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?

its a well known fact that the single worse thing you can do from an environmental perspective is to have a child. Doesn't matter if it is your first or eighth....each child is a terrible environmental decision. The next worse thing you can do is keep a dog.....I suspect cats aren't great either.

There are certainly points of view that exist that would claim that the environment isn't the only thing one should consider when having children...but given said children will have to live with the consequences rather longer than the people who decided to make them will...it all just adds weight to the idea that having children is a fundamentally selfish thing to do (and one that I have also indulged in).

The best way to control family sizes in the future is subtle societal peer pressure....speaking of which doesn't it just feel all a bit last century /chavvy / otherwise unfashionable to have more than 2 kids these days?

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

Can I ask your child care arrangements for your 4 children whilst you work please? I cannot find a childminder to look after all my children. The childminders I have contacted only take children up to age 7

.

'Subtle societal peer pressure', aka offensive remarks, or were you thinking more along the lines of scornful looks?
I encountered all of that, saw it for what it was, and rejected it.

Those of you who advocate no more than two (or three, or whatever) children - you realise that you are not saying 'there are too many people in the world', but rather that there are 'too many other people in the world'.

Our task is to figure out how to redistribute the world's resources to ensure that everyone has enough to sustain a dignified life (this means having a real choice about family size, among other things), so that never again will families be coerced into limiting the number of children they bring into the world, as happened in China, and nobody will be faced with problems like finding after school care for children so that she will be able to continue to work.

Limiting population just allows the net users and the producers of excess to continue to exploit the earth and its people for limited benefit. We are pandering to the 1% when we call for population control.

[LogicallyLost]
Agree with OP, if we can't self moderate then there will come a time when people will have it forced on them
Unfortunately, people are already facing situations where they have no real choice, and they have been facing it for a long time. Those people are called women who want to advance in their careers.

Usually when people have such things forced on them by means of government policy, the people in question are the poor, or the powerless - often a lot of overlap.

Hey fluffy, I work from home so have a bit of flexibility to do drop offs and pick ups. 3 at primary and a part time nanny 3 days a week for the youngest during school hours.

If you find an after school nanny it might work out more cost effective than a childminder anyway. They don't charge per child and the kids get to stay in their own home.

mathanxiety yep, don't agree with most of what you saying apart from :

Usually when people have such things forced on them by means of government policy, the people in question are the poor, or the powerless - often a lot of overlap.

which is why i was hoping self moderation. you obviously don't think there is an issue and that this a dastardly plan of the 1%, and your user name is apt considering you think 5 isn't enough for replacement level (at the most basic it would be 1 for one so if every couple had 2 THAT would be direct replacement level).

its a well known fact that the single worse thing you can do from an environmental perspective is to have a child. Doesn't matter if it is your first or eighth....each child is a terrible environmental decision

Where do people get this shit? The single worse thing? Having a baby is environmentally worse than opening a factory in China pumping pollution into the air?
What planet are you on? Not this one anyway.

Who said anything about forced contraception? confused

Here:

Agree with OP, if we can't self moderate then there will come a time when people will have it forced on them. Population has exploded in the last 50 years, in the UK alone it's increased by 20%.

To be fair the OP didn't say that though, i did. I didn't say "forced contraception" as it may not be the only option but it obviously is one considering China. I'm not saying i necessarily condone it either before you leap on that.

I didn't say the OP did say it. Not every response is directed at the OP, its pretty clear who it is in response to.

Where do people get this shit? The single worse thing? Having a baby is environmentally worse than opening a factory in China pumping pollution into the air?

Is this how you think a person's footprint is calculated? The person opening the factory in China isn't accountable for the pollution, the CO2 is traced to the consumer. Eg the people who buy stuff. The regulators enforce environmental regulation, the people buy the stuff, they are merely the middle-man.

You really haven't a clue, do you?

No you're right fluffy. Lets ALL have lots and lots of children, 5 each minimum. Then they can all have 4-5 kids each. Who cares? People are great, the economy, staff for care homes etc etc. I am sure it will all turn out absolutely fine

I'm a naturally lazy person...having lots of kids just sounds like too much work!

KERALA1 Thu 15-Sep-16 11:52:42

"No you're right fluffy. Lets ALL have lots and lots of children, 5 each minimum. Then they can all have 4-5 kids each. Who cares? People are great, the economy, staff for care homes etc etc. I am sure it will all turn out absolutely fine"

As there are absolutely no restrictions on child-bearing in this country and even so the vast majority of people do not have large families, which rather suggests that the majority of people do not want to have large families- so what exactly are we worrying about here.

I have the two we felt were right for us, most of the people we know only have one or two, several are childless, a mere handful of local families have three- why on earth would it worry me that there might be a family at the other end of the community who have 5??? And why would that be worse than if two more of the one-child families had had one more child each and the five-child family had stopped at three?

Are we all going to catch multiple child-bearing against our wishes, like some kind of flu?

I think in the UK a least we have relatively few children on average - below the replacement rate in any case. There are many people that have no children ie. out of 8 of my close friends only 5 have children (we are early 40s now): 2 have 1, 2 have 2 and one has 3; the other 3 don't have children: 2 due to not finding the right relationship and 1 due to not wanting to.

So I think those that have 3 or more are balanced out by those having none or 1. There is a massive stigma to big families in this country and in reality very few people have them. I would love to have more and if our finances had been better we probably would have.

You really haven't a clue, do you?

I guess you're a bit embarassed about not understanding ecological footprints.

It's the same principle as activity based costing. When you build a factory, all the inputs of its construction are amortised over its output, along with the variable inputs of production.

These, along with the distribution/retail footprints comprise the total ecological footprint of a product which is of course borne by the final consumer.

So your point about factories being worse for the environment than babies is really silly - the factories are built for the babies.

"No you're right fluffy. Lets ALL have lots and lots of children, 5 each minimum. Then they can all have 4-5 kids each. Who cares? People are great, the economy, staff for care homes etc etc. I am sure it will all turn out absolutely fine

I think you have me confused with a fictional straw man someone else, since I didn't say anything remotely like that. In fact I repeatedly said that since so few people actually have large families, its not a big deal as the birth rate has been and still is going DOWN, not up.

Try again!!

I guess you're a bit embarrassed , Mackerel, by not understanding that the factories in China have come about despite (or possibly because of) their restrictions on family sizes.
You can throw in a few big (mispelled words) all you like, you've still missed the point big time.

China are exporters though. The restrictions on family size are pretty irrelevant when they're producing for overseas.

They really aren't. They don't export everything, and they are also importers. Stop focusing on the small picture.

I was told I would never conceive naturally. Then came the best surprise ever. And then another. And then another. I'm pregnant with number 4.
I understand your hurt but I would never have judged others for having a lovely big family because I was told it wouldn't happen to me. Not in my character.

China has a $52 billion trade surplus to August this year.

I guess you're a bit embarrassed , Mackerel, by not understanding that the factories in China have come about despite (or possibly because of) their restrictions on family sizes.
You can throw in a few big (mispelled words) all you like, you've still missed the point big time.

Factories exist to produce things for people. Where they are built is irrelevant. More people = more factories. Fewer people = fewer factories.

So the family restrictions are entirely insignificant when you're looking at an export market of that size.

Factories exist to produce things for people. Where they are built is irrelevant. More people = more factories. Fewer people = fewer factories.

Which is all well and good, provided that you have sufficient evidence that the birth rate is rising sufficiently in the UK to necessitate the building of extra factories in China.

Can you?