Do you look down on couples who have more than two children?

[Doom_Guy]

I was dining at a popular family restaurant chain the other day and I saw a young couple who appeared to be in their early 30's with four small children, and the mother was pregnant again. Each kid appeared to be only a year or so older than the other, so she must have gotten pregnant almost immediately after giving birth each time.

Because of my elitist/eugenicist political and world views that have been shaped by my terrible life experience, I generally look down on people who have more than two children, as I believe they are contributing to our already crippling overpopulation problem.

And I've also noticed that the wealthier people are, the less children they seem to have. Most of the large families I see are lower class, lower-middle class, and middle class.

 

[Penuche]

Do you think that contraception never fails, or that everyone is morally comfortable with using it, let alone getting an abortion if it fails?

 

[deehere]

Hmm

No. As long as they can love them and provide for them it's no one's business how few or many a couple have.

 

[Rachel_X]

I'm not sure which overpopulation problem you're referring to.
Mars isn't overpopulated.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I generally look down on people who have more than two children, as I believe they are contributing to our already crippling overpopulation problem.

I call them Duggars.

 

[Aella_]

No. As long as they can love them and provide for them it's no one's business how few or many a couple have.

Of course it is.
Quality over quantity. Don't overpopulate the planet with dum-dums...

 

[Setanta84]

Smart, economically stable, well-adjusted people have fewer children--in a lot of cases none. Both common sense and pretty much every reputable study on the subject come to this conclusion.

Due to that, it's hard to shake the feeling that the people who have a ton of kids are not the kinds of people you want breeding. They either are dumb as rocks or have an insane political or religious agenda they are trying to advance through breeding. Neither is good for the future of society.

 

[destined]

Smart, economically stable, well-adjusted people have fewer children--in a lot of cases none. Both common sense and pretty much every reputable study on the subject come to this conclusion.

Due to that, it's hard to shake the feeling that the people who have a ton of kids are not the kinds of people you want breeding. They either are dumb as rocks or have an insane political or religious agenda they are trying to advance through breeding. Neither is good for the future of society.

This is sounding something like the introduction scene of the movie "Idiocracy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

If they can afford it, then I'm cool with it. If they are unemployed morons like the octomom then no, not cool with it.

If I remember correctly, she already had six kids through invitro while unemployed prior to popping out the octuplets.

 

[oggbashan]

Years ago my wife and I were in a Big M with our then young children, having been to a Country Park with some friends. I owned a minibus so we had all travelled in that.

Three of the mothers went to the counter to get ice cream leaving my wife and I to look after the ten children.

A passing woman complemented us on how well the children were behaving (Og can be a big fierce scary man for toddlers!) but ruined it by saying:

"Aren't you ashamed of yourselves for having so many children?"

We didn't know what to reply but the other mothers returned at that point. The woman blushed and walked away.

If she had looked carefully she should have known the children couldn't all be ours unless my wife had produced non-identical twins for a couple of years. The mob didn't all belong to the four women. There were some cousins in the mix.

 

[Aella_]

If they can afford it, then I'm cool with it. If they are unemployed morons like the octomom then no, not cool with it.

If I remember correctly, she already had six kids through invitro while unemployed prior to popping out the octuplets.

He's right, as I see it.

There are many people out there who love kids and want more than let's say, 3.
But, as unfair as it might sound (and life Is unfair, unfortunately) in the US (as per my friends) family income should be an important factor in that decision.
Money determines whether your kid goes to a good school (good neighborhood or private) or if (s)he will have a good quality of living (healthy food, books and so on).

It's a matter of responsibility towards their other 3 children to consider whether they go for more than 3.

 

[evesdream]

I guess I fall in the minority around here; I think they're blessed. I sometimes feel a little envious, but I think I'm too self-absorbed to raise a lot of kids. Big families are wonderful.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I was dining at a popular family restaurant chain the other day and I saw a young couple who appeared to be in their early 30's with four small children, and the mother was pregnant again. Each kid appeared to be only a year or so older than the other, so she must have gotten pregnant almost immediately after giving birth each time.

Because of my elitist/eugenicist political and world views that have been shaped by my terrible life experience, I generally look down on people who have more than two children, as I believe they are contributing to our already crippling overpopulation problem.

And I've also noticed that the wealthier people are, the less children they seem to have. Most of the large families I see are lower class, lower-middle class, and middle class.

Maybe that is because you're dining in crappy chain restaurants.

 

[Teodoro777]

............................

 

[deehere]

I guess I fall in the minority around here; I think they're blessed. I sometimes feel a little envious, but I think I'm too self-absorbed to raise a lot of kids. Big families are wonderful.

^THIS!

 

[Mad_Jack_Rabbit]

I tend to look down on couples who are shorter than me.

 

[ryan8558]

Years ago my wife and I were in a Big M with our then young children, having been to a Country Park with some friends. I owned a minibus so we had all travelled in that.

Three of the mothers went to the counter to get ice cream leaving my wife and I to look after the ten children.

A passing woman complemented us on how well the children were behaving (Og can be a big fierce scary man for toddlers!) but ruined it by saying:

"Aren't you ashamed of yourselves for having so many children?"

We didn't know what to reply but the other mothers returned at that point. The woman blushed and walked away.

If she had looked carefully she should have known the children couldn't all be ours unless my wife had produced non-identical twins for a couple of years. The mob didn't all belong to the four women. There were some cousins in the mix.

I would like to think I could have come up with something like, "Aren't you ashamed for being so judgmental?'" but I'm sure the only retort I would have had was "Fuck You Ma'am! and have a nice day!"

 

[doowdniw]

Most of the large families I see are lower class, lower-middle class, and middle class.

I'm curious how you tell their class rank? When I think of large families, I always think of the Kennedys. Granted, Joe was a former bootlegger, but he ended up a US diplomat.

 

[knottygirl]

The more money people have, the fewer children they tend to have. I suspect this is one of the main drivers of income inequality.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

depends on how tall they are...

 

[chillywilly2]

I guess I fall in the minority around here; I think they're blessed. I sometimes feel a little envious, but I think I'm too self-absorbed to raise a lot of kids. Big families are wonderful.

I'm with you on this. I would love to have had more kids but just don't have the money or time for it.

2 children does not keep a stable population, thats why we need imigrants...to keep the population growing...and no, I'm not against imigrants

 

[doowdniw]

The more money people have, the fewer children they tend to have. I suspect this is one of the main drivers of income inequality.

Not so much income inequality as wealth acquisition and retention.

 

[chillywilly2]

The more money people have, the fewer children they tend to have. I suspect this is one of the main drivers of income inequality.

I call bullshit...lets see the stats

 

[knottygirl]

Not so much income inequality as wealth acquisition and retention.

The higher your income, the easier it is to accumulate wealth. The greater your wealth, the more investment income you will bring in. Wealth and income are highly correlated and deeply intertwined. Also, many economists think wealth inequality, rather than income inequality, is the more important metric when discussing general economic inequality.

I call bullshit...lets see the stats

It should be patently obvious that the different fertility rates between the rich and poor are at least a factor in economic inequality. Let's say a rich couple has 1 child, and leaves her $50,000,000 in inheritance. Assuming a 3% rate of return, this kid will be making $1,5000,000 per year just on portfolio income alone. More if she reinvests. Now assume the couple has 3 kids. Three people with a net worth of $16.6 million and making $500,000 per year in portfolio income constitutes less economic inequality than 1 person with a net worth of $50 million and making $1,500,000 per year. This is before you even factor in that the children of the rich, compared to the children of the poor, will have better educations and jobs that pay more.

This paper notes the relationship between rich/poor fertility rates within a country and economic inequality. It also suggests that the relationship between inequality and growth has been misunderstood by others. Most of the past studies on inequality have focused on how inequality affects growth through the accumulation of physical capital. In contrast, this paper links inequality and growth through differential fertility and the accumulation of human capital. In other words, rather than focusing on how A (inequality) causes B (reduced growth), they focus on how C (differential fertility) causes both A and B. They find that this effect (C causes A and B) is more powerful than the effect that A directly has on B. They conclude with policy implications:

A natural direction for further research concerns the policy implications of our model. Since differential fertility rather than inequality per se is the main source of growth effects, it is not clear that redistributional policies would increase economic growth. Indeed, a typical outcome in models with endogenous fertility is that income redistribution tends to increase fertility differentials (see Knowles 1999), which would lower the growth rate. Here the policy implications of our model are in stark contrast to other theories linking inequality and growth. Compared to income redistribution, policies aimed at equalizing access to education would be more effective.

One thing they don't dare touch is the heritability of IQ and the relationship between wealth/income and IQ. A full understanding of this dynamic might lead to the conclusion that even equalizing access to education would have limited effect on reducing economic inequality. Due to understandable political sensitivities and the ethical problems with eugenics, even investigating these things is taboo.

 

[Aglaopheme]

I did not think it was possible for this to get any worse, I was mistaken.