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

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.