Thoughts on some of the negative comments on here and in real life

[Dontcryformeallegra]

I must admit, I haven't really had many negative comments about having 4 children in real life but I often read stuff on Mumsnet!
What do you think about the following and do you have any to ad?

I can't do the separate quote thing so bare with me.

The point is that whoever lives here is going to produce more so it may aswell be the children who have already been born here.

Because England is a great place to raise a family.

My family will look after whoever amongst us needs help, there's enough of us to do it.

That family is my family? And we are happy to share, we have always shared?

The last bit was just me again asking if anyone can give me a rough guess off what global warming will actually look like in the UK in 10 years or 20 years. What is coming? Are we going to say, well that wasn't all that bad,fair enough we eat more cabbage these days but it was hardly armagedon' What is coming?

whoever lives here is going to produce more so it may aswell be the children who have already been born here.

Ok just read that back. Every person has a carbon foot print. So do we a) bring in people who already exist, or b) produce even more?

Because England is a great place to raise a family.

Then your point about immigrants doesn’t stand as it will be a great place for them as well.

My family will look after whoever amongst us needs help, there's enough of us to do it.

But if there’s no resources how can they help each other? It just means more mouths to feed, if anything they’ll be fighting each other for the last scraps. A smaller unit is easier to take care of. Unless your family are Ben Fogle life-in-the-wild types?

The last bit was just me again asking if anyone can give me a rough guess off what global warming will actually look like in the UK in 10 years or 20 years.

What do you mean what will it look like?

This type of thing, family's will live together more, less houses needed, less under occupation of current stock.

Meant to quote the message about Singapore with the above!

Mydogisthebest that doesn’t answer the question. We might fantasise about all women having two or less children ( which is what is nearly happening anyway in this country ) but the older generations are going to suffer for it.

What will day to day life look like. What will change for the UK.

My children already exist and dont need to be flown in and housed as they live with me and are welcome to stay here.

Do you think the UK is heading to the point of families living off scraps due to climate change in the UK, I honestly would like to know if this point is coming here and if so how long have we got.

You can have as many kids as you like as long as you look after them without the help of the state

@stairgates

What will day to day life look like. What will change for the UK.

My children already exist and dont need to be flown in and housed as they live with me and are welcome to stay here.

Do you think the UK is heading to the point of families living off scraps due to climate change in the UK, I honestly would like to know if this point is coming here and if so how long have we got.

🤦🏼‍♀️

Well they exist now so yes - but we are discussing large families as a concept, and they are inherently selfish.

But had you decided on 2 children, then we could’ve used the skills of other people already in existence rather than you going on to produce even more.

I don’t really think you understand this if I’m honest.

Do I think we will be living off scraps? Who knows? Food is already becoming more expensive and will continue to do so. Water is becoming more and more irreversibly polluted. Rising sea levels will kill off farmland needed for agriculture. Nobody can say it will happen in 2056 for example, but that’s the way we are headed - due to overpopulation and the strain we are putting on the earth by consuming.

If it does get to the point where people are going without food, a smaller family unit will obviously be easier to feed than a large one. Common sense.

My friend is 1 of 8 kids and as one of the eldest, her childhood and teenage years were spent looking after the younger kids, while her mum just kept having them. She resented having a large family, said it was selfish of her mother and has vowed never to have children as she was so put off looking after her siblings. This could just be an example of bad parenting though and I'm sure there's lots of families of 8+ where the kids are happy, but it's just a perspective that sticks out to me.

Also, I had 1 other sibling. When going to my friend's house with a family of 5 kids, I noticed how regimented it was, the need for routine and chore lists. Life felt like a boot camp when I was there. But again, maybe they were happy that way and thought my sibling and I were given too much freedom/no responsibilities at the same age.

Different strokes for different folks I guess!

@stairway

Mydogisthebest that doesn’t answer the question. We might fantasise about all women having two or less children ( which is what is nearly happening anyway in this country ) but the older generations are going to suffer for it.

Not if we up immigration and offer visas for skilled workers, or funded training for nurses etc.

Anyway with respect the elderly generation have the least time on this planet, we should be planning for our kids, not for the elderly.

Glassofshloer why should other countries be responsible for providing and training young people for us? When women gave a choice birth rate declines slowly. Some people will choose to have none and some will have more than 2 and it doesn’t matter because the birth rate declines naturally. Countries with high birth rates do so because women lack choices. Once these issues are addressed birth rate declines. It is predicted that global birth rate will be in decline at some point. State limits on children as in China do not have a good outcome.

@stairway

Glassofshloer why should other countries be responsible for providing and training young people for us? When women gave a choice birth rate declines slowly. Some people will choose to have none and some will have more than 2 and it doesn’t matter because the birth rate declines naturally. Countries with high birth rates do so because women lack choices. Once these issues are addressed birth rate declines. It is predicted that global birth rate will be in decline at some point. State limits on children as in China do not have a good outcome.

I didn’t say they were. I said we should offer attracting training packages for immigrants that want to live and work here.

You talk about the population declining but that is what we need. A slow decline back to a manageable number.

And who suggested a one child policy like China?! I didn’t.

You see I do see it differently! If there was limited resources then through numbers my children would have more chance of getting to them even if the resources were split further, better a bit of something than a whole lot of nothing! I am discovering my inner prepper the more I look into this :D

@stairgates

You see I do see it differently! If there was limited resources then through numbers my children would have more chance of getting to them even if the resources were split further, better a bit of something than a whole lot of nothing! I am discovering my inner prepper the more I look into this :D

Haha!!! Your children might have their own kids at that point, and they would be their priority, not their brothers or sisters. This wolf pack fantasy that you have wouldn’t work on any level. Unless they turned out to be professional foragers or Bear Grylls, this image you have of a family clan ain’t happening.

But had you decided on 2 children, then we could’ve used the skills of other people already in existence rather than you going on to produce even more.

What people already in existence would these be? It can’t be someone older, because that would be different generation. Someone somewhere has to have children, so are you saying we should depend on the high birth rate countries where women are literally forced into giving birth over and over that they will provide the next generation of workers? That women in rich developed countries should be told its “selfish” to choose to have babies, because no worry, the poor women will be forced to have them?

I don’t really think you understand this if I’m honest.
You don’t understand the facts proven over and over. That when women can choose if/when and how many children with no limit and no stigma, then what results is a natural decline in birth rates to below replacement level. How is this freedom risking overpopulation when it actually decreases population?

Do I think we will be living off scraps? Who knows? Food is already becoming more expensive and will continue to do so.
Yes, inflation is a fact of life. But the inconvenient fact is that families spend the lowest % of their total monthly income on food EVER in history. So the price of food goes up a bit, but average income increases much faster. So the net result is food is relatively cheaper.

Water is becoming more and more irreversibly polluted
No, it’s not. Case in point the Thames was declared biologically dead in 1957 due to pollution. Yet today, it is mostly recovered and teaming with life. Even things extremely susceptible to even small amounts of pollution like sea horses. Facts are that water/lakes are cleaner today than they have been for decades.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59222372

Rising sea levels will kill off farmland needed for agriculture.
Dear god this is ridiculous. Most coastal land is not even arable/usable for agriculture because of salt. A lot is also urbanised, 10% of the world population lives on the coast in major cities. In addition, crop yields have more than tripled since 1960, meaning we can feed 3x as many people with the same amount of land. The world currently produces enough food for 10bn people, world hunger is fully recognised as caused by supply chain and food waste, not insufficient land or crop yields.

Nobody can say it will happen in 2056 for example, but that’s the way we are headed - due to overpopulation and the strain we are putting on the earth by consuming.

We are not overpopulated on a global scale and that is not the “way we are heading”.

@PlanDeRaccordement

But had you decided on 2 children, then we could’ve used the skills of other people already in existence rather than you going on to produce even more.

What people already in existence would these be? It can’t be someone older, because that would be different generation. Someone somewhere has to have children, so are you saying we should depend on the high birth rate countries where women are literally forced into giving birth over and over that they will provide the next generation of workers? That women in rich developed countries should be told its “selfish” to choose to have babies, because no worry, the poor women will be forced to have them?

I don’t really think you understand this if I’m honest.
You don’t understand the facts proven over and over. That when women can choose if/when and how many children with no limit and no stigma, then what results is a natural decline in birth rates to below replacement level. How is this freedom risking overpopulation when it actually decreases population?

Do I think we will be living off scraps? Who knows? Food is already becoming more expensive and will continue to do so.
Yes, inflation is a fact of life. But the inconvenient fact is that families spend the lowest % of their total monthly income on food EVER in history. So the price of food goes up a bit, but average income increases much faster. So the net result is food is relatively cheaper.

Water is becoming more and more irreversibly polluted
No, it’s not. Case in point the Thames was declared biologically dead in 1957 due to pollution. Yet today, it is mostly recovered and teaming with life. Even things extremely susceptible to even small amounts of pollution like sea horses. Facts are that water/lakes are cleaner today than they have been for decades.
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59222372

Rising sea levels will kill off farmland needed for agriculture.
Dear god this is ridiculous. Most coastal land is not even arable/usable for agriculture because of salt. A lot is also urbanised, 10% of the world population lives on the coast in major cities. In addition, crop yields have more than tripled since 1960, meaning we can feed 3x as many people with the same amount of land. The world currently produces enough food for 10bn people, world hunger is fully recognised as caused by supply chain and food waste, not insufficient land or crop yields.

Nobody can say it will happen in 2056 for example, but that’s the way we are headed - due to overpopulation and the strain we are putting on the earth by consuming.

We are not overpopulated on a global scale and that is not the “way we are heading”.

1. Actually it would suit them and us. Us having babies won’t enable choice in others. But if they knew their children had the option of pursuing a life and education in a Western country, it would benefit the home country too - many of them would return home at some point skilled, they may send money home, relieve the pressure in those countries on services & bring knowledge and cultural understanding. What are you suggesting? That we pop out babies while giving them condoms and discouraging them from doing so?

1. Women in this country are in part having less children due to working pressures, nursery costs & concerns over the environment. It isn’t all choice as you will see from this thread.

1. Why are you making an example out of one solitary river? Pardon the pun but that’s a drop in the ocean.

1. Crops yields have grown due to GI, artificial heating, artificial watering, pesticides… yep… even more strain on resources and pollutants in the river

1. Yes it is.

@Glassofshloer

Large families are causing ZERO increase in population because they are more than balanced out by those that are childfree.

Yes @PlanDeRaccordement by people like @mydogisthebest !!

If the bigger families had stuck at 2 all along then maybe couples like mydog would have felt able to have their own children.

You can’t rely on ‘not everyone does what I do so they negate my actions’ that’s a totally selfish mindset. It’s just relying on everyone else to go without so you can have more.

As mydog said, if we have an increasing elderly population, how can the answer be to keep having kids? Do we just grow the population larger and larger and larger?

I can’t be held responsible for “mydog” choosing to go childfree because she believes in an impending climate apocalypse.

I’m not relying on any mindset or hypothetical might be argument (unlike you). I’m pointing out facts. What happens in real life when women have full reproductive rights. Every country, millions and millions of people, decades of tracking actual birth rates.....the sum of all these millions of womens’ choices has always resulted in the birth rate declining to below replacement level. Always. No exception. That is fact. We’ve seen it happen. Doesn’t matter what religion, what culture, which nationality. Birth rate declines when women have full reproductive rights.

I don’t know what you mean by how can the answer be to keep having kids? The answer is that someone has to keep having kids unless we want to go extinct. And secondly, having kids doesn’t mean the population will grow “larger and larger”.

As stated before, when women have the right to choose if/when and how many children, the result is a population that slowly decreases. Countries like the U.K. have only had a net increase in population due to people living longer and immigration.

@Glassofshloer
What are you suggesting? That we pop out babies while giving them condoms and discouraging them from doing so?

No, I’m suggesting that we fight for women’s rights in these countries where they are forced to be baby machines. Then, as shown in every other country in the planet, when these women have the right to choose if/when and how many with no stigma or limits, their birth rates will also fall and then the world will be that much closer to zero growth.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Glassofshloer
What are you suggesting? That we pop out babies while giving them condoms and discouraging them from doing so?

No, I’m suggesting that we fight for women’s rights in these countries where they are forced to be baby machines. Then, as shown in every other country in the planet, when these women have the right to choose if/when and how many with no stigma or limits, their birth rates will also fall and then the world will be that much closer to zero growth.[/quote]
We could do both?!

I think you’re majorly overlooking the cultural aspect too. It’s all very well saying ‘here’s contraception, now you have a choice’ but many families have more babies for religious reasons, traditional reasons, family business reasons etc.

Women in this country are in part having less children due to working pressures, nursery costs & concerns over the environment. It isn’t all choice as you will see from this thread.

Ah, the old trope that if it’s not a free choice, it’s not a choice. Sorry but no choice in life is a free choice. Every choice is influenced by external factors. The point is that women in the UK have the right to choose. Other women don’t have that right.

@Glassofshloer
I think you’re majorly overlooking the cultural aspect too. It’s all very well saying ‘here’s contraception, now you have a choice’ but many families have more babies for religious reasons, traditional reasons, family business reasons etc.

I’m not overlooking it at all. You don’t think in all these countries and the millions of women studied for decades, tracking the global birth rate, that none of them had large families due to whatever? No! The point is that when women have reproductive rights, those that choose large families are always more than counterbalanced by those who choose to be child free.

Why are you making an example out of one solitary river? Pardon the pun but that’s a drop in the ocean.

Because there’s not enough room to post every pollution clean up story on the planet.

But we’re not at that point, @PlanDeRaccordement

If it’s and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas wouldn’t we?

Crops yields have grown due to GI, artificial heating, artificial watering, pesticides… yep… even more strain on resources and pollutants in the river

Er not really. Suggest you research modern European farming techniques. Not even sure what “artificial heating” is...are you saying greenhouses are a problem? Well won’t global warming solve that issue if you’re saying the planet is so cold, we have to “artificially heat” our fields.

@Glassofshloer

But we’re not at that point, *@PlanDeRaccordement*

If it’s and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a merry Christmas wouldn’t we?

? How are we not at that point? You’re going to have to be more specific. Zero growth rate is 2.1 in a low mortality rich country. The U.K. is well below that at 1.53. The planet is getting closer every year and is at 2.4, the lowest it has been since 1950.

The primary reason this is the case is because women have been getting reproductive rights. Why are you so pessimistic? You think there was more awareness 70yrs ago than today? You think we are going to reverse a 70yr trend and birth rates will increase? You think women’s rights are, what? Not progressing? That WWIII is about to happen?

What is the basis for going against all the trends and facts?