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.

Having children isn't the problem, it's all those selfish sods refusing to die off at a reasonable age that's causing the problems with over population. So there.

The only people I know having 4+ kids are unemployed or a low paid workers on tax credits

To balance that, the only people I know with four kids are my boss (V wealthy, married to a women who earns in excess of 100k pa), who has five,

His next door neighbour, who has 4

And the Beckhams.

Hmmm....where do I fit in this? I have 4 children with my ExH. Prior to my separation and subsequent divorce we didn't claim benefits other than child benefit as he was earning very good money. Following our split I am claiming benefits. I don't work as my DS4 has many medical problems - long term, potentially life limiting. I feel frequently that j need to justify why I have 4 children and am on benefits which pisses me off greatly.

Re population - I was under the impression that our population was an ageing one. As more people live to a greater age then surely more people are necessary to pay taxes etc to pay for health and social care etc? Or have I got confused? this is entirely possible

If you have to claim more from the government than you earn to feed your family, you are irresponsible

Absolutely.

You're also, in my experience, irresponsible if you have a large family and:

• bang on about how much it's costing you
• have a large family of kids who never get to go on trips, have their own rooms, have new clothes or go on to FE because YOU "can't afford it."
• moan about the noise/mess/chaos/fights
• moan about how overworked and exhausted you are ALL the time
• sneer enviously at people who choose private education or foreign holidays because they prioritised quality of life over reproductive 'rights'

I may be biased, coming at this from the perspective of a child of a large family. My parents were comparatively wealthy and we still felt short-changed .

And yes to the pp who said expecting older children to care for the younger ones is tantamount to child abuse. If you can't afford the help, don't have too many. None of your kids will thank you when they grow up.

theendoftheendoftheend - euthanasia at 70 it is then...

I find when you struggle to find the answer for something that doesn't really concern you, minding your own business can be really beneficial

I don't see the OP as an attack - I only have one child. I just think the logic is flawed in their favour and some of the subsequent comments have been ridiculous.

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

What the actual fuck!!!!!!

As the parent of an adopted child I can hand on heart promise you that helping to care for your younger siblings is not in the absence of any other factors even at the foothills of child abuse.

I wish I lived in your world where it was.

kew 70 may be a little optimistic, I think once you retire the only selfless, planet minded thing to do is to quite literally go out with a bang! I might start a petition...

Tbh my teen helps very little as she is not very interested in small children. She has the odd 5 mintues, maybe twice a week were she gives them a look in or more if there is a cute selfie to be had!

My 10 year old just loves the toddler and soends a fair bit of time with him including often giving him breakfast, hardly akin to child labour.

Kew, not sure what adoption has to do with my comment?

I said expected to care for younger ones.

In my world, robbing children of their childhood by foisting a role of childcare on them when it's YOUR choice to have those children is an abuse.

They shouldn't be picking up the slack for parents who thought they wanted large family but are overwhelmed by the practicalities of caring for all those little lives they created.

i certainly didn't live in a world where it was a privilege to care for siblings and nor did my older sister.

I find when you struggle to find the answer for something that doesn't really concern you, minding your own business can be really beneficial

Minding your own business or sticking your head in the sand? Imagine if every time there was a problem people used that attitude! The human race wouldn't have even got going!

Logan's Run needs to become the reality - it is the only answer...

Could we make that 71 Kewcumber my Aunty is planning her 70th Birthday party...it would be a shame if she missed it!

Where are all these feckless 12 child victorian style families? ... I rarely see snot nosed children care worn and run ragged by their innumerable younger siblings, too tired out to do their homework after doing the shopping and cooking the evening meal. I do see plenty of well nourished, children driven to every after school activity available.

There are children with caring responsibilities of course but it is hardly the norm. 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.

I think the OP's question is a fair question to ask, and I don't think she deserves any of the shit she's been given. People don't have to answer if they don't want to.

On the global environmental level, it isn't just the number of children, it's the resources each of those children consume. So, if I have five children in the industrialised UK and my third cousin twice removed had ten children living in a very poor, very rural village in India, then the chances are that my hypothetical five would still consume way more resources during their lifetimes than her ten. It will help everyone if the people who consume most don't multiply that more than they have to.

If people want big families, I totally understand that - I came from a big family, and I'd have really loved a big family myself, though I stopped at one. I'd also love to fly out to see my relatives twice a year, but I don't, because air travel is one of the worst things you can do from an environmental point of view. In all parts of my life I try to balance "what I want" with "what will not shit the world up before my DS has a decent chance to live in it". It seems a pretty reasonable thing to do.

On the personal level, I do know people with very big families where it really works, and where everyone gets the love and attention they need. Reading silverbangles posts made me immediately think, though, of one very, very big family who live nearby, where the parents LOVE tiny babies, but seem to lose interest as they grow older, and so the older ones raise the younger ones. I do think these parents are irresponsible, and I wish they'd stop and give their existing children a bit of attention before bringing the next one into the world.

I don't think the OP is BU but having children is such a small part of the picture. I have no DC because I have a genetic condition which I did not want to pass on. I should be in the "Eco responsible" category but then I also have a thirsty sports car and 2 houses, partly because of not having the financial burden of kids. If everyone did the same as me, the planet would be even more fucked, more quickly.

We are fortunate to live in a place and time in history when we have the choice to reproduce. Each to her own conscience, I reckon.

It will help everyone if the people who consume most don't multiply that more than they have to.

None of us in the developed world (the biggest consumers) have to multiply so based on your logic we should all be childless.

70 sounds grand. Only 33 years to go... Im tired. that will be all the breeding

*Kew, not sure what adoption has to do with my comment?

I said expected to care for younger ones.*

Because as an adoptive parent I have up close and personal experience of child abuse and even being expected to care for younger siblings ain't it. It shows a singular lack of understanding of what child abuse is. And being expected to have a degree of caring for your sibling isn;t limted to large families.

But as I say - I do envy that you think it qualifies.

Because me and DH make fabulous, intelligent children that the world needs, since you asked so nicely.

Thanks, kewcumber. DD6 read DS4 a bedtime story last night. It looked to me as if they both enjoyed the experience, but perhaps a passing neighbour will be calling Childline....

kew you have no reason to envy me.

One of the many reasons I worry about large families is that I know only too well that it makes it harder for the parents to take care of every single child to the same degree as those not spread so thinly.

I'm going off topic and I don't want to discuss this in any further detail but as I said, no entvy necessary.