Large Families

[Czerny88]

I'm trying to understand the psychology behind people having large families (by which I mean anything over three children, I guess). NB I'm thinking about people in the 21st century, in the West, with access to contraception and low infant mortality, who don't belong to a culture where it is particularly encouraged to have a large number of children, such as Judaism. And obviously there are circumstances such as multiple births which don't apply.

My visceral feeling is that it is often wrong on many levels. In attempting to enunciate why, I would say people should not have more children than they can afford, than they have time to care for, than can fit comfortably in their living accommodation.

And even in the case where the parents are very wealthy, have a huge house and extra support such as a nanny, there is still the hugely important issue of over-population. It feels like we are at capacity already, without room to increase the population by the amount would result by every couple having even three children.

I'm trying not to be too goady or right-wing, and I have personal reasons for the way I feel (I am involuntarily childless) so please don't be too harsh, but it's something I struggle with ideologically as well as emotionally.

So... AIBU to think that people should be more responsible about how many children they produce and not act solely on their own desires regardless of the potential effects on others? Or is that an unrealistic, draconian expectation?

The talk of 'consuming resources' is incredibly offensive.

FFS, everybody "consumes" [eats / drinks / ingests (food or drink) / buys (services)] "resources" [a stock or supply of money, materials... and other assets]. Even sadhus consume cannabis!

so no need for the fascist threat of forced contraception and the rest

Who said anything about forced contraception?

I have 4 children. I found that it isn't just about the one on one time but more about family time. We are a tight little unit who all care about each other.

Each child has their own relationship with each other and with us. Of course they don't get on all the time but if I step back from it all you could say they're learning conflict management in a safe environment.

I couldn't imagine just having one child or even two. I don't judge anyone for doing that. Everyone's different. Having 2 children was tricky. Having 4 is beautiful and I feel very lucky. No smugness intended just completely happy with my choices.

As for population issues, I think we're actually facing an ageing population issue. We don't do long haul flights. We pay plenty of taxes. Genuinely sorry for your fertility issues.

And your reasoning makes no sense. By your logic we should never post on here anything we would not say to the subjects of our threads. Really? Mumsnet would grind to a halt.

Yes Gwen, they are wrong, and I am right. It really is as simple as that.

The talk of 'consuming resources' is incredibly offensive.

Please have a word with every respected scientific publication and scientist on the planet now, as well as all the major news outlets as soon as possible. They are using this offensive terminology rather extravagantly.

Yes Gwen, they are wrong, and I am right. It really is as simple as that.

I think this should be added to "Because Maui" and "Did you cancel the cheque?"

Not being in favour of large families in general isn't IMO the same as saying that someone's children shouldn't have been born.

This.

Hmm. Really not convinced that it's all fine and dandy for us westerners to keep having child after child to keep the economy going. Like some crazy pyramid scheme. There are too many people on the planet. If you have more than two some people will think you are selfish. They just will.

And this.

Figures are from here : www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/ so are true. May be partly immigration but can't all be as the worldwide population is growing.

And fluffy, no need for that unfounded name calling. I stated a fact about population and my opinion with what the likely outcome will be.

And all of ^^ that is offensive and also wrong.

I could post many well thought out and well argued links illustrating why some (because not every environmentalist is a eugenicist or a utilitarian) environmentalists are wrong and I am right, but what hope would I have of penetrating the visceral, knee-jerk, shallow and really poorly examined personal prejudice (because that is what this is, OP) that is so evident here?

The ultimate end of the utilitarianism that is being peddled here wrt child bearing choice is that we would all have to justify our existence. What utility is there is old people, and how do we justify their continued presence given that they are net users of resources? What utility is there in the chronically ill?

When you pose a very simplistic equation of more people = less resources for you then you have to ask yourself what justifies your own presence here. What is your net contribution? What makes you more worthy of resources than someone else's seventh child?

And if there is a case for dwindling resources what give someone the right to consume more than their fair share?

This is kind of a moot point as people will have as many children as they want, i may think that's selfish (honestly not sure as there are so many reasons) and the people who want more than 2 will think I'm a twat for being judgemental about their choices.

Math, I prioritise real living people over potential people. That's my answer to your rambling, nonsensical post.

What real, living people do you prioritise?

You realise that you yourself are part of the problem posed by western consumption?

No matter what you do to minimise your carbon footprint or any other impact of your presence here, you are a major part of the problem when it comes to consumption of resources of every kind, and that as you get older you will become even more of a problem.

Shouldn't your parents have been more considerate?

mathanxiety you're making the same point. We are all having an impact so the argument is that if we are nearing capacity shouldn't we do something going forward?

Shouldn't your parents have been more considerate?

My parents very sensibly had only 2 children, even in the 1970s before this became a major issue.

In any case, no one should be held to account for their parent's choices. I am responsible only for my own.

I think your latest post reveals the depths of your cognitive dissonance - you've produced FIVE westerners. Why not go have a rest and think it over.

I suggest we accept that Math is a bit of a loon and move on with things. It's an unnecessary distraction.

Not at all. She and I come to the same conclusion but by a different way.
My argument is:-

1. Humans are not on the planet long anyway so does it really matter if we pollute it a bit faster than otherwise.
2. Is it a problem if our planet had no humans on it and just gases or just insects?
3. Those of us who earn more and support our children are in economic terms the ones who should be patted on the back for having children as our children pay a lot of tax and tend not to break the law. That is not the case for all groups in society.
4. Life is not just about having a set number of children only. Love, sibling relationship and much else is hugely enhanced in bigger families.
5. The world is very lucky I had 5 children.

What's your take on mass immigration in the UK (as mentioned by another poster upthread), OP?

I am still not up to replacement level, even with my five westerners.

And yes, the world is very lucky I have my five and Dogcatred's too.

Maybe the world is even lucky to have you living and breathing and consuming resources, MuseumofCurry - can you hand on heart say that your presence here does not badly affect every single other living thing on the planet?

Btw, the OP is not talking about potential children.
This discussion was allegedly engendered by:

• real life observations on the part of the OP that large families exist;
• a visceral feeling (aka a knee jerk reaction or personal prejudice) that this visible phenomenon must be wrong, that is expressed in the language of 'responsibility', concern that parental attention is stretched too thinly, and also dressed up as
• concern for the planet.

What's your take on mass immigration in the UK (as mentioned by another poster upthread), OP?

I think the various issues related to overcrowding etc. are concerning, but there are two important differences here:

1. These people already exist - they are not additional people on the planet (despite what some posters seem to think, I'm not advocating mass infanticide of fourth / fifth / sixth offspring).
2. In some cases people who have migrated or who wish to migrate here have come from horrendous situations. The issue requires careful management, but what gives us in the safe, relatively affluent, UK the moral right to refuse people refuge from, for example, war-torn Syria? Additionally the current state of affairs in Calais is horrific and no-one should have to live like that, even temporarily.

This is obviously over-simplifying, but imo people such as refugees should have "priority" over as-yet unborn children. The world is never going to be "fair", but the balance is going to be further skewed if people in the West add to the population exponentially by having large numbers of children.

So perhaps my wording could have been better, but I still think that too many new humans can be detrimental both for the humans in question in some situations, and, potentially, for previously existing and other, future, humans.

I am not suggesting for a minute that everyone who has a large family neglects their children, and I don't really think my OP reads like that unless you chose to misinterpret it. I'm afraid I also don't buy into the assertion that you should never express a view that is in any way contentious. Posting something on MN is not the same as saying it to someone in the street, and I don't really believe anyone thinks it is.

"I am still not up to replacement level, even with my five westerners."

What?

Maybe the world is even lucky to have you living and breathing and consuming resources, MuseumofCurry - can you hand on heart say that your presence here does not badly affect every single other living thing on the planet?

The average human inflicts more misery than goodness upon the planet or we'd not be in our current predicament. Unlike you, I'd never consider my HRT status or my children's intelligence to supersede this reality.

Do I think anyone is lucky to have me here, apart from my children or my husband or my sister or parents or friends? No, I don't. Do I think that this means that I should kill myself so that you or someone else can have a 4th or 7th or 8th kid? No, I do not.

A handful of humans will make giant strides in saving the planet, like this year's battery technology that promises to harness solar power at a cost lower that we could have previously hoped. For every one of these guys, there are a zillion high-consumption duds.

Maybe the world is even lucky to have you living and breathing and consuming resources, MuseumofCurry - can you hand on heart say that your presence here does not badly affect every single other living thing on the planet?

Seriously?

Btw, the OP is not talking about potential children.

Oh, isn't she? Because it's far more likely that I think we should have a cull of existing children than that I'm suggesting there are environmental and domestic issues that need to be considered before having sprog number 7 no matter how broody you feel.

What is so outrageous about asking someone to justify her own presence on the planet, or indeed asking you to justify yours, when you have told parents here that any more than your arbitrary number of children is irresponsible on many different levels.

Please justify to everyone here what makes you worthy of the resources that you consume.

Tell us you live in a cave on a mountainside, weave wool for clothing from your own sheep, heat your cave in winter with driftwood or logs you cut by hand from fallen trees, and grow your own vegetarian diet using only manure from your own chamber pot and your sheep for fertiliser. You have no car or phone or electricity or hot water. Right?

A handful of humans will make giant strides in saving the planet, like this year's battery technology that promises to harness solar power at a cost lower that we could have previously hoped. For every one of these guys, there are a zillion high-consumption duds.

Duds, eh?
Charming.

Westerners do use a lot of shit though. A family of ten living in a tribe somewhere who never go anywhere, harvest all their own food etc are a lot lighter on the planet than, say, Suri Cruise.

The earth will even itself out one way or another. Either the birth rate will continue to drop naturally or something, or else we'll have a nice plague eventually.