..to consider social impact of family size?

[nornironrock]

I'm wondering if anyone else ever gives consideration to the social impact of their family size? I'm thinking about allocation of public resources, consumption of limited resources (such as water), and in the longer term issues such as housing and healthcare provision.

I certainly believe everyone should be free to have the family size they want insofar as they are able to support that number of people, but I sometimes wonder what the future holds if we don't get a handle on population.

In the past, before we had medical science to keep people like my son alive, and to allow us all to live past 50, a bigger family was often required to enable the family to generate income, and look after older members. This requirement doesn't exist now.

I'm genuinely interested to hear peoples thoughts on this.

No I didn't consider environmental aspects of children. I felt it was important to have two children and probably no more as I personally can't give enough emotional support to more Children - I've a very busy job and home life with kids going to many activities and I help a lot with reading and try to take them away at weekend where possible to see family and friends - for us two kids works and that's fine

Other people may be different and can financially and emotionally support more and of course that's fine and good for them

I'm not bothered if people use countries resources such as healthcare, schools etc or even get working tax credits and such like to help support them and their families

One area of parenting I really have a problem
With are those who keep having kids and getting more and more from the government, neither parent have any intention of working just claiming, saying they look after their children so can't work - having seen wife swap on a few occasions and seen types of family I recall as a
Child growing up near a huge council estate where there were loads of families like this with loads of kids, parents actually didn't look after the kids, they looked after each other - there was lots of poverty with parents smoking g and boozing a lot - it was quite common. A definite difference between those families and the poor families who needed support and a council house to live in but not abusing the system
Hope that makes sense ?

Can people stop stating the planet is "overpopulated" without stating what they mean by that, as if it is a statement of fact and not opinion?

Are we overpopulated? Who says so? By how much? What is the level at which we would not be overpopulated? What is the criteria by which you are measuring over-population?

We have 4 (surprise twins). We did always want 4 but it was a happy surprise when we ended up with 4 so soon.

I do feel guilty about the resources we're using up but I feel guilty about most things as a rule.

I dont like the idea that we're being judged but I accept your point.

We can't change it now but I can see that what we've done is selfish on a societal level.

We were a bit irresponsible one night and made two whole extra people.

They'll be 2 soon so I can't very well put them back.

If you want to claim the moral high ground on this you forfeit that right by having any children at all and not living the lowest impact life possible (do you fly? Run a car? Use labour saving devices which use more water or electricity than doing the same job by hand?) imo. People who live in glass houses and all that...

It sounds as though what you actually want to do is judge people who don't do what you do.

A friend of mine claims it is actually very responsible to have several children and bring them up to be socially responsible, well educated, empethetic individuals who will contribute more to society that children brought up to worship power and money or with nasty racist, selfish attitudes or who will not be equipped to contribute much... Sounds reasonable, until you consider it's actually quite frighteningly close to advocating social engineering or eugenics...

I am one of seven children. The reason my parents had so many children was a religious one (against contraception).

However, a PP said my kind of family produces many girls that are married off young and then have big families themselves.

Life really is not that simple.

We are all grown up now and have become, a doctor, business owner, computer programmer, teacher, physicists x 2.

All earn our own living, pay tax, left the family religion behind and have produced 10 children between us so not even two each!

My parents did not receive any support other than the access to healthcare and education that is standard here.

I suppose my point is that just because the parents make a choice the children may not follow that choice. We are not rats reproducing in massive numbers at every opportunity

""So, overall Birds I am not too sure what you're referring to above""

I was referring to the pollution because of manufacturing and the fuels that they use etc.

All three countries don't want to know about reducing the damage to the Environment. Donald Trump has said that loud and clear.

The birth rate is falling, the population explosion is a mixture of people living longer and migration (including refugees/displaced people).

There are parts of Italy that has had schemes set up to make living in certain areas attractive to people and also having children.

Down South may be overpopulated, but that is what happens when you redirect all of the employment and investments.

What we actually need is a better distribution of people. But that would need the Torys to give a shit about the North and that isn't going to happen.

There are 2 angles to this issue which end up being conflated when this subject is ever discussed.
One is looking at this on a purely personal level, in which case reference is always made to children of large families seen as net contributors by virtue of job success , tax paid etc
The other is a general environmental concern which focuses solely on population numbers and not any individual characteristics such as perceived self sufficiency and non reliance on the state.
This woman great is going the same way.

WillRikersExtraNipple

Can the resources of the planet sustain the current population? Probably not

A family of 4 needs about an acre of land to grow all the food they need. That is the general measure for population

Sorry typo - thread

This actually was a consideration for DH and I before having a second child and that's why we stopped at two. It horrified me what we (as a race) are doing environmentally and our huge population issues are a time bomb waiting to happen.

Can the resources of the planet sustain the current population.Probably not

Probably isn't good enough, you're asserting a fact. And we all know that it isn't about resources as much as it is distribution.

Distribution relies on fossil fuel which is a limited resource.

If the U.K. Was cut off from supplies (similar to WW2) 79 Million people wouldn't survive there

I will admit that I am a little biased as the perfect world for me would have about 100million total

I don't think it is as simple as the replacement theory. That is assuming that the two children to replace yourselves will have two children etc.

As shown with my family example that is not a given, some will have none some will have more.

There are so many factors at work, societal norms, religious norms, access to contraception etc.

Because of the above then our world demographics will change, it could not stay stable as if non religious people only replace themselves and religious people have large families a big population difference will occur.
If that happens then thinking about the environment might be affected any way as you will have an overabundance of creationist type thinking.

I know I am oversimplifying here but that is just one example of the holes in the thinking around what is a very complex issue.

Yes, I do think about the social and environmental impact of having a larger family and I personally wouldn't choose to have more than a certain number of dc for that reason. Though, in fairness, I ask myself did I ever want a larger family..? I honestly can't say. I've never considered it.

I actually started a thread about this ages ago. It led me to the late Hans Rosling's 'don't panic' lecture (on BBC website I think). Was really interesting. Worth watching imo.

Hans Rosling is dead? I didn't know! His lectures were great, though. For those who didn't watch the BBC programme he did, do, but for now, the basics are that the seeds are already in place for a global population reduction because we've already started having fewer children. The population is going to keep growing for a bit longer, due to longer lifespans, but a lot of work has already been done in terms of reducing the number of children we have.

The other thing that strikes me is that when it comes to much bigger families, i.e. 4 upwards, there's a very clear correlation with education and economic status. Poorer people will tend to have larger families. Less educated women tend to have larger families.

There are an awful lot of generalisations masquerading as facts in this thread. Above is just one. I have 5 children, and two Masters degrees, plus numerous advanced professional qualifications. I know many women who are similarly educated who have 3 or more children. I suspect it might be a case of who you mix with. Among my circle, the Jacob Rees Mogg example is pretty much the norm.

However, I have two sisters, one who has only 1 child and one who has chosen to have none, so I suppose you could say I had their share too.

Three of my children are adults and none of them seem inclined to have children any time soon (or ever). I do think this issue looks different to younger people.

Exactly, a lot of opinions pretending to be facts.

It is a common discussion, it is a little odd to 'wonder' if anyone else has ever thought it tbh. On this site alone it comes up whenever family size is discussed.

I must admit, the average family size amongst my very middle-upper circle is 3...if not more. Having lots of kids seems to attempt to signify that you can afford them! 😂

Oh, and when the country reaches replacement level in terms of population the discussion will be different I guess.

No, I don't think most people do, but most people choose to have smaller families probably for reasons of sanity, money and practical considerations.

It is a common discussion, it is a little odd to 'wonder' if anyone else has ever thought it tbh.

Is it Witsender? Am I now precluded from wondering about anything until I have read each and every thread on here to double check that you haven't already had it mentioned elsewhere? Or are you just a little irked at my phrasing of the question? Either way, seems a little unnecessary to try and put someone down for no reason.

I think future generations will have to think of the social impact and they shall be encouraged to

The population growth and the impact this had is being spoken about more from the impact on society to the environment we simply can't not have the growth we have had in the last 70 years

Not at all, but it is somewhat patronising to assume that you are the only person to have considered it. I wasn't talking about Mumsnet per se, more just general life.