To be jealous of people with 3 children

[LovingLife0]

I have a 3 and 2 year old and DP and I have recently decided that we won't be having a third child. We have been talking about it for the past year but have made our decision primarily on environmental reasons.

Since making this decision I have become OBSESSED with families with 3+ children. For example I can't stop thinking how Kim Kardashian has 4 children and how many her children will have and all the carbon footprint. I also follow a few 'eco' families on insta who have as many as six children. As you can see I'm irrationally obsessed!! I KNOW everyone is entitled to their own choice and it's none of my business but I guess I'm just jealous!

I suppose I'm looking for advice on how I can move on from our decision to stop at 2 while not being jealous of people who go on to have large families?

We have one son. Right number for us.

Another telling you to reconsider. As another poster pointed out upthread, the population of Europe is dwindling and it's not going to have a big impact on the environment. Countries like Japan and South Korea are going through a demographic crisis as their birth rates are quite low. Just go for it

I have three.

I love them all dearly but I find parenting them all absolutely crippling and exhausting.
Seriously hard work, if I had known had hard it would be I may well have stuck with just the one.

Ha! I almost posted exactly this last week. Other people don’t consider the environment. I have a friend going for her 4th, but also I know numerous people with no kids, I have 4 women in my family alone who haven’t had kids.
Birth rates are going down, but people are living longer so that’s a moot point probably.
It’s a hard call!

For goodness sake in the UK that isn't a good reason not to have a third child. Don't you know anyone with no kids or just one? Think of your third as taking the place of their second.

There is, sadly, no absolute guarantee that everyone's 2 children will grow up to adulthood. I say that as someone whose youngest two (of 4) have both survived potentially fatal conditions in the last 3 years, that would undoubtedly have killed them 50 years ago.

Just have the third child, and love them.

I think you just have to accept you don't always get what you want! I really wanted two and for a long time I only had one and eventually came to terms with it. Then unexpectedly had twins and, without wanting to sound ungrateful, I found that even harder (although glad now!) You have a good reason for stopping at 2 - have the courage of your convictions!

I have three. DC3 was a terrible sleeper and the hardest toddler of the three by miles. Does that help you?!

I think you’re making a really good decision for a really good reason. I wonder if your strong feelings are because that door feels closed now, whereas before a third felt like a possibility (even if it wasn’t actually realistically going to happen).

I expect time will be your friend - you won’t feel this way forever

I'm another who says go for it, society will collapse without replacement people.

Environmentalists often suggest limiting children but never highlight the fact that a large dog can have the same carbon footprint as a child yet will be of no benefit to society.

Where has that been said Thingybob? I have never seen any research suggesting that? Can you link to it please.

www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-carbon-pawprint/

‘The new study, published in Environmental Research Letters, sets out the impact of different actions on a comparable basis. By far the biggest ultimate impact is having one fewer child, which the researchers calculated equated to a reduction of 58 tonnes of CO2 for each year of a parent’s life.

The figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of granchildren’s emissions’

Obviously there are a whole load of other issues you would need to think about, but adoption is also environmental

I can't link to any specific research other than to say a large, active dog will consume up to 1500 - 2000 calories a day and most of it will come from meat.

That's way more than a child and it's the child's nutritional needs which is the largest factor in their carbon footprint.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/23/baby-crisis-europe-brink-depopulation-disaster

Gosh I completely disagree. A neutered rescue dog compared to a child has a much less impact on the environment.

www.refinery29.com/en-gb/2018/08/203915/not-having-children-environment

I think you are ignoring the child reproducing, eating meat, taking flights for forty years etc.

That link was purely about economic growth... nothing about the environmental impact of having an extra child.

I'm the same OP, I would love a third child and I'm jeous of people who have 3 or more. We ant have another one due to lack of space and no potential to move anytime soon and my youngest is 5, also don't think I could cope with another baby like my last, he was a nightmare. Makes me really sad though.

can't link to any specific research other than to say a large, active dog will consume up to 1500 - 2000 calories a day and most of it will come from meat

That's way more than a child and it's the child's nutritional needs which is the largest factor in their carbon footprint

Yes, the issue with that statement is it that it doesn’t take in to account the child growing up and reproducing.

So you are comparing the calorie intake of a dog with average lifespan of ten years to a child with an average lifespan of 80 years, plus its offspring. Really?!

You are very fortunate to have two children. Being jealous over other people's families is not nice.

As I posted on another thread how old you are when you have your children affects the number of descendants you have over 100 years. Families that reproduce in their early 20s will have four or five generations in 100 years, those that reproduce in their 40s will have 3 so fewer people overall even if each generation has more children.

I have a relative that has 2 DC but fosters as well to satisfy their desire for more children (they also stopped at 2 for environmental reasons). It's not something to be done without careful consideration though.

We have 3DC but DH and I both have siblings with no DC so we're balanced out. As soon as DC3 was born we knew we were done. I think the world might be better if there was less pressure on women to have DC so fewer people overall had DC but those who wanted to had bigger families. Unlike the PP I think it's good for children to have several siblings, I think there's too much pressure on children in small families. I'd much rather be one of 4DC (as I was) than one of 2DC.

My number was always 3. I've got a 1 & 2yr old and would love a third but I don't keep well when I'm pregnant so it's not to be. It breaks my heart! I can't throw out any of the baby stuff and keep fantasising about having a surrogate. 🙈

People are making this all about you. It should be about the child. And you are right to take a little environmental responsibility. Will life be great for that generation? Doesn't look like it.

Erghh .. life’s too short for regrets! If you want another and your DH does too then do it! I have 3 under 5years old and it’s exhausting but fulfilling at the same time, we get through it and me and our family is complete!

Could you adopt? If the child has already been born, you are not adding an additional load to the environment.