The morality of having large families

[Pip22]

Please consider the wider implications of having more than 2 children.
We are already living way beyond the means of this very finite planet. If there are 1 million more humans every 5 days how on earth will we ever feed them, and slow climate change?
Having big families is simply self-indulgent.
Watch David Attenborough's Horizon from 9/12/2009 via Youtube or visit the website of The Optimum Population Trust for a very detailed discussion of the facts.

that's fine
not planning on flying soon are we

i want to swear but you are not worth it

comewhinewithme i like your style

well, the OP was evidently just looking to advertise rather that antagonise.

and i also addressed the argument :P

and i always find it funny when people talk about overpopulation - as pretty much every country will say it is overpopulated regardless of population density.

i think adoption is something you do because you really want to do specifically that - a moral feeling you should isn't enough of a comittment.

and war and poverty cause starvation - much more than the head count. japan has a high population density - but you don't see them starving....in a world where rich countries throw 1/3 of their food away and perhaps a further 20% didn't need to be eaten anyway..it is not the amount of food that is the issue - it is the distribution.

China has a one child policy, though it is not well enforced and like most things depends entirely who you are how much it applies to you..... many chinese simply don't see enough of their other halves to have many kids anyway.....

Agree with you MrsRuffalo.

i must say i agree with the posters who say their kids are so über bright and oozing creativity that i feel duty bound to spread my seed still further

i am doing the world a favour - but please - don't thank me- it's pure altruism!

oddly i know david attenboroughs extended family

it's hUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGEEEEEEEE

Lots of fives and fours no really!

like lucky dip then...see!

Looking at the 3 posts that the OP has made, she/he is obviously concerned about climate change/over-population and the potential for lack of resources on earth for future generations.

Starting a thread on a parenting forum like MN is a BAD idea, as she/he is never going to get into the debate that she appears to want to start.

Obviously the choice to have children is down to the individual. I don't think world population figures or effect on climate change would ever really figure in anyone's mind when they were planning their third/fourth/fifth child.

OP is also incorrect - in a few years (forgive me, can't remember the exact data) pensioners will outnumber people of working age. How will pensions be paid for for the (now) working generation? I also don't believe that we are overpopulated here in the UK. In other parts of the world, there are obviously population issues. Yes, you can try and limit families to 1 or 2 children but (as we have seen from the baby girl orphanages in China) this doesn't work either.

OP - I think I get your point. I suspect you are probably trawling around the internet looking for places to put your point across. This is OK, but if you have an argument, please make it less antagonistic.

I like to think my own personal 'pips' have a use and a purpose but I tend to think that certain Pip's are neither

that would be 1.95 per couple abride - and you need more than two to hit replacement level.

a tiny percentage of the world's population is consuming the vast majority of it's resources.

in the first year of it's life, a child in the UK uses up the same amount of resources as 17 Sri Lankans will - over their entire life times.

The balance needs significant changes.

The lack of entitlement to a fair share of the world's resources is responsible for more suffering and death than the birth rate.

The OP is right in one thing. We are living beyond the resources of the planet. in the west that is.

(Just noticed foxytocin has already put this much better than me)

I often wonder if I will see the balance redressed in my lifetime and how our lifestyle will change.

Round us farmers are selling arable fields for housing owing to the rising population. At the same time we're told we need to grow more food because we can't afford to import as much food. The two are not compatible.

fewer people per house = greater need for housing.

not birth rate - especially not the current birth rate...

uness you are implying newborns buy houses?

Note to self: stick to topics such as thrush, razor nipples and constipation as it seems that if you are the OP with an interesting discussion topic you get cut down.

I think the OP has a fair point. She's not saying let's be child free, if we all did that then the human race would die out. She is simply stating the fact that population growth is the biggest threat we face on this planet. Couples who choose to have only two children are not adding to population growth, they are maintaining the current population by simply replacing themselves.
If we revisited this subject in 100 years time I think we may get some very different views.

It's not numbers that are the problem so much as consumption. If you teach your larger family to consume less and more intelligently, they may consume less than a family with fewer children having a "standard" Western upbringing. Teach them to use their own steam more and spend less (which tends to happen more in larger families due to pressure on time and resources) and there might even be a balance. Second-hand clothes and equipment, walking or using public transport, fewer hi-tech goods, economy of scale on food preparation in larger families (ie everyone eating the same thing at the same time rather than everyone grabbing their own ready meal from the freezer and cooking separately), always running washing machines full rather than half empty, etc... You get the idea.

There may actually be a case for larger families instead of everyone having 2 and keeping on with the unbridled consumption.

I see that I said exactly the same as Riven about halfway down.

Duchesse, but surely there comes a point at which numbers become critical? With human population doubling every 40 years or so at the moment won't there come a point at which life will become unpleasant?
Some would say we have reached that point now, or at least need to address the problem urgently as that point will be reached very soon.

I understand your point, but with birth rates in some third world countries running 5 or 6, the world is going to have to face some unpalatable truths about birth rates. The fertility rate (no of births per woman) across Europe is very low at present. So any attempt at controlling population would arguably be better targeted at extremely poor countries with very high birth rates and high populations such as Nigeria with a fertility rate of nearly 5 and a population of nearly 150 million, or at India with a fertility rate of nearly 3 and a population of over a billion, who will add far people to the world in the next few decades than Europe will with its 250 million and fertility rate well under 2. The whole concept becomes a lot less palatable and more akin to eugenics when it's Third world people who are being discussed.

Doesn't have to be eugenics, Duchesse. Simply create an environment where babies are likely to survive infancy and childhood, where a decent pension system exists (so you don't have to rely on lots of offspring to support you in old age) and empower women to make the choice to have smaller families (ie, access to birth control and discourage fertility being seen as a social status symbol, particularly for men) -- and women will overwhelmingly make the choice to have smaller families themselves. It's the ultimate win-win solution, all those living get better life outcomes, everyone gets what they want without coercion, and the planet will have less of us vermin humans around.

But oh gosh, making that all happen requires money, as Riven observes.

Confessions of an Ecosinner has a really interesting section in it about likely Population Growth, btw.

duchesse i like your argument

a very good friend came to our house yesterday lunch and i found myself embarrassed that i passed some leftovers from one child to another .... but that's the way it is with our children

NO food is wasted and i would be surprised if our food bill has anything like doubled in synch with our number of dc doubling

we don't do after school clubs so there is no dreadful nipping here and there in the car

shoes etc DO get handed down. By my own admission it is financial constraints and a huge mortgage that have brought on these changes - i used to be horrific and usually filled two green bins a week when i had 3 dc. Now i have 6 dc i do fill them but not always