http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7884138.stm?lss

a pet hate of mine, massive families, some of the statements in that article riled me so much i wrote a rant then deleted it again on the grounds of it making no sense WHAT-so-ever. (the thoughts made sense, it got lost somewhere between my brain and the keyboard and came out as blurb)
so ill open it to the board instead

Is it selfish to have more than two children?

discuss…

If you have the resources to look after them without needing handouts from the state then I don’t see what the problem is – but I’m open to being convinced.

I had a brief discussion with my sister about this but relating it to the environment.

Her : You driving a 6 litre V12 car is selfish
Me : Why?
Her : Think of the enviromental imapct. You are virtually raping the earth
Me : Earth rape?!? You should get so sense of perspective the cars not that bad
Her : You should shut your mouth if you won’t talk sense
Me : You should shut your legs. Having three kids in far more environmentally damaging.

phone went dead at that point

Is it selfish to have more than two children?

Yes, when there are millions starving in Africa

Yes and I’ve got three!

if you can’t afford to bring them up and give them opportunity. yes it is.

We’ve got 2 which is enough for us.

As long one can nurture ones offspring at ones own expense I don’t see the problem with having more though.

Why are “massive” families a pet hate? What’s your definition of massive? I can understand the argument (for smaller families) but it simply can’t be enforced. I’d prefer to see proper efforts at reducing CO2 through cleaner industrial, commercial, transport infrastructures rather than a Eugenics programme.

If you can give the children, love, security and look after them without any handouts (as geoffj above said), Then I don’t see aproblem.

For me the problem is people just having them either because it’s expected of them by their friends and family, or more importantly they will not get a decent family life and upbringing.

Yes, when there are millions starving in Africa

What do you suggest we import them for adoption?

My choice in having another child isn’t going to mean a thing to someone starving anywhere else other than my house should we have been short of food in the first place.

I’ve got one and quite a lot of the time I think its one too many!!!!

Erm most families in the Western Europe have an average of less than 2 kids. The population is rapidly getting older. Whatever problems we have are not the result of the birthrate. If Jonathan Porrit has got time on his hands he should be doing something more useful.

WCA I hope you’ve apologised to your sister for being a complete @arse.

Sometimes, it’s not always a choice. We were going for child 2, but got child 2&3. A BOGOF, if you will. Twins are almost 5 and yes, it’s hell.

it depends if one’s a girl, in which case the chances of the other being a girl come into play.

My thoughts exactly twohats!

Ones enough, he is driving me loopy at this particular moment.

It’s the kids who breed to get a flat or a house, and then their massive brood grow up and do the same thing as their parents, sponging off the state, they get me the most.
But I suppose if you can support them and they get a good upbringing with a Mum and a Dad , then that’s fine, although I don’t know how anyone copes with more than 3.

andym – Member

WCA I hope you’ve apologised to your sister for being a complete @arse.

I’m sure she’s used to him by now.

No. Anything Jonathon Porrit is arguing for must be wrong.

Is it selfish to have more than two children?

Yes, when there are millions starving in Africa

So, we shouldn’t have any children at all but adopt children from Africa ? Or, should we just have one child and send aid money abroad ? A nation of only children seems like a far from healthy scenario.
Or, we have no children and send money abroad

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t address the plight of the worlds hungry but limiting our own fertility doesn’t seem like any kind of sensible soloution to the problem.

We currenttly have 2 and are planning for more i don’t see how it is selfish as we will be surpporting them completly and if you have more than 1 child you tend recycle your stuff more.

why is “massive families” a pet hate?

what car do you drive WCA?

strikes me all environmentaly aware people, from politicians to hippys, are only really looking out for themselves.
i know people who brag about how efficent thier cars are, but at the end of the day, if fuel was cheaper, they couldnt give two hoots.

also got a slight scathing for Hippys…

i dont think the “CO2 footprint” of an african kiddy is going to have that much of an impact myself, its just another mouth to feed in a country already lacking crops and water?

Yes, when there are millions starving in Africa

I missed the smiley..
It’s rubbish having to explain a joke afterwards..

It was a poor joke about eating two children when there are millions starving elsewhere.

Never mind.. I’ll get my coat 🙂

A nation of only children seems like a far from healthy scenario

What’s wrong with “only” children?

It’s the way you bring them up with lots of friends around them which makes the difference. They make friends more easily, and although he wants for nothing, he is not spoilt, he knows the value of money and we make him save up for things he wants.
And just because you only have one child does not mean that you can’t recycle clothes, toys etc, you just either sell them or give them away.

i think its spongers that get me tbh mrs F
that and that woman’s (in the article) justifications all strike me as being really selfish

“I never wanted this many children. I wanted babies. They got to a certain age and I wanted another. I love newborn babies”

GAAAHHHH! Become a baby sitter you eget

“Benefit of a large family is that they learn to share and they do their bit for the planet by never flying long-haul”

i’m one of two, and ive never flown long haul, its not a legal requirement :s

In a world of increasing energy usage, is having children (and so increasing energy using individuals) morally right at all? Technically it’s also contributing to climate change, probably more than anything else as everything else relies on the population being there to use it.

Its an interesting point, the V12 car or kids argument, but I’m not sure what the answer is. More kids = more chance of finding a solution to the problems, but also far higher chance of further world rapage.

The OPT site is interesting, the UK average fertility rate is 1.64 births per mother, so presumably on average, they are advocating we go out and make more kids to bring that up to 2?

i think its spongers that get me tbh mrs F

Ah well that’s a different matter entirely. So really you’re assuming everyone with a “massive family” (how big do you define massive?4, 6, 10?) is a sponger?

the woman in the article is clearly a silly cow who didn’t realise babies grew into children, she should have started a nursery instead!

“Benefit of a large family is that they learn to share and they do their bit for the planet by never flying long-haul”

hmmmm, I was mostly an only child, I am rubbish at sharing and I’ve flown long haul. Ah well, straight to hell for me.

i think its spongers that get me tbh

Having children is not a prerequisite of being a sponger.

Neither does having =/>1 child mean that one is therefore a sponger.

why is “massive families” a pet hate?

the right to have as many children as you wish can make a strong argument for selective sterilization. 😀

there is a family down the road from me who have 12 children, let me repeat that 12 children. They are called the D’s becouse every one of the kids names begins with a D.

The father is a nice enough chappy but neither him or his wife work and they have been given 2 council houses to house the brood. Each rubbish day they leave out 4 wheelie bins and on recyling day there is never a box left outside.

Now I worry about the amount of washing my little girl produces as we use washable nappies and struggle with the idea of ‘pampers’ nappies spending up to 100-500 years to degarde fully. I shudder to think what the D’s have produced and consumed as they appear to be lacking the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding the impact they are having.

For me, two children will replace my wife and I and even though by living in the west they will consume a trillion time more than a similar family in botswana, i hope we will instill in them a reverence and respect for the earth which will hopefully help reduce the burden they place on it.

Now I worry about the amount of washing my little girl produces as we use washable nappies and struggle with the idea of ‘pampers’ nappies spending up to 100-500 years to degarde fully. I shudder to think what the D’s have produced and consumed as they appear to be lacking the knowledge to make informed decisions regarding the impact they are having.

As I recall test found that the environmental impact of washable nappies vs pampers was about equal.

Less people = less resources needed = less strain on the world

More people = more resources needed = more strain on the world

So yes, it is selfish. Even if you can “support them”, the stuff you need to support them has to come from somewhere, usually china on a cargo ship.

Look at the bigger picture people!

LOL @ WCA, exactly what i would have said in the situation. Well done that man!

Look at the bigger picture people!

I knew those Chinese had the right idea after all eh?

Exactly, who’s becoming the biggest economy now then?

Exactly, who’s becoming the biggest economy now then?

Is that what it’s all about?

I thought the tree huggers were trying to save the world not boost their countries GDP?

Nah, they just want to be famous like everyone else! 😆

Either way the world needs less people.

As I recall test found that the environmental impact of washable nappies vs pampers was about equal.

Indeed, detergent in the watercourse is one of the major (if not THE major) pollution problem faced by the waterways and sea IIRC.

I think not having children is selfish (unless of course for medical / infertility reasons – and even then I think people should be obliged to foster / adopt from less well off families)

Today’s children will be tomorrow’s doctors, scientists, taxpayers, etc. and will keep us all safe when we’re all too old to do anything about it.

Everything everyone ever does is selfish. Personal happiness is the only motive in life.

Very well, keep it up!

I think not having children is selfish (unless of course for medical / infertility reasons – and even then I think people should be obliged to foster / adopt from less well off families)

Today’s children will be tomorrow’s doctors, scientists, taxpayers, etc. and will keep us all safe when we’re all too old to do anything about it.

Excellent point there theotherjonv. People forget we have a population demographic that looks like an inverted triangle. Too many people at the top and not enough below to support them in their old age.