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?

peope can have as many or few chidren as they like imo.

We're stopping at two - but more so it doesn't burden my mental state!

Seriously though, I can comment on the extremes of this.

Although I have two half sisters from my dad's previous marriage I effectively grew up an only child. It was lonely.

My husband by contrast is one of 7!!! To put that it to context though, they are a Catholic farming family. They took all their holidays in Wales, recycled clothes amongst them, and all but one who runs the family farm went on to get degrees, jobs and pay their taxes.

So for me whilst it was lots of presents and abroad holidays because it's cheaper to travel with one (but not so much fun) - and for them, they didn't have much, but were happier... And took less plane journeys and long trips because there was plenty to amuse them staying at home together IYSWIM. So if anything, my small family has surely been a bigger carbon footprinter?!

As usual I probably feel in the middle ground on this debate, have a couple if you can so they're not lonely, and try and enjoy some UK camping trips too!

Hatrick--I am the daughter of an immigrant.

When my mother came here there were 50 million people in the country. No question that she had been an asset to the country (she worked for the NHS for 40 years). Now we're heading for 70 million.

hatrick, of course it's bad for ANYbody to go through, and I can't of course predict what it would be like. I guess what I was trying to express was a feeling that, in some way, it must have been worse being a mother who lost all six boys in the first world war, than a mother who lost all three...

It would never be a contributing factor for me ind eciding how many kids to have.

We're stopping at 2 because I think I would crack up otherwise, and Dh thinks he is too old to keep breeding!

And yes, there are too many people in the world.

And when this economic harshness continues it will be the poor who suffer because of this. I can and will continue to complain about the spoiling of this part of the country by digging up fields, etc, but in some parts of the world, Bangladesh, parts of Africa, for instance, over-population means death.

Say the 'sustainable' population of the world is 3 billion (calculations are all wildly different). Once things really run out then we will get there - or far, far below that number - as a result of war, plague, starvation, thirst. Or we could get there slowly by having a 2-child policy, or more quickly with a 1-child policy. NONE OF THIS IS PAINLESS! Far from it. It's just that it's probably much less painful to have fewer children than you wanted, than the immense global suffering of a catastrophic and violent population collapse.

'Peachy that was an example to make the point. The population is increasing. Do you believe that with recyling there is no upper limit to the numbers we can sustain? '

where did i state that?

i stated that you have to look at the numbers overall- and ave my bog average family as a case study. of course recyling wont cut it but the occasional larger family is, in everything I have seen statistically Aaveraged out by the smaller ones

Connie, I'm sorry to repeat myself yet again but unless your kids plan to live with you until they die, then who they live with now is irrelevant.

Splintered or all living under one roof, those kids will grow up and have their own homes one day.

Sorry to be endlessly repeating this but why do so many people think that a big family is only an issue in terms of how/ where you live while they're still kids?

Oh yes, we will get there one way or another. The planet will sort it out for us in the way you describe, littlefrog.

The other solution is to increase the educational opportunities available to women in the developing world. Educated women have fewer children by choice.

no mz I'm not saying that. I'm saying there are more important things in the world then whether to worry about going from 2 to 4 kids.

It'll all be irrelevant by about mid century because of the living that the previous generation has done and expects to do.

Whether you drive an eco car with 4 kids in one country will make little difference when China with a limited population is building something like 4 coal powered stations everyday.

Perspective is needed.

I do my bit, many people do nothing regardless of whether they've got kids or not.

People who drive their kids 1 mile to school everyday are draining far more imo than my 3 who are HE'd and driven virtually nowhere.

It's all well and good to say that we don't live the 'norm', but it's got nothing to do with the number of children we have but how we live our lives.

Sick children requiring ++ medication can be single children.

Clean water is a big problem because we are rapidly running out. With that will come drought and death on some parts of the earth and natural planet depopulation.

Look at what happened with the flu pandemic, millions were wiped out!

It'll happen again.

Peachy if we're discussing just the OP I don't have an opinion about her decision to have more kids. However your suggestion that large families are balanced out by smaller ones is sadly incorrect. If that were so the world population would be stable. It is not. It is rising.

I see this argument in two ways, hatrick:

1. the local/personal/temporary argument. There simply aren't enough large family houses here in the UK. Or land. If you as a family want more children you can do so (perhaps only temporarily) more comfortably in Australia or the US or Canada or NZ. Which doesn't detract from:

1. the global (more terrifying and important) argument. There simply isn't enough planet. You can do the above over the next 25 years but the global position doesn't change: it's bad news.

Is a small proportion of families in rich western countries choosing to have larger than average families a significant contribution to rising world populations? Really?

I thought the real issue was the rapidly rising populations in the developing world due to low life expectancy, lack of contraception and education etc.

I'm no expert - but isn't this a red herring? I thought the issue in the UK was with needing a larger population, not a smaller one?

sorky, how can you say that your kids aren't a drain on resources becuase you drive less than somebody else?

Your kids will need to eat, wear clothes etc for a lifetime. Most of what they buy will somehow involve oil usage, either in production or delivery etc.

Sorry, I'm repeating myself again. But it just seems so obvious to me.

For the millionth time, your kids being home educated is irrelevant if they ever intend to leave home!

As for 'well what's the point in doing anything, when China exists', again this is a selfish argument.

It seems like you want credit for the effort you do make in saving the planet, but to absolve yourself with 'it's going to melt anyway' in regard to choices you don't want to make.

Given that the resources are predicted by a good number to have run out by 2050 or thereabouts, advocating having less children seems somewhat futile given that we're 2 generations away from that.
It's been left too late unless the planet does something to right itself, which it seems to be doing.

thats globally and this debate is on two fronts both essebtial- yes global rates are high but as a nation we cant even cope to counterbalnce that, also we ahven't yet seen the true impact on poulations of things like HIV_ birth rate and survival rate in some African nations will sadly have little correlation

And yes on a global scale the environment is a prime motivating criteria in decision maing but even then its only one- because there are so many immediate (and I mean within this generation; I am not foolish enough to beleive that planetary meltdown is still centuries away) issues facing survival- again HIV, malaria, famine (affected by the environment but as much as a result of rainforest logging etc which is industrial related).

But we do also have to exist on a micro scale, as a nation and at that level some maintence of the birth rate is essential; because of things like pensions / caring duties in the future. It could be argues that the increased economic presence of women in the workplace may be a short liveed phenomenon as many will be taken out as carers due to longer lifespand of their elders. Add in the potentially shorter lifespand of the children as before mentioned an you have national catastrophe.

population sixe is an issue but so are mahy other things which would have far more impact. If you want to make a real change to our future go vegetarian and limit land loss in the rainforest regions. Having one less kid ain't gonna cut it.

(Embarassingly will have to post and run- not being bad mannered, dh needs PC)

iloveautumn, westerners consume vastly more then people in the third world.

I think both issues need addressing, and I agree with the poster who said that educating women is the key. Here and in the third world.

If there is no point in limiting the population (even by just encouragement) because the rest of the won't do the same then why would I bother to recycle if most of the world doesn't?

Seems a faulty argument to me.

The British population is rising as a whole.

That said, parts of Britain have need of more population. Scotland, for instance (which I believe is where you are, Hatrick?), has a falling population.

Down here there are very, very few houses for sale for non-two-child families. When they come on to the market they go very quickly.

Peachy, I agree with what you say but why is is that when we're talking about the environment, everybody thinks we should just address the one most important factor, and sod the rest?

The effect is cumulative. So I'd say yes, go vegetarian. AND have one less kid. AND recycle. AND take your own bags to the supermarket. AND accept that just because the family next door are far worse than you in terms of consumption, you still have a responsibiluty for your own usage.

You say the most important thing is going veggie. Many think it's car use. Many say 'I'm not getting rid of my car, but it's ok because I never fly'

etc etc etc, and so we sleepwalk further towards chaos. Passing the buck as we go.

Scotland does indeed have a slightly falling population.

But try travelling on a bus at rush hour here in Edinburgh, or indeed trying to buy a house here, where demand so exceeds supply that most young people here accept they can never own a home in the city.

It's the same all over the UK - increased pressure on cities, with workforce/talent being leached away from rural areas.

No MZ to the contrary regardless of how many children I have I do see that I do as much as I can to limit our impact.

The thing is you're blinded it seems by the number of people and not what those people do.
Growing your own food does reduce planteray impact because my food hasn't travelled halfway round the world, shopping locally and ethically affects the water usage in other countries not just my own water consumption.
Driving less or not at all has a reducing impact whether you have 1 or 4 kids.
Clothing bought in Primark etc, made in China has a huge impact on resources, ours is either predominantly made ethically, by ourselves, recycled, second hand etc. This is possibly the area where we as a family can make a bigger change.
Finally, to insist that my children will all grow up to further drain resources and live consumerist lifestyles is rubbish. I was brought up with 2 siblings and 2 of us live exactly the same way. The other one is single. We were taught to respect our environment and it stuck. My children will have the same upbringing.