always has done; people adapt.

Having children is an inherently selfish act and as you can see from the other responses, most people don't think about global resources when they decide to try for a baby. If it helps I don't intend to have any children. That can give someone else free credit to have an extra one...

Thinking about it - the best thing you can do for the planet resources-wise isn't just not to have children, but also to kill yourself and stop using resources full stop. Any takers?

We have given the world 4 decent kind generous and lovely people.

My older 2 are paying tax and contributing to society and volunteer at homesless shelters my younger teens will be just as productive.

Who do you suppose is going to work to pay for our growing aging population? If we all just had 1 child the economy would collapse and so would the NHS.

I refuse to apologise or explain having 4 children any more than you should having 1.

having children is an inherently selfish act

How so?

The world's over-population and excess resource demand problem isn't caused by developed world people having 4+ children.

It's caused by fragmented health and social care systems in the developing world, which mean that to ensure security in your old age that you NEED to have many children; plus social expectations that women and men should both have many children to prove their social status.

Make sure most children survive, and women will push to have few children.
Make sure that old people with no children will have a decent old age, they won't rely on their children to be their pension.

Improve the lot of the living and there will be fewer people in the future.

It really is none of your business how many children people choose to have. No one owes you an explanation.

Families are much smaller than they used to be. When I was growing up, in the 1980s, most people had at least two siblings, often three, and they weren't even considered 'large families'. I have two DC, as does every other family in my entire road. Most of DDs friends have only one sibling. In her school there is only one family with more than three children.

I don't really understand this horror at large families in the UK. There are so few of them in the grand scheme of things.

I have no children so one of you can have my and my husband's quota.

I'm fairly philosophical about the earth's future. She giveth and taketh away. If there are too many of us, more will starve, freeze, succumb to illness, murder each other for water, blow eachother up, whatever.

Do I care if this happens in my generation? Yes.
Do I care if it happens in our children's generation? Yes.
But at some point, with a future generation, I lose the capacity to give a shit. And not just physically.

I don't actually have very strong feelings about the ensured survival of the human race in the long term. I'm genuinely quite neutral about it. Ebb and flow, populations rise and populations fall, etc.

yes JackShit - i agree with you.

the facts are clear here:
this planet cannot support projected global population growth.

the overall population in Western Europe is generally in decline therefore within this region there is perhaps more leeway in terms of choosing to have more than the average number of children.

our greater responsibility lies in supporting and yes, funding, education and birth control initiatives in the developing world where birth rates are running at an unsustainable level.

I'm one of two. my SO is one of four. His mother is one of four, his dad is one of five, but my dad is one of four, my mum is one of two, grandma one of two, grandad is an only child (adopted)
but my great-grandparents were ones of maybe 14, 9, 10, 11.
I will have three. because I want them. Me and SO want a big family.

I do completely agree though - me wanting thre kids is selfish. this world is awful. it's overcrowded and can't sustain my children's children. It's the reason why china has the one-child law, which has changed, it goes like;

You may have one child, that child may have 2 children. they may have one each, then their children can have two each. Or something.

In the year 1800, there were 1 billion people on the planet. By 1987, there were 5 billion.
By the time I have children, say in the next 6 years, there will be 8 billion people on the planetish
so if you use the prediction that in 2083 there will be 10 billion people, what's gonna happen to the earth? I think people need to become more friendly to GM food - because that's the only way we're going to be able to feed 10 billion mouths.
People are actually having less children, so those having 5 or 6 is strange. I can't get my head 'round it. But I'm used to being around big families.
I'd love to see what the earth would look like with 10 billion people on it. I'd be nearing 100 then.

What does SO stand for?

I do think increasing population is a problem environmentally, but it's not the major one - that's increasing consumption of resources and energy and the two are only partially linked. The average family of 3 (2 adults, 1 child) from the UK will have a way larger carbon footprint/ use way more resources than a family of 6 (2 adults, 4 children) living in poverty in rural India.

In the UK birth rate has fallen but our consumption keeps shooting up.

significant other?