We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

Is wanting a large family so bad?

11112131517

Comments

  • Imp wrote: »
    You kind of miss the point, you believe that Britain can only support fewer than 60 million people, I believe there is no such limit (or if there is it is significantly higher). I put it to you to prove that Britain is overpopulated, using any metric you decide (except the fact that in the past the population was less, that doesn't prove anything).

    What about using the quality of life as a measure, what would you think is acceptable? Would it be a house for families with a room for each child and ground for a garden and/or to grow their own fruit and veg, or would you still find it acceptable for families to live in tiny rooms within tiny flats with very little ground available to play or grow things?

    Or do you think dwellings should be crammed onto any bit of available space, including flood plains, just to see how many people can be shoehorned onto this small island?
  • Imp
    Imp Posts: 1,035 Forumite
    edited 11 September 2010 pm30 6:14PM
    What about using the quality of life as a measure, what would you think is acceptable? Would it be a house for families with a room for each child and ground for a garden and/or to grow their own fruit and veg, or would you still find it acceptable for families to live in tiny rooms within tiny flats with very little ground available to play or grow things?

    Or do you think dwellings should be crammed onto any bit of available space, including flood plains, just to see how many people can be shoehorned onto this small island?

    Currently 5.8% of land is built on, with 49.8% agricultural (arable, horticultural and grassland). We could double the amount of land available for housing and only reduce the current farmland by around 10%, or bring other land into use as farm land.

    Lets say we double the size of every hamlet, village, town and city. How does that affect people? Their perception of the size of somewhere is governed by how long it takes them to travel from one side to the other. If you double the size of a place, the distance from one side to the other only goes up by 41% - i.e. the gain is disproportional to the inconvenience.

    So a change to the planning laws and everybody could have the house in the large garden that you want - happiness all around.
  • SusanC_2
    SusanC_2 Posts: 5,344 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    I wasn't making the comment about considering adoption to you btw, just wondered if anyone had considered it. These children are already here and desperately need love, but I have been told that most people just want babies. How awful to be cast on the scrapheap at a young age, mostly through no fault of your own.
    Yes I realised it was a general comment rather than specifically directed at (or attacking) anyone. I think it is probably natural that people will want babies as that is what you would get the biological way and also an older child is likely to be harder work due to their difficult background. I have noticed that our local authority seems to only try to place under tens (roughly) for adoption and place older children in long term foster care instead presumably because the chances of finding adoptive parents are inversely proportional to age. We would try to adopt a sibling group if possible because they are harder to place and tend to do better if they are not separated.
    Any question, comment or opinion is not intended to be criticism of anyone else.
    2 Samuel 12:23 Romans 8:28 Psalm 30:5
    "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die"
  • SusanC_2
    SusanC_2 Posts: 5,344 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Personally i think the issue of over population is a valid one.....can anyone else name a specie that breeds without any regard for its habitat or the ability of that habitat to support the increasing population?
    Doesn't every species breed as much as possible? I thought it was predators, disease and food scarcity that controlled animal populations and that it was only humans who deliberately choose not to reproduce?
    Any question, comment or opinion is not intended to be criticism of anyone else.
    2 Samuel 12:23 Romans 8:28 Psalm 30:5
    "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die"
  • Imp wrote: »
    Currently 5.8% of land is built on, with 49.8% agricultural (arable, horticultural and grassland). We could double the amount of land available for housing and only reduce the current farmland by around 10%, or bring other land into use as farm land.

    Lets say we double the size of every hamlet, village, town and city. How does that affect people? There perception of the size of somewhere is governed by how long it takes them to travel from one side to the other. If you double the size of a place, the distance from one side to the other only goes up by 41% - i.e. the gain is disproportional to the inconvenience.

    So a change to the planning laws and everybody could have the house in the large garden that you want - happiness all around.
    Well that certainly sounds tempting. I was born in a small village, then lived in a small town, now a small village again. I have seen all of them expanding though, not always in a good way either.

    Weren't the planning laws put in place for a good reason, and shouldn`t we be growing more of our own food on this agricultural land? If you think that beef and dairy herds will be needed (supposing that not everyone will become vegan)? Please tell me you are not advocating intensive farming!
  • Imp
    Imp Posts: 1,035 Forumite
    ceridwen wrote: »

    So basically we are there or there abouts for being able to sustain the estimated world population in 2050 with the consumption levels per capita of the USA. I see that as remarkably positive.
  • Imp
    Imp Posts: 1,035 Forumite
    Please tell me you are not advocating intensive farming!

    Why should this be ruled out?
  • SusanC wrote: »
    Yes I realised it was a general comment rather than specifically directed at (or attacking) anyone. I think it is probably natural that people will want babies as that is what you would get the biological way and also an older child is likely to be harder work due to their difficult background. I have noticed that our local authority seems to only try to place under tens (roughly) for adoption and place older children in long term foster care instead presumably because the chances of finding adoptive parents are inversely proportional to age. We would try to adopt a sibling group if possible because they are harder to place and tend to do better if they are not separated.

    Yes, I think that you are right, and you certainly seem to have given it plenty of thought.

    Anyone who does adopt has my utmost admiration, so good luck if you ever go down that route.

    Whatever you decide, I wish you well. :)
  • Imp wrote: »
    Why should this be ruled out?

    The welfare of animals is very important to me.
  • So on the basis that man has no predators (other than man but that's a whole different topic) and man is supposed to be the most intelligent specie on this planet (but again that's debatable) at what point does man realise s/he can't breed ad infinitum because the whole eco-system will just collapse? Or will mother nature step in and cause a massive population decrease through some natural cause?

    I actually think that Man is too selfish to use the intelligence He has to decide not to stop breeding so much. There are also issues of religion and politics that will get in the way of making such a decision. I believe Mother Nature will take care of it, or we - as a species - will destroy our own world.

    I remember a programme last year about what would happen if suddenly humans disappeared. It was quite reassuring to realise that Earth would prosper and all traces of us would disappear within a few thousand years. We are not as important as we like to think we are.
    LBM: August 2006 £12,568.49 - DFD 22nd March 2012
    "The road to DF is long and bumpy" GreenSaints
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.