Do you think it's selfish to have more than 2 children?

Brussels Sprout

Edit: Can you please read the full post before voting/commenting especially if you think that people should be able to have as much children as they can so long as they can financially afford it.


I personally believe that it is selfish to have more than two biological children. If we look at the crises looming on the horizon for the world pretty much all of them can be traced back to over-population:

• Food shortages
• Energy depletion
• Pollution
• Global Warming
• Species extinction
• Territorial/Energy wars
• Lethal pandemics
• deforestation and desertification

To put it bluntly, there are too many people on this planet already and not enough resources. The world population reached 7 billion recently. In 1974, just half a life-time ago, it was 4 billion.

The only way to reduce this number is for people to have less children. If a couple have 2 children between them, then they will have replaced themselves. If however, they have, for example, 4 children, they have increased the total number of humans by 2. That's 2 extra people who need a lifetime's supply of food, drinking water, living area and energy.

As the numbers of people pile up the quality of life on this planet is going to drop for everyone. This is true even in a relatively low population density country like Ireland. Our lifestyle is based on a large supply of energy and resources which are diverted from other countries.

I realise that this may be a controversial opinion. This thread came about as a result of an argument I had with a friend of mine, who happens to be a student midwife. Needless to say she was horrified by my point of view.

It's a complex and emotive topic and a lot of questions are thrown up. I'll try and go through some of the ones I can imagine:

Q. Well, I can kinda see your point but I want to have a big family anyway.
A. Why not have two of your own and adopt and foster some more?

Q. How about all those people in Asia and Africa having 8 children. They're the ones who need to be responsible not us!
A. Family size is coming down across the developing world with the rise in education and contraception. In the developed world we have to lead by example since we really do have the luxury of choosing (with our social security and healthcare net). We also consume far more resources per capita than the average person from the developed world so it's not as lopsided as it first appears.

Q This doesn't apply to me, I've earned enough money so that I can support a large family of my own.
A The number of resources on the planet is fixed. If you are wealthy and can afford more that just means that you're going to be taking someone else's share.

Q Surely we can continue at our present growth rates so long as we cut down our carbon footprints and grow sustainability.
A When it comes to human population, the only sustainable growth is zero growth.

johnmcdnl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Go China!!!!!

starbelgrade

Why do I feel like I'm doing my Leaving Cert again?

SocSocPol

Checks popcorn supply, gets a comforable chair , sits and waits for the show to begin.:D

mikemac1

1841
Ireland (32 counties) over 8 million
Great Britain 14 million


Today you're looking at what, 6.4 million and 64 million around ish


Take your thread to the Brits OP, overpopulation is not our problem

Scanlas The 2nd

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I personally believe that it is selfish to have more than two biological children. If we look at the crises looming on the horizon for the world pretty much all of them can be traced back to over-population:

• Food shortages
• Energy depletion
• Pollution
• Global Warming
• Species extinction
• Territorial/Energy wars
• Lethal pandemics
• deforestation and desertification

To put it bluntly, there are too many people on this planet already and not enough resources. The world population reached 7 billion recently. In 1974, just half a life-time ago, it was 4 billion.

The only way to reduce this number is for people to have less children. If a couple have 2 children between them, then they will have replaced themselves. If however, they have, for example, 4 children, they have increased the total number of humans by 2. That's 2 extra people who need a lifetime's supply of food, drinking water, living area and energy.

As the numbers of people pile up the quality of life on this planet is going to drop for everyone. This is true even in a relatively low population density country like Ireland. Our lifestyle is based on a large supply of energy and resources which are diverted from other countries.

I realise that this may be a controversial opinion. This thread came about as a result of an argument I had with a friend of mine, who happens to be a student midwife. Needless to say she was horrified by my point of view.

It's a complex and emotive topic and a lot of questions are thrown up. I'll try and go through some of the ones I can imagine:

Q. Well, I can kinda see your point but I want to have a big family anyway.
A. Why not have two of your own and adopt and foster some more?

Q. How about all those people in Asia and Africa having 8 children. They're the ones who need to be responsible not us!
A. Family size is coming down across the developing world with the rise in education and contraception. In the developed world we have to lead by example since we really do have the luxury of choosing (with our social security and healthcare net). We also consume far more resources per capita than the average person from the developed world so it's not as lopsided as it first appears.

Q This doesn't apply to me, I've earned enough money so that I can support a large family of my own.
A The number of resources on the planet is fixed. If you are wealthy and can afford more that just means that you're going to be taking someone else's share.

Q Surely we can continue at our present growth rates so long as we cut down our carbon footprints and grow sustainability.
A When it comes to human population, the only sustainable growth is zero growth.

The number of resources may be fixed but our efficiency and technological capabilities aren't. These are the primary drivers of economic growth.

Chucken

starbelgrade wrote: »

Why do I feel like I'm doing my Leaving Cert again?

What do you mean "again"?

Ronin247

I think its selfish to have children if you cannot support them.If you can house, feed, clothe and educate your own then its not selfish but if you are relying on the rest of us to pay for your offspring then you are selfish.

kippy

Isnt the world ending in December?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Recent research has shown that empirical evidence for globalization of corporate innovation is very limited and as a corollary the market for technologies is shrinking.

As a world leader, it's important for America to provide systematic research grants for our scientists. I believe strongly there will always be a need for us to have a well-articulated innovation policy with emphasis on human resource development. Thank you.

seantorious

People always go on about leaving a better planet for our children, how about leaving better children for our planet. And by better I mean less.

Augmerson

No OP, I often 3 or 4. My sexual appetite knows no bounds.





I know I'll be banned for this, but sure **** it, I did it for teh lulz.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Chucken wrote: »

What do you mean "again"?

Presumably because he's done it before.

False Prophet

Most of Ireland is massively under populated due to the english so its selfish not to have children otherwise who will pay for my pension;)

candy-gal1

If youve got your own means to look after them then have as many as you can afford to yourself, its only a problem when people either have kids out of boredom, pressured into it etc, or when people just see it as an easy way of getting lots and lots of Social Welfare for them till each one is 18 then just have another :rolleyes:
If youve got the means, job, savings etc, and you REALLY truly want to have more and youll care for them properly then i see no harm tbh.

Gandhi

PJ O'Rourke summed up most people's attitude to overpopulation pretty well: "Just enough of me, way too much of you"

The Big Red Button

Two is quite a random and abritrary number ...

murf313

biological children as opposed to artificial ones???

RossyG

False Prophet wrote: »

Most of Ireland is massively under populated due to the english so its selfish not to have children otherwise who will pay for my pension;)

It's not the English that mucked up the economy and sent everyone overseas to make a living.

Gary The Gamer

mikemac1 wrote: »

1841
Ireland (32 counties) over 8 million
Great Britain 14 million


Today you're looking at what, 6.4 million and 64 million around ish


Take your thread to the Brits OP, overpopulation is not our problem

They got their comeuppance. They've had their communities taken over by asians and blacks. Enjoy your empire.

Fluorescence

It's a myth that the earth is overpopulated. There are enough resources to support 3 times the current population. The issue is with uneven distribution

Neodymium

"The Most Important Video You Will Ever See"

Watch it, you will never think the same again.

Two is quite a random and abritrary number ...

No it is not, it is the most logical number of children to have to prevent overpopulation.

robp

False Prophet wrote: »

Most of Ireland is massively under populated due to the english so its selfish not to have children otherwise who will pay for my pension;)

I am happy enough with the amount of city and urban sprawl in Ireland. There is a denser spread of people here than a whole lot of very nice countries.

In one sense I would like a less crowded world but if you look at the few countries out there with population decline they all seem to have awful economies. I don't know if its possible to shrink a nation's population without hindering the economy.

phasers

but what if your forth child is destined to cure cancer or kill Hitler II or something?

RossyG

Gary The Gamer wrote: »

They got their comeuppance. They've had their communities taken over by asians and blacks. Enjoy your empire.

You make it sound like immigration's a bad thing. It brings new ideas, new blood, and tends to reinvigorate things.

Gary The Gamer

RossyG wrote: »

You make it sound like immigration's a bad thing. It brings new ideas, new blood, and tends to reinvigorate things.

True enough but there are winners and losers. The english family that finds themselves on the margins in Bradford might have a different opinion.

RossyG

Yes, there's always a bad side.

keith16

mikemac1 wrote: »

1841
Ireland (32 counties) over 8 million
Great Britain 14 million


Today you're looking at what, 6.4 million and 64 million around ish


Take your thread to the Brits OP, overpopulation is not our problem

Au contraire OP, overpopulation affects us very much indeed, what with more demand on resources pushing up the price of oil and food and the impact this has on the climate.

Think about THAT next time 50 quids worth of petrol dribbles into your tank and gets you as far as....somewhere close to the petrol station.

anncoates

phasers wrote: »

but what if your forth child is destined to cure cancer or kill Hitler II or something?

Don't worry, he's already dead.

keepkeyyellow

Right because these are exactly the kind of thoughts that parents are going through parents minds when they decide to have children.

Bit of a doomsday vibe I think...

1ZRed

Hahaha! finally a very nice one up I have on all you breeders!

When does my eco cash back for being gay come in the post?

Brussels Sprout

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

The number of resources may be fixed but our efficiency and technological capabilities aren't. These are the primary drivers of economic growth.

If the population keeps growing it doesn't matter how clever our inventions are. We're going to run out of resources, especially given the fact that our easiest source of energy (fossil fuels) will be pretty much gone in a century.

Ronin247 wrote: »

I think its selfish to have children if you cannot support them.If you can house, feed, clothe and educate your own then its not selfish but if you are relying on the rest of us to pay for your offspring then you are selfish.

candy-gal1 wrote: »

If youve got your own means to look after them then have as many as you can afford to yourself....

Read the second last question in the OP

Neodymium wrote: »

"The Most Important Video You Will Ever See"

Watch it, you will never think the same again.
.

That video has all the production values of, well... a 70 year old man reading out a bunch of slides to a bored looking bunch of college kids. The title doesn't help either. I mean talk about setting you up for a fall. However, I watched the whole thing (last year) and it blew me away. The man's logic is flawless. I'd urge anyone to set aside an hour and watch that (it probably wouldn't hurt if you're comfortable with basic arithmetic)

robp wrote:

but if you look at the few countries out there with population decline they all seem to have awful economies

Germany's doing ok with zero population growth

sock puppet

Neodymium wrote: »

No it is not, it is the most logical number of children to have to prevent overpopulation.

If by "prevent overpopulation" you also mean "lead to the certain extinction of the human race" then yeah two kids per couple is pretty logical.

EoghanIRL

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I personally believe that it is selfish to have more than two biological children. If we look at the crises looming on the horizon for the world pretty much all of them can be traced back to over-population:J

• Food shortages
• Energy depletion
• Pollution
• Global Warming
• Species extinction
• Territorial/Energy wars
• Lethal pandemics
• deforestation and desertification

To put it bluntly, there are too many people on this planet already and not enough resources. The world population reached 7 billion recently. In 1974, just half a life-time ago, it was 4 billion.

The only way to reduce this number is for people to have less children. If a couple have 2 children between them, then they will have replaced themselves. If however, they have, for example, 4 children, they have increased the total number of humans by 2. That's 2 extra people who need a lifetime's supply of food, drinking water, living area and energy.

As the numbers of people pile up the quality of life on this planet is going to drop for everyone. This is true even in a relatively low population density country like Ireland. Our lifestyle is based on a large supply of energy and resources which are diverted from other countries.

I realise that this may be a controversial opinion. This thread came about as a result of an argument I had with a friend of mine, who happens to be a student midwife. Needless to say she was horrified by my point of view.

It's a complex and emotive topic and a lot of questions are thrown up. I'll try and go through some of the ones I can imagine:

Q. Well, I can kinda see your point but I want to have a big family anyway.
A. Why not have two of your own and adopt and foster some more?

Q. How about all those people in Asia and Africa having 8 children. They're the ones who need to be responsible not us!
A. Family size is coming down across the developing world with the rise in education and contraception. In the developed world we have to lead by example since we really do have the luxury of choosing (with our social security and healthcare net). We also consume far more resources per capita than the average person from the developed world so it's not as lopsided as it first appears.

Q This doesn't apply to me, I've earned enough money so that I can support a large family of my own.
A The number of resources on the planet is fixed. If you are wealthy and can afford more that just means that you're going to be taking someone else's share.

Q Surely we can continue at our present growth rates so long as we cut down our carbon footprints and grow sustainability.
A When it comes to human population, the only sustainable growth is zero growth.

move to china
/thread

Conchir

sock puppet wrote: »

If by "prevent overpopulation" you also mean "lead to the certain extinction of the human race" then yeah two kids per couple is pretty logical.

Actually, two kids per couple would increase population over time, no? Because you have two kids, four grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren and so on?

Or else I'm visualising this all wrong, but I don't think so.

Duggys Housemate

seantorious wrote: »

People always go on about leaving a better planet for our children, how about leaving better children for our planet. And by better I mean less.

By better you should mean fewer.

keith16 wrote: »

Au contraire OP, overpopulation affects us very much indeed, what with more demand on resources pushing up the price of oil and food and the impact this has on the climate.

Think about THAT next time 50 quids worth of petrol dribbles into your tank and gets you as far as....somewhere close to the petrol station.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If the population keeps growing it doesn't matter how clever our inventions are. We're going to run out of resources, especially given the fact that our easiest source of energy (fossil fuels) will be pretty much gone in a century.

Fraid not, old bean. There is enough technological changes in production to ensure that the US alone becomes energy self sufficient in a few decades, and most of the reserves in future will be in the West. We've moved on to Shale etc. ( The environmental effects can be kept to a minimum with technology, I hasten to add).

Also the Earth has a fertility rate of 2.0, or lower. The West is even lower, in fact it is trending towards exponential decline, and that is the real story.

If the previous two generations had a fertility rate of 2.0 we would have stabilised the population by now, since all that is increasing population is population momentum. We are already at 2 per parent worldwide job done. Malthusians and Cassandras back to their regularly scheduled Davie Icke programs.

Chuck Stone

Ponzi capitalism needs an ever increasing population doesn't it?

Duggys Housemate

Conchir wrote: »

Actually, two kids per couple would increase population over time, no? Because you have two kids, four grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren and so on?

Or else I'm visualising this all wrong, but I don't think so.

I do think so. With two children, who have two children etc. you are not the only grandparents of your four grandchildren, they have four grandparents. Similarly the 8 great-grandchildren have 8 great-gran parents. Incest excepted.

Duggys Housemate

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ponzi capitalism needs an ever increasing population doesn't it?

Nope. Ireland grew its economy in the Eighties, per capita. There is an argument that ponzi socialism needs more young people than old people but I think that can be solved by working longer.

enda1

I should be allowed, nay encourage to have many children because of the superiority of my genes. You op can subsidise my ration.

sock puppet

Conchir wrote: »

Actually, two kids per couple would increase population over time, no? Because you have two kids, four grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren and so on?

Or else I'm visualising this all wrong, but I don't think so.

No, those 4 grandchildren have another set of grandparents.

In a world where people don't die young, aren't gay, aren't sterile and don't want 0 or 1 children then a limit two kids per couple would work.

Duggys Housemate

Although I dont think this is a big issue, I would eliminate benefits after the 2nd child - twins excepted. More for eugenic reasons than anyother.

Conchir

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I do think so. With two children, who have two children etc. you are not the only grandparents of your four grandchildren, they have four grandparents. Similarly the 8 great-grandchildren have 8 great-gran parents. Incest excepted.

Ah yes, my mistake.

Carry on so

Madam_X

Fluorescence wrote: »

It's a myth that the earth is overpopulated. There are enough resources to support 3 times the current population. The issue is with uneven distribution

Yeh *regions* of the world are overpopulated, not across the globe continuously.
More education on birth control in many societies would be more valuable IMO than allegations of selfishness towards anyone who has three or more children even if they can easily support them.

If someone has three children here or doesn't, it won't make a difference to over-population in e.g. India either way.

philologos

The world isn't overpopulated:
http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/

Also, food shortages only affect certain regions, and it's largely due to income disparity in the world, and relative political instability in certain regions.

MaxSteele

The problem lies with the third world.

http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm

Between 2011 and 2100, the population of high-fertility countries, which includes most of sub-Saharan Africa, is projected to triple, passing from 1.2 billion to 4.2 billion. During the same period, the population of intermediate-fertility countries, such as the United States, Mexico and India, will increase by just 26 per cent, while that of low-fertility countries, which includes most of Europe, China and Australia, will decline by about 20 per cent.

Basically the upside is mortality rates have decreased.

But there's no where near enough availability of contraception or decent education. It's just already massive sprawls of ghettos in the likes of Calcutta and other third world countries etc etc expanding rapidly with a rising population living in poverty. Hence they've no real use to sustaining themselves without western intervention. (An ageing population at that).

I reckon a fair few developing countries will inevitably become so over crowded they'll begin culling themselves through overcrowding, conflict over resources, a resurgence of mortality rates due to poverty and sparse vital resources.

Madam_X

And Soylent Green! :eek:

Brussels Sprout

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Fraid not, old bean. There is enough technological changes in production to ensure that the US alone becomes energy self sufficient in a few decades, and most of the reserves in future will be in the West. We've moved on to Shale etc. ( The environmental effects can be kept to a minimum with technology, I hasten to add).

Really. I’d love to see some links here to back up these fantastical claims. Why do I get the feeling that they’re going to look like a Republican party manifesto: “Drill Baby, Drill!”

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Also the Earth has a fertility rate of 2.0, or lower. The West is even lower, in fact it is trending towards exponential decline, and that is the real story..

Except that it’s not. Although fertility rates have come down they’re still at 2.45 globally

Madam_X wrote: »

Yeh *regions* of the world are overpopulated, not across the globe continuously….
…If someone has three children here or doesn't, it won't make a difference to over-population in e.g. India either way.

Much like the weather system the human population in the world is a complex system. The different populations of the world are tied together in a network that goes byond simple national boundaries. The way we live our lives in the developed world has knock on effects for people on the other side of the world through the goods that are imported for us and the energy that is diverted toward us.

MaxSteele wrote: »

I reckon a fair few developing countries will inevitably become so over crowded they'll begin culling themselves through overcrowding, conflict over resources, a resurgence of mortality rates due to poverty and sparse vital resources.

Or, more likely, they’ll try and expand their living space beyond their borders fuelled by nationalism leading to wars.

philologos wrote: »

The world isn't overpopulated:
http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/18/if-the-worlds-population-lived-in-one-city/

And if you gave everyone in the world 1 square metre of personal space you could fit the world’s population into a small Irish county. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is desirable. If you compressed the global population into one mega city the quality of life for everyone would be massively reduced and would lead to huge logistical and health problems. Quality of life would be reduced on a vast scale.

Duggys Housemate

These are hardly fantastical claims, obviously you would need to drill. If you are claiming that peak oil is dependent on restrictions on drilling then it's not a problem with legislation not the technology. 2.45 seems high to me. Link?

later12

I answered yes but not really from an overpopulation point of view.

I answered yes because children are the ultimate selfish economic resource.

We all need them to go and work for us. I need my children to take care of me in old age, I need your children to pay taxes for my medical care and home help. There's no reason as to why selfishness is a bad thing, but ultimately yes, children are a selfish resource which ensure the continuity of our genes and that sort of 'selfishness' is what has made the human race stick around in the first place.

Do I think it's un-necessarily selfish to have > 2 kids from an environmental point of view? Yes, I think there is a stronger argument there. But depopulation also poses its own threats, so I'm more ambivalent.