Anyone with more than 2 children??? You are irresponsible, apparantly................

[Flumpybumpy]

see here

Haven't read all thread, but have read article. I believe it's the houses, cars and STUFF we all have that make us a burden to the plante. The headcount wouldn't be a problem if mankind would just put the breaks on in terms of development and stop being so bloody greedy.

I love this from the comments...

I have three children. I feel it is my duty to attempt to repopulate the World with intelligent individuals in an attempt to offset Mr Porritt's stupidity. Idiocy-offsetting, kind of like carbon offsetting, just a little more immediate.
Kirstine Berry, Bracknell

ermm I have the same size house, we have (had) the same size car (none at all now) and have the same amount of "stuff" (actually less as I had a massive clear out after DS3 was born) as when I had 3 children...........

puzzle, that was the second comment right? we loved her too

It was Dizzy.

FAQ you have totally misunderstood me - my fault probably.

I'm not referring to the size of the house you have when you go from two to three children. I'm talking about the bigger picture. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter if 6 trillion people roam the earth, or 8 trillion people roam the earth. It's the amount of stuff each individual has that matters. If humankind learnt to survive without so much, population wouldn't matter. If we could all do with half as much as we have, the population could double.

LOL at the logic and arguments developing on this thread!

I suspect that the fact that each offspring will eventually want it's own car, own house, own lifetime supply of food, that is a bit more taxing on the planet than the hand-me-down babygros and minimalist lego kits that suffice during childhood

We only have one, and there's no way BIL is ever reproducing, I won't write DB and SIL yet (still have hopes, as do they ) so that's just three spares. Who wants 'em? Will accept payment in plastic tat.

ahh but Blu - if you start your child bearing late - then by the time your children are wanting their own home/car/stuff - you'll be getting rid of yours ready to move into a nursing/care home with 30 other people

My BIL doesn't want children either and no woman is stupid enough to breed with either of my two brothers. Does that mean I can have eight?
Oh no wait, my sister has already bagged an extra two with her four. Selfish cow.

Don't call me baby... yes I'd better have another 4 more as I can't see either of my brothers having any... hmm but then DH has one from another relationship, BIL has 3... does that mean I can have another 0.5 of one, or am I only allowed to have another 3.5???

What a load of tripe!

I read Kirsten response (before reading through the thread) and thought, "she's an MNer!"

Actually, the more children you have, the less clutter there is that is actually your own. People with fewer than 3 children have loads more grown-up crap - the rest of us have to declutter to make space for all the beds.

What about all the women in the world who don't want any/more children but don't have a say in the matter?

Yeah and what about all the people who live in mansions without kids. They're a drain too. It's how you live that determins how much of a blip you are on the earth. Let's all have lots of really small kids with REALLY low expectations. Surely that's better than having just one big Mr Greedy.

I saw this on Newsnight about a month ago. It had a guy arguing what sounded like a rather fascist perspective and a woman arguing the liberal perspective who could hardly bring herself to look at the man

For my part I'm irresponsible as pregnant with baby number 3...

I know lots of people who don't have children, are determined never to have children and they fly about in aeroplanes all over the place. Hmmmm.

Is it not a very crude way of condemning people for not being green? Have they actually examined how people with more than two children behave? Because I can imagine most do a lot of hand-me- downs and not a lot of aeroplane flying........

I will click on the link in a minute - but first will ponder my families iresponsibility as my Dad was so greedy he had 6 kids and 2 wives! Off-set by his 3 siblings having no children though. His first wife went on to have another child - so in my generation there are 7 and so far 15 offspring and 3 yet to breed...

It is totally down to individual/ family resource/ space consumption in my opinion as My sister has 7 children and they grow their own veg in an allotment, never go abroad, recycle and use second hand clothing through necessity and choice. I had my 3rd 4 months ago (an ahem happy accident) - but I buy second hand and use washable nappies - yes we have to consume more but as vegetarians we reduce our use of resources - I also recycle and reuse and intend to start a veg patch this year. So ner... she added coherently)

family's I think that should be, before my grammer is corrected.

Well, kind of. I think it's as Blu says, it's about the long-term environmental consequences of a growing population - the demand for housing and so on. Twenty years from now, my one child will be living in (I guess) one dwelling and driving one car. Her friend and his five siblings will (I guess) be living in six dwellings and driving six cars. Compared to the impact of that, hand-me-down clothing and recycled bottles are pretty marginal!

Anyway, I've only got one child and SIL has none - who wants to take up the slack?

Or my children might all decide to live in Yurts and grow their own lentils!

Of all my siblings only one can drive - we have all taken socially responsible jobs or are taking a break to rear children. My parents never owned a house and dad died at 54 so he ain't using any resources. Mum lives very modestly in a rented cottage - generalisations are dangerous.

(The kind of in my earlier post was in reply to winkywinkola).

Yes, bigmouthstrikesagain, but unless we go poking about in the minute details of people's lives, generalisations and averages are all we have. On average, it seems reasonable to say that the bigger the family, the bigger its impact on the environment, especially if the impact is measured across more than one generation. And that is something which deserves serious attention. As does the other scenario, of a dwindling number of people of working age and an ageing population if the birth rate falls.

Madbad, I'll wager that at least half of those sibs will still be living at home and sharing Mum's car in 20yrs time. Kids today eh?

Well, my dp is very environmentally aware and thinks along exactly the same lines as Blu (to quote her earlier post):

"I suspect that the fact that each offspring will eventually want it's own car, own house, own lifetime supply of food, that is a bit more taxing on the planet than the hand-me-down babygros and minimalist lego kits that suffice during childhood"

And i still managed to lure him into having number 3 (who is due in 8 days). As much as dp loves the environment, the bottom line (as he freely admits) is that he 'loves my fanjo more!'

xx

But think of all the childrenless women..their selfishness in NOT providing the next generation, is being balanced by those selfless big families!

Surely it's just blindingly obvious that the earth cannot support so many people and that we need to limit population sizes. How can we possibly justify our collective urge to have large families gven the impact on the environment? All that tedious crap about using other people's quotas to salve our consciences is bollocks as we need to cut down the population not maintain it. Sadly, though, it'll be the kids we keep popping out that suffer eventually as eco-systems go tits-up, food supplies fail and wars are fought over water.