Is wanting a large family so bad?

lidlest

Loanranger wrote: »

Over population is the elephant in the room.
For environmental reasons it is highly irresponsible to have more children.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

The UK isn't overpopulated, and in fact the population of our country will go into decline if people do not have more children (ignoring inward migration obvs). Happening already in Italy/germany

Feel free to have more kids as long as you can support them

ceridwen

lidlest wrote: »

The UK isn't overpopulated, and in fact the population of our country will go into decline if people do not have more children (ignoring inward migration obvs). Happening already in Italy/germany

Feel free to have more kids as long as you can support them

Errr..HOW can we ignore inward migration then? They also need food to eat/housing to live in/access to the NHS/etc - or are they going to turn into figments of our imagination the second they cross our borders?

We cannot take what is happening in any other European country necessarily as a guideline to what will happen here. It seems to be rather easier for immigrants to tap into the British welfare state than it is with other European countries - hence a large proportion want to come here...

(ceridwen now feeling distinctly down - having read another thread on this Board about how many children people wanted/had/etc and not one single person said "personally I would have liked more than 2 - but I stayed at just 2 because I realised it wouldnt be fair to have more" or words to that effect - not ONE!!! Hello - shout out for anyone with a conscience time.....).

Regarding the argument that comes up at intervals to the effect of "Oh well - what does it matter if I have all the children I want regardless? After all - there are natural disasters/wars/etc at intervals killing off a lot of the population anyway and its bound to happen again.....". Actually - yes...there are indeed natural disasters/wars/etc and millions of people do die because of them BUT I recall talking to one of the main people in the Optimum Population Trust and she retailed off a long list of such things and how many people had died each time but the population of the World soon goes back to the level it was before and then goes on to increase to a higher level than it was prior to that particular disaster and though there might be a few years at intervals where it isnt growing (and may even have declined) the overall trend continues steadily growing and, for the last 200 years or so it has been shooting up...

January20

lidlest wrote: »

The UK isn't overpopulated, and in fact the population of our country will go into decline if people do not have more children (ignoring inward migration obvs). Happening already in Italy/germany

Feel free to have more kids as long as you can support them

If tomorrow (for whatever reason) we couldn't import any food at all from abroad, would we be able to feed ourselves? If the answer is yes, we are not overpopulated, if the answer is no, then we are, and we are in big trouble too.

ceridwen

January20 wrote: »

If tomorrow (for whatever reason) we couldn't import any food at all from abroad, would we be able to feed ourselves? If the answer is yes, we are not overpopulated, if the answer is no, then we are, and we are in big trouble too.

AFAIK there is just one Energy Descent Plan out on line so far - ie the Totnes one (free for anyone to read that wants to). The thing that struck me is that Totnes has worked out what their "food footprint" is as a community on the basis of having to feed itself without much in the way of imports. The first thing that came up was that other nearby communities would also be taking into account some of the same bits of land as being part of THEIR food footprint as well. Then it went onto the fact that land isnt just going to be required for food production - it will also be required for production of wood (for fuel purposes) for instance - eg growing wood to coppice. All the way through this document it becomes clear that the land will be called on for a large variety of purposes - and that was without taking any account of the need to leave a lot of countryside for leisure purposes (that didnt seem to be factored in - though that is obviously a necessity as well).

It is worth buying the book of this EDAP - as it is by far and away the best EDAP that any community has come out with so far. Others I have seen are more "picture postcards of 2030" - whereas this one has some quite detailed planning. The book comes over more clearly than the website - but the website is still worth reading.

See:
http://totnesedap.org.uk/

Spendless

ceridwen- Are your views on overpopulation purely centred on how many children today's generation are having? What about the opposite end of the population? Do you think we shouldn't be keeping people alive (via medicine and operations), when without it nature would have decreed that they died?

peachyprice

lidlest wrote: »

The UK isn't overpopulated, and in fact the population of our country will go into decline if people do not have more children (ignoring inward migration obvs). Happening already in Italy/germany

You cannot simply ignore immigration!
We may be underpopulated by NATIVES but that is something quite different.

COOKIES

I don't think its wrong to want a large family at all. My dad was one of 7 and my nana one of 11! I would love to have 4 kids BUT realistically In todays society I would only be financially able to keep two, unless i was loaded! Stretching the budget out for a new arrival because of a maternal want when you already have 4 children doesnt leave much for your four existing children.I think the questions you need to sk yourself are not only financial but emotional. Do you NEED another child? how will it affect your existing children if you do? I think if you can definately afford to keep and house them then yes go for it, but it doesnt sound like you will be able to without struggling. Personally i'd try and be happy ith the four children i'd already got and work on paying off my debt so that they dont go without and as parents you could relax a bit more not spending your lives worrying about money and just enjoying watching them grow up.

pigpen

SusanC wrote: »

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?

Other species can regulate their fertility too.. kangaroos and squid for example can choose to incubate their embryos when conditions are good and food plentiful.

OP do what you want noone else will be looking after them you will so it is nothing to do with anyone else!

ceridwen

Spendless wrote: »

ceridwen- Are your views on overpopulation purely centred on how many children today's generation are having? What about the opposite end of the population? Do you think we shouldn't be keeping people alive (via medicine and operations), when without it nature would have decreed that they died?

<puzzled smilie> I don't really understand why that question has come up <puzzled smilie>

Obviously - it is up to the person "at the opposite end" themselves what they decide to do. Each "opposite end" person makes up their own mind whether to go for every bit of treatment possible or to forget the whole idea and let "nature take its course".

Or...is that supposed to be some sort of trick question from which you then go "Ah ha!!!! Then its also up to the would-be mother at the other end of the spectrum to decide for herself"?:cool:

Two totally different - and unrelated - things. One involves someone who is already here and the other involves someone who hasnt actually been conceived but someone (other than the person directly involved - ie the putative child) is making a decision on their behalf.

Since you're asking - I do wonder sometimes from the odd comment I hear generally whether the pressure will increase on ill old people to "shove them out the door" to make way for someone else coming at the other end....and it worries me. Every single ill person who is here already but in that level of poor health has the absolute right to decide on hospice/Living Will/etc or whatever other choice they decide on and have that choice honoured and paid for by Society.

Spendless

ceridwen wrote: »

<puzzled smilie> I don't really understand why that question has come up <puzzled smilie>

Obviously - it is up to the person "at the opposite end" themselves what they decide to do. Each "opposite end" person makes up their own mind whether to go for every bit of treatment possible or to forget the whole idea and let "nature take its course".

Or...is that supposed to be some sort of trick question from which you then go "Ah ha!!!! Then its also up to the would-be mother at the other end of the spectrum to decide for herself"?:cool:

Two totally different - and unrelated - things. One involves someone who is already here and the other involves someone who hasnt actually been conceived but someone (other than the person directly involved - ie the putative child) is making a decision on their behalf.

Since you're asking - I do wonder sometimes from the odd comment I hear generally whether the pressure will increase on ill old people to "shove them out the door" to make way for someone else coming at the other end....and it worries me. Every single ill person who is here already but in that level of poor health has the absolute right to decide on hospice/Living Will/etc or whatever other choice they decide on and have that choice honoured and paid for by Society.

Because the focu seems purely to be people having more kids - from the ones going on about over population but the U.K birthrate is down from the famous 2.4 kids, to 1.8-1.9.
Immingration/emmigration plays a part. How many you have coming in appossed to leaving, but then there is the other end of the scale, more people living longer. If you against over-poulation surely it applies to all aspects does it not < puzzled smile>