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?

I think it is irresponsible, yes.

But I offered no view as to punishment for it. My step brother has four kids, he had kids with his partner when young, then broke up, met another woman who wanted kids too so he effectively has two families.

I'm sure this is how a lot of people have kids. My brother has one kid with his present partner, one kid with his ex, and a step son.

That's just the way that life has worked out for them, and I wouldn't like to see them punished or anything mad like that.

But I have often looked at their family set ups and thought, how the heck are they going to cope with four young adults all wanting to go to uni or buy flats etc. It's easy to want lots of children but children grow up and become very demanding, consuming young adults, who will have kids of their own.

Morriszapp

the air travel argument is bloody valid if you look at facts

having 10 000 children means we never go abroad

the impact of air travel on the environment is IMMENSE

Of course, and your kids are never going to grow up, get jobs, buy flats, and want to go abroad.

Not sure if you're being serious or not??

People have children and yes they do grow up and have children of their own, that's generally how the whole population thing works.

It's a complete misnomer to say that more than ?X is irresponsible and that we should all stick to 3.

The state the world is in people will die through a lack of resources, medicines through mutations in diseases, natural disasters. These things generally have a way of righting the world population, have done so far, it's our growing materialism which has done far more damage.

If you recycle, reduce the amount you buy, reduce your reliance on oil as much as you can, grow some of your own food, live relatively simply etc then having 4 or more children isn't a further drain on resources.

Larger families tend to live more frugally anyway so saying they consume/waste even more is simply not true.
I know plenty of families with one child who fly round the world 3 times a year, both drive huge gas guzzlers, they live and heat the same sized house as we do, they don't even attempt to reduce what they consume or recycle and their bin for a family of 3 is disgracefully full plus 2 binbags every week!
Mine is for a family of 5 not even half full, we live simply, don't buy for the sake of buying, grow as much of our own food as is possible, walk most places, holiday in this country, keep our use of fuel to a minimum, recycle and compost.

Go on, tell me that my having a 4th and teaching them all to live in harmony with the planet as much as possible is both irresponsible and socially damaging.

Natural disasters will 'right the population'??

The population is already wrong. There are too many people on our planet.

I have no issue with people choosing to have as many kids as they like, it's hardly any of my business. (though the OP asked for an opinion which I gave).

But to use the justification that they don't use up many resources is a misnomer when the little kids you care for so well grow up and inevitably want to occupy property, travel each day in whatever way, and take up an adult space in the world.

My dh and I are together 12 years, married for 4, with one beautiful dd and am pg due Jan. I honestly never wanted to get married, then didn't want to have kids, and now I've got the bug! I have 8 siblings (!) and would hate to have a small family but am not aiming to beat Mum in that department. It is a personal issue, but I think the environment argument is a smokescreen for your dh tbh. Is he so passionate about the planet or is he afraid of the cost, extra responsibility, maybe having to move house etc? Will he feel under extra pressure to be "breadwinner" ? (bleurgh) He needs to be honest with you first so that you can chat about it. I can see that we all want to give our dcs the best in terms of education, experiences, childhood but these things don't necessarily cost so very much or anything at all I spose....

Maybe your kids will grow up to believe it's their right to travel the world, live singly in flats and do what they like, but mine are living differently.

The only way to teach our children to respect the planet is to do so ourselves.

Wars, famine, natural disasters, diseases do wipe out good chunks of the planets population FACT!

There are too many people on the planet FACT!

But more importantly there are too many people willfully stripping it bare. Me and mine are not doing so.

Could you not compromise and have 3 kids?

sorky, if you are living a self sufficient lifestyle then that's cool and totally your business. But it isn't realistic to imagine that most of the population can, will, or would even want to do this too.

Most of the population will own or occupy flats and take holidays. Fact.

They will also have jobs that require them to use some form of transport each day.

I wouldn't dream of telling you not to have another child, but your own family model doesn't represent that of the majority of the population.

It's a shame really because when the oil runs out those who haven't changed the way they live now are gonna be completely stuffed.

I don't think that four kids is a big family. I sort of have the same problem with dh - my parents have 10 siblings between them, and I'm the oldest of 6. Dh is one of two, has only one aunt, and says he can't deal with the noisy family get-togethers that my family have! We have compromised at aiming for 3 just now, but I'm hoping to convince him for more in the future.

I also don't think large families are necessarily socially or environmentally irresponsible. It all depends on your lifestyle, not the number of children you have. For example, my family, six kids, no car, grow own food, don't holiday outside the UK, use public transport, compost, etc. Single people can use more energy than a large economical family.

Teeny, aren't your kids going to leave home and eventually occupy houses of their own?

Agree with those who say it depends on your lifestyle. For instance, if you go to the local shop in an ugly, petrol guzzling people carrier then that's a different matter. And four is not that large a family anyway.

How do people imagine that their kids needs are met throughout their lifetimes with no recourse to oil and resources?

Your kids will wear clothes (shipped in lorries) eat food (ditto) need medical care, use a school place, college place etc etc etc etc

Sorry but how can you possibly imagine that by driving an economical car (or not running a car) you are offsetting a human life from cradle to grave?

Hi, I/we have considered this issue, all being well I'll have no. 2 next yr. Whether we try for a third? Well there are many factors but one is the environmental impact. I haven't come to a conclusion yet, there are many things that people do that are very bad for the environment but another whole person is a greater draw on the planets resources. Like you it is a hard choice, my biology says yes, my brain (for other reasons too) says not so much!

With respect to your prob, you need to find out if this is really the reason your DH is less keen on a big family or he just doesn't want one for other reasons. People do often mirror what the set up was in their family so maybe he just sees 2 children as complete?

Who says they're OFFSETTING a human life, morris???!
The way you're talking we should not reproduce at all! AFter all, one child is worse than none, two is worse than one, etc etc....

Yes I considered it, but I think there are other ways to do your bit. We can't go abroad etc etc etc anyhow (and are possible the only family I knw with a downwards heading electricity bill as we watch our consumption so closely) and we do all the recycling etc etc etc.

Also- 2 of mine have sn, ds3 will never work probably, ds1 will at least struggle to. We don't know if ds4 will ahve the same issues but hope not, and that with ds2 they will be able to priovide some suppot (not necessarily caring- a phone call and a card wold do) for their ds's and I suppose migt help contribute to the state that the others may take so much from.

I'm not saying who should have kids and who shouldn't, but no matter how careful you are with the evironment it's obvious that it would work better with less people (globally)

It's no use saying that while you're bringing up a large family you will be doubly careful since they will have adult lives (as has been said I see) and their children after them. It's simple arithmetic.

The chinese have a one child policy. They didn't do that for nothing.

Oh and I'm not saying this because I was brought up in a small family. I had 6 brothers and sisters.

Quite a few posters here seem to think that they are offsetting a human life by not having a greedy lifestyle and have said as much, ie saying it's not how many kids you have, it's what car you drive, do you recycle etc.

Of course people should have kids, ideally in such a way that we sustain or slightly reduce our current population.

Some will have no kids, some with have lots of kids. We need kids or we're stuffed, so I'd never say have no kids at all.

But please don't kid yourself that your large family is somehow negated by the fact they you recycle and all live in a small house. Your kids will become adults and live in houses of their own.

'Your kids will become adults and live in houses of their own'

actually two of mine won't in all probability

its never so clean cut

I did think about it but already had 4 of the little buggers.
But we never go abroad, are vegans, recycle blah de blah
Number 4 uses more resources than the other 3 put together, the little minx.

SO morris and onager, do you think we should have a policy like the chinese? Otherwise, what's the ideal limit? Is it one, two, three children
I'm just asking..

To be fair peachy, it is usually the case that kids will leave home one day and live on their own.

Presumably when people think how many kids they plan to have, they assume that like the majority, they will have kids who will leave home one day. Most people do.

And adults living with others will still be using up resources. Please don't think I mean that you or anybody else shouldn't have had their kids. I'm talking about how one plans in advance when bearing the environment in mind.

RottenOtter, in relation to the point you directed to me, I think the ageing population argument is rather specious.

Obviously it is a massive issue and needs to be addressed but I am not sure the answer is to have lots of children, which would surely be a short term solution as then when those children grow up, we will need even more to care for them etc etc. Don't we need to address the spiralling population figures now before they get out of control (assuming they are not already)?