Mojo

I can both see and understand the reasons Vegangelica has for claiming that having more than two kids is selfish. I can see her reasoning behind some of the potential consequences of this but this is a generalisation based on the consequences of everyone having two kids, surely?

I just dont think it works this way and i think its quite harsh to claim that having more than two kids is always selfish. I think people who cant get the grasp of birth control and pop out accidental kid after accidental kid are not just selfish but too stupid to be trusted with the responsibility of having children. I think the only reason we are are in this situation, if what Vegangelica says is accurate, is because people are having children younger and younger, kids are having their own kids, and alot of people are not having children because they want to have children, they are having children because they make mistakes and find themselves with children and ultimately do not have what it takes to be then be responsible for them.

I think that claiming people who have more than two kids is wrong. If people want a big family and get alot of enjoyment out of having children and raising children and are responsible enough to do so then i dont think its fair to suggest that they shouldnt be entitled to do. Its their life. Its the idiots who arent mature, responsible or capable enough to have children that are the problem. If you had pass a test and get a licence to have children, alot of people would be deemed too stupid and never allowed to have kids.

__________________

Last.FM | Echoes and Dust

mr dave

i wonder how much of this is a difference in typical North American vs. European perspectives though. more often than not large families are drains on social services and programs.

the 'inspirational' families are few and far between, same as the ones who can actually afford to properly raise a large amount of children. the sad reality is that most of the adults who have more than the average number of children don't have the necessary resources to provide those children with what they would like to consider the modern norm for care. as a result the child will lack either material or emotional needs or both, all because the parents thought they were more special than the status quo and don't want to own up to having bitten more than they could chew - and that's taking the positive side of this dilemma where the parents mean better than they actually are, as opposed to being legitimately stupid and greedy and seeing their babies as government cheque providers like a lot of other people unfortunately do.

consider a middle class suburban family with 3 kids. well that 'requires' at least a 3 bedroom house. settle for one side of a duplex? not if anyone can help it. need at LEAST 2 cars, since each parent needs to work full-time, and odds are 1 is working an extra part time job on the side. maybe a 3rd vehicle too for the oldest kid. extracurricular activities after school. gotta have new clothes for the kids too, hand me downs are nasty, plus we don't want the neighbors thinking we're poor. and then they wonder why they have issues with the kids they never spent any actual time with because they were always too busy coordinating their 'lives' to actually spend any of it together while drowning in debt.

__________________
i am the universe

VEGANGELICA

The large contribution of population growth to greater resource use and ecological damage (resulting from resource use and waste) is well known, Goblin Tears. One family having 3 kids isn't so bad. However, when millions and millions of people choose to have more than 2 kids...particularly in the developed world, where I've read that one child consumes 10 times the resources of an African child during her lifetime...then it IS a huge environmental problem:

Currently people are using resources and producing waste in a non-renewable fashion. The Sierra Club describes the problem well: Population and Consumption - Global Population and Environment - Sierra Club. Here is additional information:

I was referring to people having their own biological children, rather than adopting.

I agree people need to have the right to choose the size of their family. The best way to reduce family size is not to legally limit the number of children people can have. In the developing world, the best way to slow population growth is to ensure parents can earn a good living and families have good health care, so that they don't have to rely on their children as a source of wealth and security.

In the developed world, people do not have to rely on children for survival and care in old age, so then having many children is simply, I feel, caused by parents' lack of concern and foresight about the future and the impacts of large families on their fellow humans. I think parents with many children focus on their own joys of their own nuclear family without concerning themselves with the bigger picture.

Well, I probably should have clarified that I don't think people in the developed world who choose to have more than 2 kids are overall selfish people; rather, I feel the *choice* to have so many kids is selfish, short-sighted, or shows a remarkable lack of understanding of exponential population growth. The people I know who have 3 or 4 kids are lovely people, and the kids are darling.

The ethical problem in having more than 2 kids, though, is this: even if parents can care for their 4 children now, the parents are still choosing to do something that their own descendants not only shouldn't do (have many kids), but will essentially be prevented from doing because their ancestors had so many children, resulting in severe depletion of resources and living space that force the descendents to limit their own procreation.

I feel that a behavior is ethical only if I still feel it would be ethical if everyone did it. I feel it is wrong for parents to make a choice (to have 3 or 4 kids) that they couldn't and shouldn't advise their own children, grandchildren, etc., to follow.

__________________

Goblin Tears

Ditto this! I think it's definitely a case of poor judgement versus anything else. I live in Ireland, and many people from the generation before mine came from families of up to six or seven children. Why? Because Catholicism was rampant. People believed they would go to hell if they had small families. Sound stupid? To me it does, but when one is raised in that kind of hell-fearing environment from birth, it's all too easy to judge. As others have said, it's everything to do with misinformation/stupidity and little to do with selfishness or egoism, in most cases.

Janszoon

I suppose, but it's just simple math. How hard is it for people to figure out that if we all had six kids the resources of the planet would be spent pretty damn fast?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Goblin Tears

Again there are countless reasons for it; fear of hell gets priority over that consideration in the case of the religious folks I mentioned in my previous posts. Also, the people with the biggest families in my community are travellers, who often live in caravans, in poor circumstances, and they often drop out of school early and lead empoverished lives, often resorting to crime. So I would imagine they are too busy thinking of other things to even consider the planet's resources. I mean, even if you preached down their throats, do you think they would actually care?

Laurent Quinn Proper

I'll probably get another infraction or be suspended but how many children couples choose to have is none of your business, Vegangelica. If someone chooses to have a large family that doesn't necessarily make them selfish. That has to be one of the stupid-er things I have ever heard. If you are so self-righteous about economical supplies being depleted why don't you just kill yourself and your family and save some "supplies" for other humans? I guess you're just too selfish to save economical supplies for some stranger.

__________________

Mojo

Someone else may delete your post Laurent but im not going to because i think Vegangelica will want to read it. Seriously though, i disagreed with her too but i could at least see her reasoning. I dont see how shes being self-righteous. You can disagree with someone without attacking them personally so less of that please if you want to avoid another infraction/suspension or even just have someone pay attention to what it is you have to say.

__________________

Last.FM | Echoes and Dust

boo boo

She isn't new to controversy.

And yeah the self righteous hippie act grates on me too.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

TheCunningStunt

I can't believe a light hearted thread about unpopular opinions in life has sparked a political debate, you just knew veganelica would be at the heart of it.

__________________

Last FM