Is wanting a large family so bad?

summerday

Another one here who agrees that if you can definitely cover the costs and won't expect the Council or anyone to provide you with a larger house, and you are confident of giving each one the individual love and attention it deserves, then go for it.

One other point- especially as you are relying on your husband's income alone, I hope you have/ intend to get insurance to cover his job loss/ critical illness/ life insurance etc. Fingers crossed of course that nothing bad will ever happen to him, but if it did then with that many children you may potentially end up intentionally being a large burden on the state, so I would see this kind of insurance as a necessity.

ceridwen

SusanC wrote: »

Apparently 2.33 is the level needed worldwide for population maintenance. In industrialised countries IIRC it's around 2.1. Current UK birth rate is around 1.8.

<puzzled smilie> but Britain is (very) overpopulated. The world as a whole is (very) overpopulated - therefore we need to have the British birthrate lowered and the world as a whole needs a lower birthrate....that way populations can come down (as they need to - drastically).

Hence my saying that replacement rate is 2 children - it is almost exactly two children and if those having children had just 2 children each then the population would come down (as it needs to) because of those who are infertile/choose not to have children/etc.

DaisyFlower

lemoncheesecake wrote: »

Just wanted to gauge some opinions on this one. We already have 4 kids and have struggled mightily with money for past 18mths. However have now sorted ourselves out - higher income, realistic budget and have curbed the spending. But still have approx 6k of debt that is being paid off - all up to date though but managed through a DMP. I have also managed to save 4.5K in ISA's for emergency fund as we now live on one salary so have some security. Am now intending to save for early debt repayment.

So onto the question - I have 4 kids and want more....5-6 to be exact. People seem to imply that this might be irresponsible - what do others think?

If you can afford all the children with no state assitance then I'd say why not. If they cut all tax credits and child benefit would you still be able to support them? Would you expect a bigger house handed to you?

I grew up in a large family and didnt like it at all. Little money, no individual time, no assitance with homework as not possible to help all, no holidays, no privacy etc so would never have a large family. Theres also the resources a large family uses as we all have a responsibility.

Plans_all_plans

The overpopulation myth: Fred Pearce writes about over consumption being a problem, rather than population growth. See here for more information (there are reviews of his book 'peoplequake' which give an outline of his theories) http://authorsplace.co.uk/fred-pearce/

kafkathecat

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

The overpopulation myth: Fred Pearce writes about over consumption being a problem, rather than population growth. See here for more information (there are reviews of his book 'peoplequake' which give an outline of his theories) http://authorsplace.co.uk/fred-pearce/

It isn't a myth or do you also think climate change is a myth? And if you want to talk about over consumption as a first world country we over consume and every single child we have adds to that. People will believe what they want to believe but I wouldn't have another child now.

Plans_all_plans

Did you follow the link and read the articles?

LilacPixie

Three is my very maximum. I just could not imagine being pregnant again EVER.

That being said if you can support your children physically emtionally and financially then really its up to you and your OH to decide what is best for you all.

hngrymummy

Mupette wrote: »

That's the big problem though, we are over populated now, not enough housing, jobs etc. not enough space to build housing without taking away the green belt.

Actually, plenty of space without using up greenbelt land, and more besides. Before you ask, I work within the construction/demolition/conservation industry, so I have a pretty good idea about what space there is and where is being built on right now. The main problem is people wanting affordable housing, but not wanting developments near them and complaining that their 'countryside' is being built on. Because of a bunch of NIMBYs, small increases in the number of houses in an area become difficult, so the necessary increase in housing ends up bunched together in a larger development.

The new housing development in French Quarter, Southampton on a former warehouse site, The old brewery in Bristol, the former hospital sites spread accross the country (Bedfordshire, Gloucestersire, Derbyshire etc etc etc), the former factory site at the Copper Quarter in Swansea, the demolished factory in Aylesbury etc are all 'brownfield' sites that now have thousands of new houses on them without taking a scrap of countryside. There is plenty more where that came from that can and is being used.

Next time you've broken down on the M25 near junction 19, take a look accross the countryside. You'll see a winding river, a small woodland with peacocks, and a whole host of other wildlife. It's really quite beautiful and peaceful. Next time you're on the train, take a look out of the window. Compare the amount of built-up land you pass through compared with the amount of open space you pass through.

To throw a comment like "we are overpopulated" around is a bit sensationalist, and not very accurate.

So, to conclude. OP, if you want more children and you feel that you are able to bring them up well, then go for it. There are enough people out there not having children/having just 1, to balance you out.

Imp

LilacLouisa wrote: »

These figures were from a book written in 1988, is there anything more up to date we could look at?
How could Dr. Jacqueline Kasun know what the world would be like all these years later, and how can we know what the future will hold? I can take my best guess and it doesn`t look good.


I can see that it would be lovely to have a large family, if you can afford it without handouts and if this country had the space to grow our own food. If you use a small holding approach, it takes around 1 acre to feed and house 1 person. The UK has a population just over 60 million, and the land area of the UK is around 60 million. Therefore at the incredibly unproductive method of freeholding, there is basically enough land to feed the population. Current agricultural methods are significantly more efficient than freeholding, so we don't even need 60 million acres of land if we wanted to feed ourselves. We don't because it is cheaper to import.We used to grow a lot more of our own food, but that went, now we grow what we can at home or buy stuff flown in largely from abroad. You can see this in some hilly parts of the country. As more land is needed for agriculture, the fields are extended further up the hills and mountains. As less land is needed, the highest fields fall into disrepair and become part of the upland, used for grazing sheep. The abandoned fields and their walls are evidence of this. There was a discussion on a recent thread about how other countries such as China and India are becoming more prosperous and want better food, including dairy produce. More competition for food and for the space to grow it. So the price will increase and a balance will be found

There is also a need for people to have housing without being crowded into dwellings with little or no space, that way lies mental illness I think. Even houses/flats with little soundproofing can result in angry exchanges between neighbours. Planning policy needs to be changed to reduce the number of houses built on a parcel of land. Sound proofing is already part of the current building regulations, so you will only have problems if you are in a house built before this was implemented.

It seems there is a crisis over schools now, no money for repairs or new builds. Does anyone have any figures to show how many children of school age there are in this country? Mid 2009 it was 10,981,600 - It's not hard to find, check out the Office of National Statistics

This year in the NW we have had a hosepipe ban, who would have thought that in one of the rainiest parts of the UK that would happen? In the North West, there is little natural rain water storage. In the South East where I live, rain water takes about 3 months to enter the aquifer, so when we had the hot weather and everybody was using lots more water, our aquifers were still being filled from the winter rain fall, while your reservoirs were not. As soon as there was some decent rain, the hose pipe ban was lifted. It's not like you went without water. I am guessing a general increase in population plus no new reservoirs being built have been contributary factors.

I think that is the right of everyone to have a child if they wish, and not to bear a child if they do not want to do so. If the population here increases might it be that younger people now will not be able to have a family in the future because the country is overcrowded? Or might it be that people will be limited to one child and forced to have an abortion if they become pregnant a second time? This is completely unnecessary in this country as we can sustainably cope with a much larger population.

I wish this lady well whatever she decides though, and I hope my vision of the future is unnecessarily bleak.

My comments in red

Spendless

[QUOTE=ceridwen;36471351]<puzzled smilie> but Britain is (very) overpopulated. The world as a whole is (very) overpopulated - therefore we need to have the British birthrate lowered and the world as a whole needs a lower birthrate....that way populations can come down (as they need to - drastically).

Hence my saying that replacement rate is 2 children - it is almost exactly two children and if those having children had just 2 children each then the population would come down (as it needs to) because of those who are infertile/choose not to have children/etc.[/QUOTE]It's overpopulated due to people living longer (better healthcare, sanitary conditions etc). Today's children are likely to be heavily taxed as adults due to needing to support a top heavy elderly population, not in state pension claims as they will likely become means tested, but to provide for services used more by the elderly (eg Drs visits, hospital operations). You could argue you need more children to reduce the tax burden they will have more evenly. Or we could bump off our elderly population at a cut-off age.