AIBU to get butt-hurt about pples reaction to my pregnancy ?!..

[Littlehouseonthepraririe]

Am pregnant with my 6th! I want to share the good news on facebook, not with a fanfare or some obscure balloon riddled/ cryptic sign (tho I do enjoy other pples announcements like that)! But just with a standard f.b post as we have a lot of friends /fam all over the world (and mainly because I'm excited)!

However, when I shared the news of our 5th along with the congratulations I had a Lot of OMG ur mental/ mad etc comments.

Would I look weird if along with sharing the news I tagged on a little light hearted something like ' we know the Waltons life isn't for everyone and we might seem a bit bonkers, but we are really excited to introduce a new member to our clan'.. In the hope that it will ward off What's Wrong With You type comments ?!?

We have a large home for lots of children and my OH works from home so the children aren't lacking in time or space etc and they are always asking for more siblings, and this is the life I've Always wanted, so I don't really Get why pple would write comments like I had last time..
I mean I have lots of friends travelling in the back of beyond or moving up the corporate ladder , which personally is my idea of hell, but I am genuinely happy that they are happy and following their dreams, so obviously just write positive, congratulatory comments when they announce they've landed in a new country / got a promotion..
Am I being butt-hurty and overly sensitive unnecessarily , and would it look rude for me to write something jokey in an attempt to ward off the bat shit crazy comments..?

Authentic. That's a word that you'll see increasingly appearing in wank-speak lexicon.

No child benefit for more than two children would be a start regardless of income. If people won't take responsibility themselves then the state must act.

Do you work, Debbs?

Of course she does! From home. Making £100k.

That's what I thought, expat. Bit cynical of me to to ask, really...

I'm a ftp, I have attended every school play, sports day, blah de blah since the year dot. I am at home when they are at home virtually 24/7. I can guarantee they see me more than the dc of a ft 9-5 working mum

Congratulations, do you want a fucking medal for the smuggest post on this thread.

I can guarantee when they're 18 they won't care how many sports days you went to. My parents went to 0 and it has made diddly squat difference to my life. But carry on convincing yourself working mums aren't "full time parents". If your kids go to school, technically neither are you.

Bubblebubble, your username is particularly apt, given the subject matter on this thread.

Congratulations OP!

You don't need to tell anyone, just immediate family if you think you'll face judgment.

If people won't take responsibility themselves then the state must act

Erm, the UK has a low birth rate.

I highly, highly doubt OP is junkie or psychopath based on the limited information from her OP.

As long as the children are loved. They hardly need to be dressed head to toe in Boden fgs.

Populations probably will peak and gradually decline - the problem is that it’s going to take a few hundred years

According to google

The world population will peak at 8.7 billion people in 2055 and then decline to 8 billion by 2100, according to new research by Deutsche Bank. Its projections contrast drastically with previous forecasts by the United Nations (UN), which sees world population continuing to rise until 2100

My first thought when I see a large family is how the hell do they do it??!
I am a single parent of 2, a 5 year old with some SN and a 16month old. Both are pretty well-behaved, loving and good sleepers. I struggle

I have a friend the same age as me with four children. She is brilliant, super organised and just a great mother.

I would love to have had a larger family but my situation just doesn't make that feasible. Congrats OP.If you are happy and your kids and happy, you pay for yourselves ..not sure what it's got to do with anyone else.

Every person on the planet, regardless of their habits, depletes resources, simply to keep themselves fed, clothed and sheltered. More people equals more pressure on the planet. Simple.

I didn't say otherwise.

"Today 13:57 Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar

Bubblebubble, your username is particularly apt, given the subject matter on this thread."

Don't understand what you mean by this although it doesn't seem to a be particularly important or interesting point

I think it's selfish but I'm sure the planet will find a way to have a massive cull sooner or later.

I reckon a flu epidemic or the antibiotic apocalypse.

A 2013 article with some figures for when world population will peak. A Deutsche Bank projection is more optimistic (from an environmental point of view) than the UN one.

Overall, Sanyal paints a very different picture from the UN, with world population peaking around 2050 at 8.7 billion and declining to about 8 billion by the end of the century. That's about a billion higher than it is now, but well short of the UN's 11 billion.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24303537

Best thing people can do for carbon emissions is have one less child.

Lovely for you OP, but sadly some ppl will not be happy with you because you are being (unintentionally) selfish in having so many children.

I have 3 children myself, so I also feel (a bit) guilty. I hadn't realised how bad the world over-population was getting when I committed to a 3rd. I also thought I could use my childless (only) sibling's unused quota! (Which is a nonsense of course.)

If I had to do it all again, what is the right number of children to have? I think it's zero. But few of us are willing to sacrifice ourselves. (Respect to those who have.)

Population growth is the biggest environmental concern at the moment (and really not much doubt about that now?) but we are often told it isn't or it'll be fine. Cos no-one in politics is brave enough to offer any solutions. As time passes tho, it really isn't fine, is it? But no-one wants to tackle the issue because we have no easy (nice) ethical way to get ppl to have fewer children. So we just hope the problem will sort itself out eventually? But it won't be pleasant when it does?

So you are free (for now) to have 6 children if you want to. And if you afford to pay for them you must feel morally fine in having a big family. But your kids will be still be using up (shared) spaces and water and oxygen... and will probably want houses and kids of their own. So it's a pyramid scheme. And one day the bottom layer will have to suffer/pay for our reckless procreation now.

Someone earlier (on this thread) said the birth rate hasn't gone up - it's that ppl are living longer. Possibly true in the UK. But the number of children being born on earth surely IS going up. Cos the more ppl there are the more kids there will be even if we all stop after 2 kids? Cos population growth is exponential in nature and the longer we live the more generations there are before the oldest layer are dead.

So the issue is more and more and more ppl ... on earth. (Mass movement/immigration will override the low birth rates we are currently seeing in some countries. So there is nothing reassuring about low birth rates say in some parts of Europe or Japan as when food and water run out or war breaks out, ppl will just move en mass?)

So yes, tho you have only a few more than the rest of us, it's still a problem cos if we all did the same as you (and I might have liked more kids myself) how will it end? Is it rational and sensible to not look into the future? And why should others (in already over-crowded countries) hold back if you won't?

Like the last straw that broke the camel's back, we are getting nearer to the edge/the point of complete environmental disaster with each birth of a child. So you must understand that your announcement re your decision to overpopulate might not be universally welcomed even by your friends and family. And strangers will be even more likely to judge your choices.

Best advice is not to brag/show off/be proud of your large family/go looking for congratulations from others? And just keep the announcement low key like you would if you had just had a pay rise when others haven't and wanted one.

You can't change your choice to have 6 kids now, but at least be aware of how selfish it was? And hope they won't want to do the same as you?

Sorry if this seems harsh advice, as I am sure you and your kids are lovely ... and I would never say this to your face. But you wanted to know what ppl were thinking last time around, so we are giving you some honest (anonymous) feedback here ...

Good luck - but stop at 6 now?!

Viviennemary - why from two? Why not just stop all child benefit. If you want children you should be prepared to pay, no? Even though those children might well grow up to treat all members of society when they are ill, defend the nation for everyone and actively support global peace, teach the next generation etc. Children are needed by this ageing population. Bright children even more so.

Children are needed by this ageing population. Bright children even more so.

Took you a while to reach peak superiority complex, crumbs but you got there in the end.

You have some road to clear yet, remember one kid who was one of 12! Members of a Christian sect though were prevention was a big no no, but they were a happy well balanced lot, had to admire the mum. She was lovely and a very proud mum of 12. Congratulations with the little one and enjoy your life. If you don't want the nasty comments just go with 1) we are crazy, baby crazy! type message. 2) keep it to the family 3) don't tell anyone

Even though those children might well grow up to treat all members of society when they are ill, defend the nation for everyone and actively support global peace, teach the next generation etc. Children are needed by this ageing population. Bright children even more so.

Setting aside the fact that not only have you stepped right into the Great Beethoven fallacy, but also that women who have six children are less likely to produce 'bright children' than women who have fewer - here are some interesting articles:

www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/24/robots-will-take-third-british-jobs-2030-report-says/

www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/11/robots-jobs-employees-artificial-intelligence

www.sciencealert.com/new-statistics-reveal-the-scale-of-robots-replacing-human-workers

Cos the more ppl there are the more kids there will be even if we all stop after 2 kids

Actually, no. 2 kids is the number needed to maintain the population as it is, as every 2 people essentially replace themselves with 2 people. Any less, population decline, any more, population growth.

Source: bio module of maths degree

I’m being a pedant here but replacement rate is slightly over 2 because not all children will survive to adulthood. Some need to have 3. 2 per couple will lead to a declining population.

Yolo - agree that 2 in 2 out (so to speak) theoretically works out, as in no overall population increase,. But ... during the time taken for the parents to both get to death (and with ppl living longer) surely there is still the possibility of some population growth in the short term?

Also, wouldn't it be better to try to cut back the population somewhat before aiming for a stable number? (As current farming/fishing methods probably not sustainable longer term?)

So wouldn't that be less than 2 per woman to err on the side of caution and for more rapid results?

Of course, it probably will never happen that the whole world simultaneously decides not to have more than 2 kids. (So we will never know?)

But ... during the time taken for the parents to both get to death (and with ppl living longer) surely there is still the possibility of some population growth in the short term?

This is the main driver of population growth at the moment.

Riceburner I think a sensible place to start is locally. Having a population far bigger than can be sustained on the food that this country can grow is a big risk. Never mind what the rest of the world does, we should start here. A policy that aims at reaching that number would at least be a start at a secure future for our children. We are still carrying on like exponential growth is sustainable and clinging to the hope that the environment can sustain the predicted peak human population before a giant crash. Or even that the predicted peaks are peaks. It assumes that other nations with very different cultures will behave in a predicted way modelled largely on the west. That’s never gone wrong before now has it....