Question 4

[starrkers]

Depends very much on the individual. I have three. That is definitely enough for me - some days more than enough

Some adults can't look after themselves, let alone a child. Others could look after many children.

But I think there needs to be more thought than just "can I give these children a good upbringing?" - there needs to be a back up plan if something goes pear shaped.

I know of a family with a lot of kids. The eldest is about 17, the youngest are still in nappies. Dad works full time, mum is home with the kids and renovating the house. Last year she was diagnosed with breast cancer, long term prognosis not good.

Should the worst happen, how will the remaining parent cope?

 

[sr71plt]

That '1969's was a typo, meant, '1960's', but it looked so cute and kinky I left it....but you already know that...chuckles...



ami

Ah, you mean the possessive 1960's then rather than the plural 1960s.

 

[sr71plt]

Beyond the environmental/balance of population issues, I believe that if you can't give your children a solid foundation to hold their own in life, you had too many and are being unfair to them and to the rest of us who will have to help carry them. I'd hate to have to face even putting my two through the university (or even a good trade school) today. As it was, we both had to work and had to take high-risk overseas assignments to manage. But no one else had to carry our bucket for us.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Depends on the parents...

Some couples shouldn't even have one child.

While others should have a houseful.

Resources are a big key, but love and affection along with commonsense and parenting ability are factors in how many are too many.

 

[sr71plt]

Resources are a big key, but love and affection along with commonsense and parenting ability are factors in how many are too many.

That sounds sweet, of course, but love and affection don't build and staff schools and provide health care. At the point that those outside the family have to cover your kids' basic needs because you can't, the issue gets a lot more complex in terms of the big, real picture than your ability/willingness to hug your child.

 

[Elianna]

That sounds sweet, of course, but love and affection don't build and staff schools and provide health care. At the point that those outside the family have to cover your kids' basic needs because you can't, the issue gets a lot more complex in terms of the big, real picture than your ability/willingness to hug your child.

So I wrote this whole thing about what I believe and had to stop.

My belief is simple; kids are a lifetime committment. They demand your focus in life from day 1. If you can't give them your full attention, love, consistency and responsibility, it won't matter if you have 2 or 12.

 

[Corylea]

Apart from personal considerations as to how well a family can provide for their brood, there's a serious ethical consideration, as far as global population.

Sure, population density isn't as high in, for example, the U.S., as it is in other regions, but people in the U.S. tend to do more than their fair share of consumption and pollution.

If you believe that there is an environmental crisis, the best thing you can do to not to contribute to it, is not reproduce. Or, at the very least, restrain yourself to replacement-level reproduction, e.g. two kids per couple. No amount of recycling/conservation is going to make up for putting nineteen more car-driving, plastic toy-buying critters on the planet.

I agree with this. An awful lot of the world's problems -- and not just environmental ones -- are caused by the simple fact that there are too many human beings on the planet. Even if you are as green as it's possible to be, people take up space, eat food, and drink water. We've already driven a lot of animals to the brink of extinction through habitat loss, and every additional person means someone wanting a place to live. There are already lots of fights over resources, and the more crowded the planet becomes, the more of these struggles there will be and the more intense they will be. A lot of people are predicting wars over water, later in this century, and that sounds truly grim.

You know how they have carbon coupons, and a company that pollutes a lot can buy some from companies that pollute less? Well, I think each person should be entitled to a child. If you and your partner want more than the two that the two of you are entitled to, then you have to find somebody who doesn't want any kids and get their child coupon from them. That way, we'll be sure that the people who want lots of children will be balanced by the people who don't want any. Of course, this is just a fantasy, since there is no government that I would trust to create or enforce a program like this, but I think the principle is sound -- the planet can stand replacement, if that, and no more.

 

[sr71plt]

So I wrote this whole thing about what I believe and had to stop.

My belief is simple; kids are a lifetime committment. They demand your focus in life from day 1. If you can't give them your full attention, love, consistency and responsibility, it won't matter if you have 2 or 12.

That sounds sensible. What I don't see much of on this thread, though, and what I was trying to inject, is that the decision to have and raise kids doesn't impact only on that specific nuclear family unit--and so I don't think those contemplating having kids should think about it with tunnel vision. Society at large has to carry a burden as well, and I think they should be given a thought or two as well. In general, I find the ones who pop out the most children give the least thought to the consequences and the demands on others that they are creating.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That sounds sensible. What I don't see much of on this thread, though, and what I was trying to inject, is that the decision to have and raise kids doesn't impact only on that specific nuclear family unit--and so I don't think those contemplating having kids should think about it with tunnel vision. Society at large has to carry a burden as well, and I think they should be given a thought or two as well. In general, I find the ones who pop out the most children give the least thought to the consequences and the demands on others that they are creating.

Quite true...so do you propose a sterilization program for those that can't contribute or won't contribute to societies needs?

 

[sr71plt]

Quite true...so do you propose a sterilization program for those that can't contribute or won't contribute to societies needs?

Nope. I hope for intelligence and restraint. I got my fill of mandates in covering China's one-child policy--and the enforcement of that. I know that's ducking the issue, but the older I get the less responsibility I feel and the fewer blood vessels I pop for what other people choose to do.

 

[Corylea]

Quite true...so do you propose a sterilization program for those that can't contribute or won't contribute to societies needs?

I wouldn't mind seeing Norplant required for drug addicts until they're clean -- you don't want to know what being born to a drug addict can do to a child, both physically and emotionally.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I wouldn't mind seeing Norplant required for drug addicts until they're clean -- you don't want to know what being born to a drug addict can do to a child, both physically and emotionally.

But what about stupid people or people just too lazy to look after their children?

Now you can fix laziness but you can't fix stupid.

 

[DeeZire]

Quite true...so do you propose a sterilization program for those that can't contribute or won't contribute to societies needs?

I propose capping tax deductions for dependents at two per couple, unless the kids are adopted.

For those interested in the survival of the human species, this would be a sensible policy. For those who are unaware of the repercussions of their actions, I'm sure a proposal like this would have them up in arms. That would actually be a good thing, because if they were up in arms, getting themselves shot would only help to control the population problem.

I mean, honestly, how can you ignore the numbers? Dismissing exponential population growth is like saying you can park an infinite number of automobiles on a single acre of land. Granted, you could build a multi-level parking lot, but people are not automobiles. People need food a water. People use up natural resources. People create pollution. You can't have an infinite number of people on a finite planet.

(Notice, for emphasis, I didn't use the word 'fuck' once in this post. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that the more you need to use the word 'fuck' to validate your point, the more obvious it is that you're talking out of your ass.)

 

[impressive]

I wouldn't mind seeing Norplant required for drug addicts until they're clean -- you don't want to know what being born to a drug addict can do to a child, both physically and emotionally.

Actually, I would favor mandatory birth control for anyone relying on government programs for the duration of that aid. That includes unemployment compensation, food stamps, SSI, etc.

The desire to have children, then, would be motivation to get your shit together. If you can't take care of what you've already got, then you wouldn't have the right to take more and expect someone else to fund it.

Yes, I realize that this would've meant I couldn't have borne two more kids after my first's disabilities put him on Medicaid for life, but I would've adopted.

 

[Munachi]

i must admit it does annoy me when people keep pointing out how their tax dollars pay for "someone else's child"... children aren't "someone's". they are born into a family and hopefully can grow up in this family, yes, but they are only their own. and the taxes of people without children paying for those children seems only fair to me, at least if we consider children being an important part of the world and future.

so if we assume that we want children in the world (like, the government here keeps complaining about how there aren't enough children around and how soon there'll be much more old people than young people, i don't know how much of a problem that is in the US), then it seems only fair that all are responsible for the well-being of those children, not only the parents - especially since having children actually usually means not only more cost but also less income. after all, we'd like someone to be at home taking care of them for the first couple of years, rather then dump them in a day care at two months old, right? and that already means less career opportunities for one of the parents. of course, a lot of poor people wouldn't be any richer without kids, and there are people that are rich despite kids, but i think there is a slight difference there, still. and i don't mean to say all poor people should have lots of children so the rich can pay for them - but what i want to say is that if my taxes support children, even if i don't have any, that is just part of my responsibility to the future.

the other point of course would be, do we need children? i guess if you are of the opinion we should voluntarily die out, then you have right to complain that your money supports children of which you wish that they wouldn't even exist... though they're still not other people's property. anyway, sorry for ranting...

anyway, for those against children per se - not sure if this link has been posted yet (i might actually have it from here) but maybe you find this interesting... personally i don't agree with it (also because i do want children), but still found it interesting in a somewhat bizarre way: http://www.vhemt.org/

 

[Munachi]

as for mandatory birth control... well thing is, in my own country's history there have been tendencies to keep those who weren't deemed worthy to have children (either because of disabilities, or because they were seen as asocial) from having them, well in that case not by mandatory birth control, but the idea was more castration or sterilisation...

 

[Munachi]

just thought a bit more about the question of "why do poor and uneducated people seem to have the most children"... meaning those in rich countries now, where the question of how many of those children will even survive is less of a topic.

actually part of the question might rather be "why not", i think? because if you are from a richer background, where education and a career play a bigger role, you just have more reasons not to have children, or to wait longer till you have them - you want to finish university first, you want to have a career first (not saying you can't have both, my best friend is raising her son and doing a phd at the same time, and doing a great job at both)... also, you have more opportunities both because of money and because of how you were probably raised to do all kinds of interesting stuff. you want to travel a lot before you have kids. you have hobbies that take up lots of time (so you want to not have many kids to keep this time to yourself), etc.

i guess a lot of people have many children because "that's what someone does" and because they don't have any reason not to. not because they wouldn't know how to use contraception.

so actually i think spending money on the education of poor kids, and creating opportunities for them, might ensure that at least some of them will not end up having lots of kids they can't provide for, themselves.

dunno, but i guess i might be completely off...

 

[oggbashan]

In many poorer countries contraception is not available for political, religious or cost reasons.

If you are struggling to survive with little cash income, buying condoms just isn't feasible.

Condoms could mean that families could limit the number of children to those they could afford and would reduce the spread of AIDS in sub-saharan Africa but there is no political will to provide condoms.

Og

 

[Munachi]

weren't there programs to distribute and promote the use of condoms that were basically destroyed by those that thought promoting abstinence is somehow more according to their morals - ignoring the fact that this would have much less success than the distribution of condoms?

 

[champagne1982]

I agree with this. An awful lot of the world's problems -- and not just environmental ones -- are caused by the simple fact that there are too many human beings on the planet. Even if you are as green as it's possible to be, people take up space, eat food, and drink water. We've already driven a lot of animals to the brink of extinction through habitat loss, and every additional person means someone wanting a place to live. There are already lots of fights over resources, and the more crowded the planet becomes, the more of these struggles there will be and the more intense they will be. A lot of people are predicting wars over water, later in this century, and that sounds truly grim.

You know how they have carbon coupons, and a company that pollutes a lot can buy some from companies that pollute less? Well, I think each person should be entitled to a child. If you and your partner want more than the two that the two of you are entitled to, then you have to find somebody who doesn't want any kids and get their child coupon from them. That way, we'll be sure that the people who want lots of children will be balanced by the people who don't want any. Of course, this is just a fantasy, since there is no government that I would trust to create or enforce a program like this, but I think the principle is sound -- the planet can stand replacement, if that, and no more.

They abort late term foetuses in some countries (or used to, I can't verify with my available resources) to create zero population growth.

 

[rgraham666]

Actually, I would favor mandatory birth control for anyone relying on government programs for the duration of that aid. That includes unemployment compensation, food stamps, SSI, etc.

The desire to have children, then, would be motivation to get your shit together. If you can't take care of what you've already got, then you wouldn't have the right to take more and expect someone else to fund it.

Yes, I realize that this would've meant I couldn't have borne two more kids after my first's disabilities put him on Medicaid for life, but I would've adopted.

Does that include people who run and/or work for companies that get government bailouts? Or perhaps people who work in the defense industry as all their money comes from the government?

Joking, mostly.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

It is a complete joke to think that everyone in the world will suddenly become perfectly responsible to the environment.

With the issue of overpopulation, the only way to enforce it is through laws, hopefully less harsh than China's. In america that will never happen.

As the cost of living goes up responsible families are having less children, they simply cant afford the daycare and diapers, let alone planning for their children's education.

Then you have the women that have a million kids with different dad's living on welfare.

As for the family that has 18 kids in the article. The kids are well fed, dressed, behaved and responsible. The family also supports itself. People bitch about how kids should just be kids, in some respects I disagree. How are kids supposed to learn responsibility? Those kids are helping with their younger siblings and learning how to take care of their future children at the same time. Personally I think that the woman should give childraising lessons to the public.

I agree that overpopulation is a problem, and so is the overuse of resources. Unfortuantly the only problem is that for every responsible person out there there are 2 that aren't.

I am not sure what the solution is other than trying to do my part.

 

[rgraham666]

Not to worry. Mother Nature always balances out populations to their environment.

Her methods; plague, famine and violence; aren't very pretty but that's the way She's always worked.

 

[impressive]

Does that include people who run and/or work for companies that get government bailouts? Or perhaps people who work in the defense industry as all their money comes from the government?

Joking, mostly.

As to the former, I don't think there's any way to implement that -- unless the company is not allowed to spawn any subsidiaries until it's solvent.

As to the latter, it's a nonsequitur. Those people are working, contributing, paying into the system -- not living off it. Big difference, and you know it.

 

[Shwenn]

For me? One.

Me too. I'm infertile so it worked out quite well.