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 [u]and[/u] 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”

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.

[i]why is "massive families" a pet hate?[/i]

the right to have as many children as you wish [i]can [/i]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 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy ]Chinese[/url] 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 [b]not[/b] 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.

[I've never done trolling before - how am i doing so far?]

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.

[I've never done trolling before - how am i doing so far?]

Well, I come from a large family: I'm the youngest of four and have three sisters. As they were all in their teens at the same time it did indeed teach me something - to let inane, pointless bickering like this wash straight over me 🙂

how about 4 but all adopted is this selfish?
Should I hang my head in shame ?

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

An Environment Agency report, in 2005, looked at the relative environmental impacts of both real nappies and disposables. The report confirmed that parents using real nappies are able to save waste. In addition the report indicated that [b]if parents were to follow guidelines recommended by the Real Nappy Campaign and manufacturers their global warming impact would be less than when using disposables[/b]. [u]'The report’s overall conclusion that there is little overall difference in the environmental impact of real nappies and disposables was based on the report’s estimates of the behaviour of a sample of real nappy users. Criticism of the validity of the sample used for this purpose led to an announcement by the Environment Agency that a further report would be produced [/u]to show the impact of a range of behaviours including following the recommendations endorsed by the Real Nappy Campaign, WEN and the nappy manufacturers for the use of real nappies.

Now republished and accepts that they do reduce the impact on the environement. About 40 % better for the environment

FFS how can reusing something be WORSE for the environment than using something once ? Anyone think of other examples where it is better to NOT recycle should I get disposable plates at home as washing my plates is destructive what about my clothes should I save the environment by wearing them once only?
The stuff people will beleive .... Anyone rememeber when the cigarette industry refused to accept they were dangerous or linked to cancer?

[I've never done trolling before - how am i doing so far?]

Anyone think of other examples where it is better to NOT recycle

Toilet paper? 🙂

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

probably partly because most people use far far too much, and then have to use fabric softener because they have used too much detergent. You only need to use a tiny amount. Same with dishwasher powder (infact I often use no powder at all in the dishwasher).

richpips - I will concede the ground on that point whilst pointing out most of it is recycled but NOT in that sense !!!
SUPERB Comeback 1 - 0 to you

You only need to use a tiny amount. Same with dishwasher powder (infact I often use no powder at all in the dishwasher).

Says the woman who's named after a brand of cleaning product.

Says the woman who's named after a brand of cleaning product.

I'm with you mrsflash.
We use the co-op supermarkets own environmently green washing products, very good value compared to 'Ecover'. Also I use a tiny squirt when washing up too.I think there maybe a joke in there somewhere?

Given that the ageing population issues that affect the UK are being worsened by the f***ing baby boomers all retiring early on good pensions and living too long while making full use of the NHS etc., there ought to be a euthanasia policy introduced:

If you were born in the baby boom post-WW2, have a final salary pension scheme (and, where relevant, retired early) and are making full and increasing use of the NHS, then you are to be culled.

It's the only propotionate response.

LOL @ ourmaninthenorth 😀

'Logans run' ?

I remember the trouble Jenny Agutters legs caused in Logans Run:

[img] [/img]

The world is over populated;

We need a virus that will become rampant in the poorer uneducated parts of the planet. It should have almost no cure and if there is one it should be prohibitively expensive so that only those in the rich west can easily get it. That might help with the worlds population problem...

Plus we in the west should also standby and do nothing when people in the third world decide some good old fashioned genocide is in order. we should also stop helping when countries have greedy leaders that neglect their populations, both of those will help to...

If that was allowed to happen then maybe these pointless charity iniatives to educate the third world wouldn't be needed and the 'chuggers' would stop bothering me in the street when I'm on my way to buy some videogames and a Starbucks...

Also I use a tiny squirt when washing up too.I think there maybe a joke in there somewhere?

Eh? I don't do your washing up! I seldom do mine, tbh... 😯

(Sees pictures of Jenny Agutter; forgets what thread was about...)

Your "troll" was dead on.

Excess children are not the problem, driving them round in 4x4 vehicles is.

Have as many kids as you like - just don't expect state handouts/child benefits for more than two of them.

[img] [/img]I'm too selfish to have kids.

Bikes, cars, dates, women, holidays, do what I want-when I want.

Stops, pauses...quiet, what about when I'm old? alone?

Wooohooo! punches the air-no kids here! air guitar....

Doesn't mean I don't like practising to make babies with available ladies... 😈

jonv, that isn't a troll, it's a valid point. For most of my life I've been a greenie that thought one child was enough. Then recently I saw some figures showing the bulge of post-war baby boomers retiring imminently (my parents), the increase in life expectancy and the Europe-wide drop in birth rate. If you think we're in hard times now, in not too many years we'll be utterly shafted as a massively expanding old-age population needs to be supported by a rapidly shrinking pool of taxpayers. It reversed my opinion about immigration (more please!) and the birth rate (more please!).
As for the eco argument, even assuming James Lovelock is exaggerating, having one child instead of two won't make the slightest, tiniest jot of difference to our fate. Hell, one of those children might come up with a source of clean energy and save the human race.

taken from bbc blurb....

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

brilliant!

the problem with the world is that there are too many people here.

I think the retired population should be culled off. Once you have reached 65 you are no longer any use to the state.

You no longer work yet you require more aid from things like the health service etc, plus you have a much lower quality of life at that age.

This would be a decent option. Or get rid of people with disabilities for the same reasons as those above.

'I never planned to have this many children. They got to a certain age and I wanted another

Thats the problem with the world, people are always wanting things. Stop being greedy.

I want a couple of clones, so i can harvest kidneys, knees, lungs etc when mine pack up.

now thats reasonably selfish

10 children is the minimum required to ensure you don't have to depend on the tender mercies of the state when you get old.

My father called it "Chinese Superannuation" - I wish I had taken his advice.

To balance this, cull the greenies, they will willingly make the sacrifice for the environment.

More people on the planet = less resources each.

The arguments about aging population are valid - but nothing to do with saving / conserving resources. It really depends on your priorities but I have no children and won't have children for 3 reasons
1: the environmental crisis and shortage of resources. I don't want to contribute to overpopulation
2: - I believe that standards of living will collapse over the next 75yrs as the resource shortage bites so don't want to create people whos lives will be a struggle for resources
3: I'm a selfish git and like my child free lifestyle.

1930 -> World population 2 billion
Now -> World population 6.5 billion

Growth supported largely by availablility of oil for fertilizers/transport/chemicals(including medicines)

Peak oil -> about now

Hmmm.....

Glad there are lots of bitter people here remaining chaste, to offset me whilst I spawn a large family 😀

"...should we just have one child and send aid money abroad ?... Or, we have no children and send money abroad..."

Close but not quite. Have one child, send IT abroad! Result. I have one, where do I despatch if from?

1st time here so hello, it's not selfish it's insanity! we have 4, used to have 5 but hung 1 as an example, yeah i know bit extreme.

How did you choise the "one" lazybike?

I presume that list is in reverse priority order, TJ?

[i]Glad there are lots of bitter people here remaining chaste, to offset me whilst I spawn a large family [/i]

A lot of the people on this board are single men with no hope of finding a wife, let alone having children. That's why they're bitter 🙂

reply to the what else is it worse to recycle coment............

it takes more energy and resources to wash up a cup than it does to use plastic or paper vending cups.

As proof heres a thought experiment, burn a paper cup, now imagine how much water you could heat up with the energy released, its not enough to wash up a mug thats for sure. So its better to throw the paper cup away than to burn several to wash up your mug.

why sofatester, are you struggling with a similar decision? for us he uttererd those words "dad I need a bike with gears" last we heard from him.

I would have picked the one that said; "i want just one gear, oversized wheels and those funny shaped bars".