To think that it is not socially/environmentally irresponsible to want a large family?

[stillstanding]

I am one of four children. My parents were both one of four and most of aunts and uncles had large families too. I therefore grew in up in a fairly rumbustious home with loads of people coming and going and I loved it and I always hoped that I too would have a large family.

DH and I are now discussing how many children we would like to have and it turns out we are not exactly on the same page as he would prefer that we only had two DCs.

His main argument is that it is socially and environmentally irresponsible to have more than two children. He feels that the planet is overburdened as it is and there is no need to overload it any further. He's comfortable with two DCs because it's "two in two out" but that any more would be selfish of us.

I suspect that his main drivers are his own background (he comes from a rather calm family of 2 DCs where no one talks over you at the dinner table) and the financial toll. He is probably targeting the whole social/environmental irresponsibility angle because the environment is something I have become increasingly concerned about in recent years. He says that there is no point in me being militant about recycling, for example, and then having four children.

Ultimately I suspect that the financial aspect is going to be the deciding factor in this decision but I wondered if any of you had considered this issue?

It wouldnt even be an issue when deciding how many DC's I would have- I have 2 but will probably have more. Money is a big aspect as is being able to cope physically and emotionally will raising more children.

It's a rather silly argument to be honest.
There are families with loads of kids out there who have never stepped onto a plane
There are lots of single households out there who do this countless times a year - it's not measurable at all

We have 3 kids
We recycle
use cloth nappies
compost
buy lots of second hand toys/clothes
walk to school
holiday mostly in uk
etc
etc
I could go on but really I don't think his argument would stand up in any sort of debate!

My understanding is that it is actually the trend of single people living alone that is causing more environmental damage than large families - one person living in a flat will use much more in terms of resources per person than say six people sharing a family home, It's all to do with economies of scale.

oh yes. planet destroyers YOU PLANET DESTROYERS

what if you raise super eco-concious children?

Environmentally perhaps but there are squillions of other things you could change in your lifestyle without deciding not to have more children. And as ramona says, do it responsibly and it can have very little impact.
Socially you need to have more children. Our children will be responsible for supporting an ageing population, we need more mini taxpayers, more doctors, lawyers, scientists etc.I'm planning on having a jazz band's worth to keep me in my old age like Mrs Beetle.

It's something we've thought about. I have come to the view that people are a blessing and no-one should be considered a burden.

Here are my sketchily reasoned, poorly backed up reasons for allowing oneself to have more children than the average:

In this country we aren't quite replacing our population. (Or we werent a few years ago - we might be now I'm not sure) Now this doesn't matter because we can make up the shortfall through immigration (as my Child Free by Choice friends always emphasise). That's not ideal either because we are cherry picking other countries' populations because we have the wealth to do this.

There is also the issue of the ageing population - developed countries' populations are ageing at a greater rate than developing countries' However, in developing countries you are "old" at a younger age, because of poorer healthcare, and tougher daily lives. We do still need children coming up through the generations to look after the (increasingly long lived) aged population.

I have to say though - and I don'tknow how many DC's you already have so this may not be relevant to you - we started out possibly wanting four children, and have found ourselves revising down our plans - our first DD was stillborn, which has put us a couple of years older than we wanted. We've found pregnancy a horrendous strain (for obvious reasons) and the early years with DS were very demanding, though I loved every minute of it. I still want three but fear I'll never manage it (PG now with 3rd child, hopefully will be 2nd living one). We have started to wonder if having 2 will be enough after all (DH more than me) so we are going to take it "one baby at a time" IYSWIM.

Plus, what happens if all the well educated, environmentally aware people with a social conscience stop having children? There'll be none left! Outnumbered by numpties in 20 year

it always amazing me whne people haevn't had this conversation before !! did you really never discuss how many children you wanted until you had 2? did you always just assume he'd want 4 like you did!!

i do not consider four children to be a large family. five yes, but not four
whenwe were growingup, people withonly one sibleing were pitied by everyone else. true, they had more stuff, and there own rooms, and in some cases , their own bathrooms as well. but they were still pitied as they didnt have any siblings to interact with.
when i watch the interactions of my three children, even whenthey are fighting, and about tokill each other, i think how lucky they rae to be able to have siblings to love, and to hate. its all part of being human. the social interactions children get from there siblings, cannot be replaced.

imo, by insisting on only two children, your dh is depriving them of some amazing relationships.

I sometimes think that people who feel strongly about environmental and social issues actually ought to have more children, to ensure that those messages get passed down to the next generation!

Far more going on there than his environmentalism I'd say, but that's my humble.

I'd say the bigger issue is that you don't agree. Say you have 2 and he's happy, but you're not, you feel the need (and believe me I speak from experience...it is a need), it's a horrid battle of wills where ultimately one person wins and one person loses.

Are you prepared to give up a larger family, whatever his dubious reasons? Or 6 years down the line be prepared to change how you thought your family would be?

Or you could agree that you'll compromise and have 3.

Just for the record I'm expecting no4 but not without a fight, Dh was happy with 2, but luckily is tremendously happy we're having a 4th. We discussed it early in our relationship and he knew from the outset that I wanted 4 so he couldn't really say otherwise.

Yes, that would be the hitch in my suggestion there - teenage rebellion!

I do feel it is environmentally irresponsible to have more kids than say, three. Obviously that's a random number really.

It's daft to talk about recycling, not flying etc as if this offsets bringing four more adult consumers into the world - your kids aren't just little and living in your house, they will grow up and consume adult quantities of everything just like everybody else.

No doubt they will want kids of their own, thus further increasing the burden on our strained planet.

It's true that pensions etc are an issue, but I reckon that within a generation or two factors such as oil running out etc wil be considered far more pressing concerns.

I don't see that having any children at all can be justified - I think it is highly likely that within 50 years there will be such massive famines, so little viable agricultural land/water etc that whether individual Family X has 2 or 4 children will be neither here nor there. So that's probably an argument on your side TBH - if you want the children, have them. I think a lot of us will have to watch all the children we have suffering.

What does your dh feel about adoption? Not saying you should do this - I think adopting now is a tough call (if it was ever anything else.) But this might open up the argument a bit for you to find out whether your dh really means 'I only want 2 children' full stop.

Some very good arguments here that I will definitely use - thank you!

I think at the heart of my doubt though is this feeling that at the end of the day no amount of recycling, holidaying in the UK, composting etc can make up for the fact that there will be more people in the world and they will ultimately increase consumption. And sure while they all live in my house there may be economies of scale but then each of them will go off and get their house and drive their own car and have children themselves ... I mean what if EVERYONE has four children?? Or maybe, as some have suggested, you can take the view that not everyone can or wants to and there is some sort of carbon off-setting principle for children! I haven't looked at population figures recently but thought that the population was expanding overall ... I will see what I can dig up on that.

Mrsgboring, I am so sorry to hear of your loss. Best of luck with your pregnancy! As you point out I think I would be very lucky to get to no. 4 in any case.

Compo, in answer to your question, of course we discussed this question but in a vague kind of "we'll see how we go" way. It wasn't a dealbreaker and I certainly would have married him either way. To be honest even now I don't think it is a dealbreaker and that if I really felt strongly about it (and we decided we could afford it and it turns out that we can in fact have four children) he would agree.

The problem is really that in this (I suppose almost academic) discussion that we are having I am starting to feel like a bit of a hypocrite in that I am all for the recycling etc, i.e. the easy bits, but when it comes to the actual tough decisions which really effect me, i.e. what kind of family I want, I resort to my selfish ways ...

Why of course hattrick, I think that people who have more than three kids should be stoned, as clearly outlined in my post.

hats fine stillstanding
just make sure your dp will be waiting a long time to get his bum wiped when he is 90

our aging population needs looking after