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

Richard Hillman

If you are able to comfortably live with 2 children financially, in terms of space in your house and able to provide for them unequivocally then I think its ok. If you are receiving state welfare and decide to have another then you are selfish. If you have 2 children, are struggling to pay the bills and decide to have another, then you are an idiot.

Pherekydes

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

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

More likely is what's already happening: they'll migrate. Humans have been doing this forever.

Fraid me and the girls are planning on having 4. They want two each. One down already, 3 to go. Not likely to change because a random writer on a forum thinks it selfish.

I think four children is acceptable but welfare should stop at one.

Many people don't have children at all, and many can't. Many people won't be able to afford more than one without that welfare (or let's be honest, wont have the incentive to). So for people that can afford two, three or four, they'll be picking up the decrease in population caused by those not having more than one.

In addition I think this is definitely a worldwide issue rather than a country by country one. Ireland has a low enough population, but that doesn't mean we should sit back, close our gates and take it easy.

later12

true-or-false wrote: »

I think four children is acceptable but welfare should stop at one.

Why should children suffer? They didn't ask to be born.

And as you may have noticed, a lot of people who had >2 kids four or five years ago are now in need of welfare assistance. Things can happen, people lose their jobs, get ill, divorce, die, whatever. I think a rule like that would be grossly unfair.

Cú Giobach

World Total Fertility Rate 2.45

If every female lives to child bearing age and also has children the a rate of 2 will keep a population stable, since this doesn't happen then the number needed to keep a population stable is more than 2, in the industrialised world with low mortality rates this figure is around 2.1, in developing countries it can be as high as 3.3 and worldwide it is 2.33.

Mr Benevolent

kippy wrote: »

Isnt the world ending in December?

According to AH it ends roughly every two days.

super_furry

If you can afford them, you should have as many children as you want. Just don't have a massive brood and expect the tax payers to pay to raise them.

Ush1

There will always be a point of diminishing returns.

It's a sad fact of life in many parts of Africa that many of your children will be destined to die young so having more can work as a survival mechanism.

later12

later12 wrote: »

Why should children suffer? They didn't ask to be born.

And as you may have noticed, a lot of people who had >2 kids four or five years ago are now in need of welfare assistance. Things can happen, people lose their jobs, get ill, divorce, die, whatever. I think a rule like that would be grossly unfair.

You think that stopping welfare after one child is making children suffer??? A bit of a sensationalist comment I think.

People without kids can still lose their jobs, get ill, divorce, die, whatever. I don't see how children come into that. A lot of people are going through a really tough time at the moment, that's the state of things. We should be trying to improve the situation, but as long as we're giving people incentives to have as many kids as they can pop out, all we're doing is creating a vicious circle. The number of people who had kids when they could afford them and then lost their jobs probably pales in comparison to the number of people who had kids so that they wouldn't have to get jobs.

And either way, affording children isn't the issue. It still stands that those people who purposely had lots of kids when they could afford them were still having a selfish number of kids. I wont deny that it's a harsh way to put things, but it's true.

Unfortunately as tough as it is, money is the only way to control it. You can put limits on how many children a couple can plan, but if an accident happens to produce child number 5, you can't just get rid of it. It's an issue that can't really be controlled by law (i.e. you must have X number of kids or less), the only way to control it is incentive (i.e. you'll lose money by having more than X number of kids). Like I said, I don't deny it's harsh.

NoQuarter

Interesting read I thought OP. Could fill a thesis easily so there's too much to dewell on to come to a conclusion either way.

An interesting thing to look at would be if there were any great humans throughout history that were 3rd,4th,5th children etc and consider the effect on the planet without them and apply that to the future.

Shivers26

I would be of the opinion that if the parents can afford to feed, clothe and educate their children then they should be free to have as many as they want.

It does annoy me when so called 'single parents' have child after child declaring that they don't know who the father is and expect the tax payer to pay for them.

What about the value of a family? Posters with several brothers and sisters, would you feel your childhood maybe lacking if you hadn't had your siblings?

I currently have 2 children, both born before I was married. Now we are being put under savage pressure to have a 'married baby' so to speak. Had to tell the mother in law in no uncertain terms recently that we just can't afford another child right now.

Overthrow

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

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.

This is wrong. The focus should not be on population numbers, it should be about the efficiency in which the populations we do have are maintained. The average city dweller has a much higher quality of life than the average low population density dweller. Further, the means with which to provide the city dweller's quality of life are so much more efficient.

It takes much more energy to facilitate a widely spread population than it does a densely packed population. Transportation & logistics, schools, emergency services, retail, car dependency - everything becomes more efficient when you can service more people in the same space, rather than the same amount of people spread out over more space.

Cities are the culmination of human achievement, productivity and efficiency. Cities give way to new ideas, faster technological and societal advancement, are more culturally enriching and their very existence are evident of better integration and harmony amongst the people. The more dense the city is, the more true this is. Not only this, the average city dwellers have fewer children as well.

High population density is what all urban planning should be based around.

Biggins

More children = more eventual educated adults = could mean more minds to help solve world problems?

Just a mad lunatic notion!

Scortho

Its selfish if you cant afford to provide for them and give them a good upbringing.

I want to have more than 3. But only if I can afford to provide for them.

There is nothing wrong with having children so long as you're not running cap in hand to the government for your childrens every need!

later12

true-or-false wrote: »

You think that stopping welfare after one child is making children suffer??? A bit of a sensationalist comment I think.

Yeah, in that state welfare transfers would disproportionately improve the welfare of sole children over sibling children. It would be the child who ends up losing out.

Part of being a Republic means providing equality of opportunity insofar as is realizable. What you're suggesting is a total anathema to equality.

People without kids can still lose their jobs, get ill, divorce, die, whatever. I don't see how children come into that.

I don't see how childless parents come into it.

The point is that you might be well able to afford 4 children on a Monday evening, and lose your job, partner or business on Tuesday morning and you end up needing assistance to meet yours and the children's basic needs.

Providing a "one child limit" on child welfare or qualifying payments is a bit silly by then, don't you agree?

woodchuck

I think it can be selfish, but not from a 'growing population' point of view. If parents are outnumbered by their children then they're not necessarily getting all the attention/love that they might need. The more children you have, the more thinly you're spread between them. I think the focus should be on one or two children and to raise those children well.

I'm not sure why people would want a large family other than for selfish reasons. I think having a sibling can be a good thing, but if you have more than two is it because the two you have are the same gender and you want to try for a boy/girl? Is it because people prefer younger children and want more as soon as the others get a little older? (genuine questions btw; I have no idea why people would want a large family)

Musiconomist

NoQuarter wrote: »

Interesting read I thought OP. Could fill a thesis easily so there's too much to dewell on to come to a conclusion either way.

An interesting thing to look at would be if there were any great humans throughout history that were 3rd,4th,5th children etc and consider the effect on the planet without them and apply that to the future.

Michael Jackson for a start. Though I dont know if he would be considered great in everyone's eyes.

later12

woodchuck wrote: »

I think it can be selfish, but not from a 'growing population' point of view. If parents are outnumbered by their children then they're not necessarily getting all the attention/love that they might need. The more children you have, the more thinly you're spread between them. I think the focus should be on one or two children and to raise those children well.

I'm not sure why people would want a large family other than for selfish reasons. I think having a sibling can be a good thing, but if you have more than two is it because the two you have are the same gender and you want to try for a boy/girl? Is it because people prefer younger children and want more as soon as the others get a little older? (genuine questions btw; I have no idea why people would want a large family)

An army of workers with no legal requirement to pay minimum wage

Higher aggregate earned income by the offspring = a stronger social security net, the more children you have

Home grown hurling team

etc.

Musiconomist

Scortho wrote: »

Its selfish if you cant afford to provide for them and give them a good upbringing.

I want to have more than 3. But only if I can afford to provide for them.

There is nothing wrong with having children so long as you're not running cap in hand to the government for your childrens every need!

I think it's dangerous to make hard and fast decisions on things like this. I mean, some people will never be able to look after themselves due to injury, illness or disability. Should these people not be allowed to have children?

Also, isnt there a case then for a billionaire to have hundreds of children? Not sure what good that would do for the gene pool.

As for the welfare argument, I dont see an issue with that. That money is hopefully going towards raising that child. And I would rather live in a country where everyone is given a chance to succeed rather than one where children are indirectly stifled/punished because their parent/s made bad or unlucky choices.

old_aussie

Won't be long before excess breeding turns europe into the new islamic republic

cloptrop

Whats wrong with the government paying fir the kids sure dont they get to tax them for near 50 years .

Chucken

later12 wrote: »

I don't see how childless parents come into it.

The point is that you might be well able to afford 4 children on a Monday evening, and lose your job, partner or business on Tuesday morning and you end up needing assistance to meet yours and the children's basic needs.

This will never...ever happen to all the social welfare/ you've too many babies bashers. ever.

mikom

Load of navel gazing shite this thread.
I would like to see a poll with how many siblings the different poster have.

From past experience some of the most miserable hoors I have met have been "only-childs".

OldNotWIse

If you can afford them and are not going to rely on other people to help you out, or dump them on your own mum and dad who have already reared their kids and have painful creaky joints...then no...

Musiconomist

old_aussie wrote: »

Won't be long before excess breeding turns europe into the new islamic republic

Sure it wouldnt be today without a dash of xenophobia.

Helix

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

[there are too many people on this planet already and not enough resources

that's not remotely true. there's more than enough resources for quadruple the number of people on the planet were it to be evenly distributed

Duiske

old_aussie wrote: »

Won't be long before excess breeding turns europe into the new islamic republic

Is there a thread topic you won't use to engage in your anti-Islam rants ?

amtw

woodchuck wrote: »

I think it can be selfish, but not from a 'growing population' point of view. If parents are outnumbered by their children then they're not necessarily getting all the attention/love that they might need. The more children you have, the more thinly you're spread between them. I think the focus should be on one or two children and to raise those children well.

I disagree with this completly. I know lots of people from large famillies who grew up feeling loved, cared for and did not lack attention from their parents. I would know at least as many people from single child famillies who don't get the love and support from their parents. Each family dynamic is different, some people can cope with lots of children some people can't even manage one.

Part of being a Republic means providing equality of opportunity insofar as is realizable. What you're suggesting is a total anathema to equality.

Yes, that's my point. Currently there's an advantage towards having children (an inequality as you'd have it put), whereas I think there should be an advantage towards having only one or two children. It's an inequality in the sense that financially one person would be better off than another, but both people would have had "equality of opportunity" in that they do have some control over how many children they have. You can't always control whether you have kids or not, but it's hardly the same as discriminating against someone because of something they're born with, like race. That's how an incentive works, it gives one person a chance to gain. If another person doesn't take that chance, of course they're going to be at a disadvantage to the person who did.

The point is that you might be well able to afford 4 children on a Monday evening, and lose your job, partner or business on Tuesday morning and you end up needing assistance to meet yours and the children's basic needs.

Yes, and that should be accounted for when the parent is receiving their welfare, but child allowances are being given to every person in the state with a child, not just ones with a very specific situation like the one you just stated.

Providing a "one child limit" on child welfare or qualifying payments is a bit silly by then, don't you agree?

No. In fact having thought on it I'd like to amend my suggestion to no child payments at all, and that if someone meets unfortunate circumstance then their children would be included in their means test. I had previously said one child because I thought it would encourage 1-2 child families, but in retrospect I think there isn't really an incentive needed for that at all.

bluecode

No it's not selfish, it's crazy. I have two and can barely cope with them! Having said that it might be a good idea to have a spare. Both of them seem determined to kill themselves getting up to stupid stunts.

BraziliaNZ

For those saying Ireland is underpopulated. There are virtually no untouched landscapes in Ireland, it's just one big farm. Even in the UK there are far more natural forests and trees. Far too much human impact on the Irish landscape imo.

kleefarr

Neodymium wrote: »

"The Most Important Video You Will Ever See"

Watch it, you will never think the same again.



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

Truly eye opening. Many thanks for posting that.

mikom

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

For those saying Ireland is underpopulated. There are virtually no untouched landscapes in Ireland, it's just one big farm. Even in the UK there are far more natural forests and trees. Far too much human impact on the Irish landscape imo.

Ask the UK how the Irish failed to see the value of trees after they suffered the famine/genocide and afterwards saw land as a means to growing crops/raise stock not practice arboriculture on.

BraziliaNZ

mikom wrote: »

Ask the UK how the Irish failed to see the value of trees after they suffered the famine/genocide and afterwards saw land as a means to growing crops/raise stock not practice arboriculture on.

Apparently there were no trees here a long time before the famine, due to human consumption

mikom

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Apparently there were no trees here a long time before the famine, due to human consumption

And the famine/genocide did nothing to help that.
Romance goes out the window when your belly is empty.

BraziliaNZ

mikom wrote: »

And the famine/genocide did nothing to help that.
Romance goes out the window when your belly is empty.

Well we're not hungry anymore. So maybe we could try not to be 100% focused on expansion, growth, bigger population etc etc. That's all politicians want, is that really progress?

mikom

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well we're not hungry anymore. So maybe we could try not to be 100% focused on expansion, growth, bigger population etc etc. That's all politicians want, is that really progress?

Old saying:

The best day to plant a tree was yesterday.

BraziliaNZ

mikom wrote: »

Old saying:

The best day to plant a tree was yesterday.

Probably. I don't care anyway, I doubt I'll ever have kids, so I have no ones future to worry about!

Gbear

It'll be interesting to see how countries with a negative population growth rate and ageing populations cope over the next 50 years with social security.

We can only raise the retirement age so much.

We waste so much food, water and electricity and there's nearly limitless potential for power generation from renewables (hence the name) and nuclear energy and in terms of raw materials, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of what we've used thus far is still there - it hasn't all transmuted into air.

We have easily enough "stuff" to supply a much higher population than we currently have. The problem is that Africa and much of Asia don't have the farming techniques or the ability to resit disease and natural disasters that the west have. It's not as if we're at capacity and that's why half the planet is starving.

In short, no, for a western country, not only is it not selfish to have lots of kids but you're actually hindering the economy by not creating enough children to meet the replacement rate (although I think we actually do in Ireland).

MungoMan

Great thread.

The reality is, if people have more than 2.1 kids, the population will grow.

It's simply not sustainable for the population to keep growing, even in developed economies, if this happens, the worlds resources will one day not be able to sustain it's people.



People who have more than 2 kids are probably not driven by selfish motives.
They are more likely to be ignorant about the mathamatical reality that having more than 2 kids is completely unsustainable and irresponsible.

The worlds population doubled in the past 30 years, if we continue on, it will double every thirty years

It doesnt take a lot for the population to double, all it takes is that people have an average of 4 kids.

4 billion - 8 Billion - 16billion, 32 billion 64 billion, 128 billion 256 billion, 512 billion. a trillion, if we continue the day will definitely come where natural factors like lack of food stop the growth

Colmustard

I think so, but what could you do, besides I believe it is already to late,,we are doomed, doomed I tell yeah,,doomed.

Pherekydes

MungoMan wrote: »

People who have more than 2 kids are probably not driven by selfish motives.
They are more likely to be ignorant about the mathamatical reality that having more than 2 kids is completely unsustainable and irresponsible.

If people who have less than 2.1 kids the population will decline.

4 billion - 8 Billion - 16billion, 32 billion 64 billion, 128 billion 256 billion, 512 billion. a trillion, if we continue the day will definitely come where natural factors like lack of food stop the growth

So we will never run short of food.

allibastor

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

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.

Its not, but this may be a bad point, but as long as they are the right kind of children.


If you will let me explain, as society grows with the more intelligent people pairing off with each other because they move in the same circles, they have less children as they focus more on career and functional life. they would tend to produce better offspring, not by genetics , but through better quality of life and education coupled with growing into an environment where they will be better appreciated for letting their intelligence and creativity show.

again this is not really down to genetics, but it could also be a factor, but its the better breeding that would be more likely to happen and the greater access to resources that would improve the chances of better offspring, but not in all cases.

you have on the other hand, the very poor and un educated who have many children, then bring them up in an environment where they have very limited resources and access to information. they also are usually weary of showing how intelligent they are unless ridiculed by their peers for being a nerd or geek.

it is a bit like that film idiocracy, it would happen if the standard of both resource access and education continues to fall as more kids get born, with little improvement in their educational resources.

Colmustard

Pherekydes wrote: »

If people who have less than 2.1 kids the population will decline.




So we will never run short of food.

The loafs and the fishes, the world is already short of food, but I suppose you are not and that is the important thing.

Next year when the effects of the poor harvests from this years weather chaos from North America to the north European washout and southern drought to the late monsoons in the punjab, watch food inflation, then post that ridicules post.

Pherekydes

Colmustard wrote: »

The loafs and the fishes, the world is already short of food, but I suppose you are not and that is the important thing.

Next year when the effects of the poor harvests from this years weather chaos from North America to the north European washout and southern drought to the late monsoons in the punjab, watch food inflation, then post that ridicules post.

My post was a humorous observation that if the population keeps doubling we will never run short of food. Geddit now?

allibastor

Pherekydes wrote: »

My post was a humorous observation that if the population keeps doubling we will never run short of food. Geddit now?

Obviously not, i don't think cannibal jokes go down to well. Maybe he has never been hungry enough to consider it.

OldNotWIse

MungoMan wrote: »

Great thread.

The reality is, if people have more than 2.1 kids, the population will grow.

It's simply not sustainable for the population to keep growing, even in developed economies, if this happens, the worlds resources will one day not be able to sustain it's people.



People who have more than 2 kids are probably not driven by selfish motives.
They are more likely to be ignorant about the mathamatical reality that having more than 2 kids is completely unsustainable and irresponsible.

The worlds population doubled in the past 30 years, if we continue on, it will double every thirty years

It doesnt take a lot for the population to double, all it takes is that people have an average of 4 kids.

4 billion - 8 Billion - 16billion, 32 billion 64 billion, 128 billion 256 billion, 512 billion. a trillion, if we continue the day will definitely come where natural factors like lack of food stop the growth

Probably for the best really, we're destroying the earth anyway.

Gets coke zero and cashew nuts and awaits onslaught...:)

speedboatchase

Simple response: It's selfish if you want the rest of us to raise them for you. I believe child benefit should only be applied for the first two children.

LordSutch

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

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

If you love each other, and if you have healthy sperm and healthy eggs then I say go for it . . .

Providing of course that you can pay for them as they grow up.