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.

OP I think you're thinking is misplaced. I think couples need to think about the resources required for a child and assess if they have enough to raise that child. I have 2DC and will add more. If we do have more I will stay home. We have a big enough home, money and time to raise 4 children.

As to disposable diapers, I think washable a are just as bad for the environment. We have a water efficient washing machine and we would still go through about 80 gallons of water a week plus use chemicals that are not good for the environment. I buy pampers swaddlers as we use 3 a day where as others end up with 5-7 per day. Sounds gross but if it's a pee diaper I sometimes use the absorbent balls in the lining in the plants. If you mix it in with the soil it helps with keeping it damp. The urine is good for the plants too. In England my dad has an incinerator and all diapers are put in there and the cold ashes put in the composte.

I'm sat here open mouthed at some of the ignorant, ill informed, uneducated, hubristic and solipsistic comments on this thread. How some of you can be so lacking in knowledge or awareness as something as important as the future of the ball of rock that we live on truly beggars belief.

One of the few sensible comments was from claraschu.

However, The general theme running through the thread is....

"because I wanted to"

Translates into 'because two is exactly the amount of fucks I could give about the planet'.

The more couples decide to have just one or two children, the more they can relieve pressures on rapidly deteriorating ecosystems and alleviate demand for dwindling energy and food resources. Do the ignorant posters that don't seem to be able to stop breeding not realise that their children will probably go on to create more children, and so on? Eventually, some of the members of future children's, children's, children, etc. will be affected by the very overpopulation that you have been responsible for.

This is from the government's Sustainable Development Commission's website, it makes for very worrying reading.

"The UK population alone is expected to increase from 61 million to 77 million by 2051 but the OPT believes the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million".

Yet I know some of you will just shrug your shoulders and say 'who gives a shit'.

Change can be effected by a lot of people doing small things. I don't buy the argument that it's only worth bothering if you can be perfect, do something 100%. So I might be veggie, but I would admire the effort of someone who decided to cut meat out of one or two meals a week.
I just can't understand the attitude of 'i can't solve the problem, so bugger it, I'll do what I like'.
Not bitching, having a discussion on a topic of interest, about which we are all entitled to have a view, and no one is compelled to take part. If having to think about this offends you, pick another thread, there's plenty to choose from!

"that don't seem to be able to stop breeding"

oh please.

as soon as the 'breeding' word comes into any argument I just can't take it at all seriously.

It's so self-righteous and offensive.

Well then replace breeding with reproducing and reread the comment. The facts are still the same.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/family-size/2012/family-size-rpt.html

According to the office of national stats average birth rate amongst married couples is 1.8 and only 1.7 amongst unmarried couples. Only 1 in 7 families have 3 or more children.
Contrary to a comment made up above it isn't the poorest and least equipped that have large families as 9 in 10 of the families with 3 or more children are working families. Obviously some of those families could be reliant on supplementary benefits but it is still quite a different picture than what the media often portrays of large families being lazy and reliant on out of work benefits.

Do the 'anti-breeders' feel the same about their nephews and nieces? Do you berate your close family for the choices they have made and have a go at them over the Christmas lunch about how they are ruining the planet? Or is it OK for them? Maybe they have 'just one or two' and that's ok because 3 or more is bad?

Totally agree, OP. YANBU although nearly everyone would disagree with us and say that family size is private choice.

In the past people had large families because there was no reliable contraception or safe abortion. There was no choice in the matter. Now we have freedom to plan our family size and yet still so many people are irresponsible or selfish and choose to have children they can't afford or parent adequately. I find it bizarre too. Our great-grandmothers would have loved to have had the choices we have and yet some people still make choices like it's still 1815, not 2015.

My great-grandmother was in an arranged marriage by the time she was 18 and had 8 children in quick succession by the time she was 35. I have no idea what her choice would have been if she could have chosen but I associate that level of child-bearing with a backward, ignorant time when women were worth nothing except as producers of heirs to land. The idea that a woman would freely choose to have 8 children - or more! - in this day and age is baffling to me. There is no way you can adequately parent 8 children, not to the modern standards we expect anyway. In the past infant mortality was higher and children left home younger.

In my experience, coming from a country where people tend to have larger families, the older siblings in large families tend to be forced into parenting role for the younger children, either through financially supporting the younger ones or actually co-parenting with their mother. From anything I've seen of the Duggars and similar fundamentalist Christian families, this is exactly what happens in their mega-sized families. I really think that model of child-rearing is a form of abuse for older siblings, especially the girls.

Phew! I have strong opinions on this issue, shaped by having grown up in a country with poor access to contraception / abortion and seeing the hard lives some women led as a result.

For all those who think family size is a private choice, you should be thankful to the Chinese government. If they hadn't taken steps to limit their population growth through the 1 child policy, the world would be much more overpopulated than it is.

If anyone is interested in the topic, a good book to read is Countdown by Alan Weisman, really fascinating study of population growth / management around the globe.

There would be a bit of a difference to the world population if everyone had only one child

It would which is why if you are serious about population issues you would be campaigning as a previous poster has said for increased birth control accessibility in developing countries, improving child health so that people don't feel obliged to have large families in order to have enough children left alive to support them in their old age etc

Its obviously selfish to have more than 2 ummm, no it's selfish to have any children. How can you justify on any level an extra child in the world especially in a first world country like us with a high carbon footprint?

How can you justify it?

Even one?

But I could start a thread saying it's really selfish to have any unless you can bring them up entirely without state support inc child benefit because the county needs to save that money.
But I don't because life isn't as simple as one person's choices catastrophically affecting the country.

And I have 2 children by the way, no intention to have more. My grandparents had 8 and 6 each, my parents had 4 and I have had 2. My 3 siblings have no children. I wouldn't berate someone I met with 4+ children but I'd be happy to have a frank conversation with them and interested to hear their views.

Two is replacement level, MrsDevere, one for each parent. And it's not just the number I wanted. I'd actually like 3 but for various reasons including sustainability we're stopping at 3.

"Its like the ones banging on about The Planet have set their arbitrary limit to suit themselves. Lets not say one because it would be nice if we could have two so lets say that. Yeah, lets say 'omg you are so selfish if you have more than two children"

this ^^

why not one, or better still none?

It really does smack of one rule for them and another for everyone else. 1 + 1 = twice as much pressure on the planet's resources.

I'm not in a position to campaign kewcumber (that comment was mine) - I have 3 children.

But I agree with the OP. I've had three children and think I've been selfish, and thinking of myself rather than the good of the planet.

stopping at TWO that should read Gah!

mrsd I totally agree.

Also having been to China and spoken to quite a few people while there many had siblings. It's a one child policy if your poor and have as many children as you want if you have money. It's all social engineering IMO.

Yet I know some of you will just shrug your shoulders and say 'who gives a shit'.

I do give a shit, I just don;t understand how the OP can have decided that her one is OK but that someone elses two (or three or four) is not. If you are part of the problem then you need to take take ownership of it and accept that you are part of the problem not pointing at everyone elses transgressions over your own self appointed limit.

I have personally decided that the limit over which you should not have children is zero - all you lot (yes that includes you OP) get yourself down to your local adoption team in the morning or better still China and adopt yourself a child from an over populated country.

For those who say 'if you were serious about this you would be campaigning for xxx', how do you know that we aren't doing that too?

LOVING all these people with 2 children chipping in with their 'over-population is so awful' arguments.

SO: significant other - for when they're too old to be a "boy"friend, not a dear partner, or a dear husband. just your OH. Other Half.

Two is replacement level

No it isn't, we have net immigration and the country will survive just fine on half the population we have now so just increase the immigration figures when the population drops to 30m and the job is done - no need for extra children littering the country up.

There's nothing special or unique about people currently residing in Britain that their children are more necessary to the world...