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 love the way people say, 'why not adopt?' as if it is like going to the supermarket.

I'm sure it's a slow painful procedure, but so I'm told is pregnancy

If adoption has become too difficult and it prevents children getting good homes then maybe MN could do a compaign to change it.

Ah (the car / veggie thing)

there are few of us who cannot go vceggie but many cannot give up their car without risking their jobs / being unable to access vital services. Its a sad indictment of how cosirty has developed (out of town shopping, 24 / 7 culture) but it's a Fact.

Adoption is a good point but there is a baby shortage and many people don't want an lder child. Now any older child that came my way would be welcome with open arms but social services would say uh-uh because ds1 is sn (as is ds3 but obviously he's a redundant argument here)

Yes the effects are cumulative but that doesn't nagate the other arguments imo. Onager, Sorky etc- are you all veggie? because the most recent research puts that way ahead f car use in terms of environmental effects.

As it happens I cannot argue with the 'logic' of big famillies etc- but if life is going to be othing but an existence based on logic where no action is undertaken unless in greater interest then I'm not so certain that is much of a life in any real terms anyway! Especially for those of us who are rural- we'd literally be housebound by no car etc and theres no devcent shops- fab existence. My extra childrena re my indulgence in my life, I sacrifice a lot because of circumstances and am not prepared to sacrifice that one thing I always wanted- 4 kids. terribly irresponsible perhaps, but a fact nonetheless.

Filz, my DH is not trying to be so precocious! He is just saying (in a very gentle way, I assure you all) that the environment is something that we both care/are concerned about and this surely must be something that we consider when deciding how many children we have in an over-populated world. He thinks we have to walk the walk and not just follow environmentally friendly fads where they suit us.

Ultimately I am sure that the question (for us) will be decided on more practical criteria, principally financial means and ability, but it is something niggling in the back of my mind.

Fwiw, I've never hassled anybody to give up their car. My DP has a car and I wouldn't like to be without it.

My point is that everybody can pass the buck by claiming that the thing they can best live without is the worst for the environment. To give an example, I am terrified of flying and so I don't do it. So I could say 'well I don't fly so it's ok for me to have a car'.

Ideally, I'd do without both, and it may be within our own lifetime that I will have to do without both.

It all reminds me of the smoking arguments, ie 'Why ban smoking when car pollution is so bad' - which is in fact an argument for banning or limiting both, not allowing both to flourish becuase it's difficult to ban or limit them.

See i'd agree with that but turn it around to say that perhaps those limiting thier famillies are maing precisey that 'thing I can live best without' decision? For many the drive to have aother child is extremely strong, a biological need: so if it were the only 'rule break' (for want of a better term) it would surely be a more understandable one than 'i'd rather not give up my car because I find it handy', or 'I like eating meat'

BTW am not claiming to be car free or a veggie! Am anything but 'good' and know it.

we have 2 cars, 2 dogs, 2 guineas, 3 children, all emat eaters (except guineas)and I still think were are more environmentally aware than the majority of people and we all make an effort

Hatricktreat. Perhaps MN isn't influential enough, but it is our country after all and it should be possible to change laws/guidelines if they are unjust or unworkable. But perhaps there wouldn't be enough people who cared for orphaned children to make a big enough protest.

Cars and flying etc can't really be compared to having more children. Even though right now they may be important factors, our car use will cease when we are gone. The numbers we have added to the population live on.

I freely admit that I don't understand the 'biological need' thing, as I have never felt it myself.

Do you mean biological need as in, I will be ill if I don't have another child?

Many people feel a 'need' to go to a hot country for two weeks a year, or indeed to smoke/ drink etc.

It isn't a need as much as a strong desire, surely?

you and me baby aint nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel

it can be far more than the need for a holiday!

It becomes for some people an all consuming thing; I have friends on MN right now desperate to have a fourth baby and the imperative is as strong as with the first a

Remember the desire to procreate is inbuilt and natural; when it switches off is something taht varies but those like you who don't have it are the exception and I would gently suggest not going to quite understand an aspect essential on a parentig website (altjhough al comoers welcome certainly- that wasnt a veied hint!)

shut up peachy i am not desperate for a fourth at all

I think one of the good things about having children, from an environmental perspective, is that it gives you such a strong vested interest in the future of the planet. You care about what sort of world your children will grow up into. It gives you a reason to bother about all the environmental stuff.

not saying that people without children don't care about the environment, of course, but it's a big motivation, having children, to bother more about these things.

Though for that maybe just one child would do.

You do have to take into account the instinct to reproduce. Technically that may be 'biological' since it's in your DNA, but not in the sense of a physical need.

However as a man I will have the instinct to spread my genes. If neccesary by hitting every woman I meet over the head with a club and dragging her to my cave. I'm expected to control that one (though it's a struggle some days )

Fennel, that's a v good point. I know what you mean - my life changed when my neice was born.

Peachy, I think that most adults know that they can't just procreate without limit because they feel a biological urge to.

I think that some people who have that 'need' will never be fully happy or sated, because they will always want another one, no matter how many they have.

Anyway, this debate isn't about parental 'need', it's about the impact of family size on the environment. Kids don't ask to be born, adults make decisions about that.

Morriszap - there's hundreds of disabled children need adopting in this country. They are already here, why not adopt a couple?

quite and most need to go to a home with NO OTHER CHILDREN
you have found your niche

yup, help a child and save the planet.

Um, where did I say I wanted to adopt, or that having kids of your own was wrong?

I have no current desire to adopt but I don't rule it out for the future.

Think I'm being flamed but not sure what for!

Peachy we are not strictly veggie, but mindful of the process buy which meat is obtained and therefore we keep it to a twice a week option.

The drive to have a fourth was absolutely overwhelming for me and Dh could see that, so agreed to have a fourth even though he would've stopped at 2.
Stopping at 2 would've been for financial reasons for him, not necessarily because of environmental reasons.

I agree with Peachy's sentiments about quality of life and walking in people's shoes. My SIL has no plans for children has no urge to have them, but that's her career decision. That doesn't give her the right to freely tell me how to bring my kids up, but it likewise doesn't stop her either

I can honestly say I have guilt about quite a few environmental issues but absolutely no regrets about the size of our family.

Onager, my Dh would agree with your struggle

it was a suggestion for cutting down on population which you seem keen on. Its too late for most of us to do anything but those who don't have kids already and who are concerned about the environment should adopt.

The process is so maddeningly convoluted though isn't it?
I would've adopted if I couldn't have borne anymore....and was allowed obviously, which I wouldn't be allowed to do so because we HE, but there you go.
I have a friend who's a paediatric physio. There was a family 'at risk' known to her team, as one of the children had CP. When the children were about to be taken into care she requested if she could take him into temporary care within her home (all her children,4 of them, were grown and independent). The authorities agreed and she has since adopted him. The change in him is absolutely unbelievable

I know a fair few poeple who have adopted and who home educate.
It is convoluted but its do-able and there are so many disabled children desperate for families.

While I would agree that the size of someone's family is strictly their personal choice surely it can't be so hard to accept that more children = more consumption of resources, energy etc? Especially in western countries.

Even the greenest lifestyle is going to have an impact.

If that matters to you then surely it should be a factor in deciding the size of your family.