S/O Did you believe the world is over populated?

[mom2agang]

What do your think about the 7 billionth baby?

[5kidsforME]

:party::party::party:

[BarbecueMom]

I don't think of it as the 7 billionth baby. It's more like the 7 billionth person who hasn't died yet.

[Remudamom]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

[mommaduck]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

I can reach my hand out my window and shake my neighbour's hand, almost. I still don't believe we are over populated. I believe any population issues will be taken care of by nature, death, disease, fall of empires, etc. I don't like those things, but that is how history goes.

[Hikin' Mama]

I believe in a God that is bigger than overpopulation.

 

Remundamom, you crack me up!

[....]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

 

You could wander around for weeks in Texas and not see another human. :tongue_smilie:

[SailorMom]

We in America are a bit sheltered from the effects of overpopulation.... I don't necesarrily think 7 billion is in itself bad - it's the exponential growth of the population that looks a bit scary.

Not that I sit around and worry about it, but I do expect that either war, plague (i.e. disease of some kind), or famine will eventually bring the population down - and that doesn't sound very pleasant to me. I think I'd rather we quit growing so fast.

[Crimson Wife]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things. But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

[justamouse]

[SailorMom]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

 

 

This sounds like an attempt at justification to me, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.

We have two kids. I drive an economy car, we will never live in a McMansion becasue I think they are silly, we have efficient.... everything - washer, drier, fridge, stove, etc. We buy organic when we can. We try to drive as little as possible, etc. We think fast food is digusting and avoid it as much as possible. Choosing to have two kids because we don't feel we can afford more does not mean we can afford everything else - like "jettng off to far off locales".

Now, I know you were generalizing - but I think any sort of stereotyping in an attempt to prove a point is,,, um,,, pointless.

[Heather in Neverland]

I believe in a God that is bigger than overpopulation.

 

Remundamom' date=' you crack me up![/quote']

 

:iagree:

[KungFuPanda]

Compared to the other planets, we're doing a VERY poor job of controlling our population.

[silliness7]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things. But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

 

:iagree:

 

ETA: Isn't that one of the reasons given in cultural geography books about having less children? People have less children so that they can have a higher standard of living. Maybe higher standard of living doesn't *necessarily* mean wasteful but in general, those who have more waste more. I know I throw more left overs away when times aren't so lean just as one example. Not *all* left-overs, but the ones that don't reheat as well and don't taste as good the next day. But when times are tight you eat it anyway, kwim? When I have more money I tend to replace batteries in old toys more often. Shoot, I tend to buy more toys period. We are mostly thrift store shoppers but if I can afford new and can't find what I'm looking for used I'll consume a new product, *if* I can afford it. If I can't, we do without.

Edited November 9, 2011 by silliness7

[creekland]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things. But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

 

:iagree: But I'll also add it doesn't have to be related to the size of the family. Over-consumption in general is what is bad - regardless of size. We chose to have three kids (well, chose to have two and God's optimism sent us our third ;)) and I don't regret it at all. But we also have taught them to be as green as reasonably possible to keep our planet as healthy as possible for the next generation.

[Julie Smith]

Compared to the other planets, we're doing a VERY poor job of controlling our population.

 

:) Very poor indeed.

[Parrothead]

nm

Edited November 9, 2011 by Parrothead

[Joker]

Strange. The larger families we're friends with have larger homes and larger, gas guzzling vehicles so they have room for everyone. We only have two and have a tiny home and two, small, fuel efficient cars.

 

I don't think waste is related to family size at all and don't think those that have large families are overpopulating the Earth ~ just like I don't think those with small families are wasteful.

[merry gardens]

I don't think of it as the 7 billionth baby. It's more like the 7 billionth person who hasn't died yet.

:laugh: People tend to forget that the world's population is affected largely from the other end of life. Those who spread fears of "overpopulation" point at the littlest and youngest humans as the cause of the problem. Somehow, those already living who want to keep on living escape blame.

 

Before antibiotics, the world's population was a lot lower than it is now. One terrible plague could bring the world's population down dramatically. :ack2:

[silliness7]

nm

 

Oof! You deleted just as I was trying to quote you and respond. I'm sure Crimson Mom wasn't trying to offend smaller families.

 

"True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things." a quote from CrimsonMom

 

I guess it's inevitable that this kind of thread turns into family wars - large vs. small.

 

Sometimes those of us with larger families need to speak our peace in overpopulation threads. It's *not* a slam on small families. To each his own.

 

...except of course if you've gone over your replacement rate and are draining the earth's resources. :tongue_smilie:

[AvasMom]

I agree with the PP who said it's not about overpopulation but overconsumption. The world could handle a whole lot more people if we all didn't think we needed so much "stuff."

[[email protected]]

The moderators are tired of multiple reports from offended people about multiple threads. This is the latest thread to get reported.

 

All of you:

 

Moderate your tone. There's been a lot of snarking.

 

AND stop taking offense unnecessarily.

 

If you don't like a thread, don't read it.

 

If someone annoys you, put them on ignore.

 

Quit reporting posts you don't like, and save it for actual breaches of board rules. If you don't remember them, go read them.

 

Moderator

[KidsHappen]

Compared to the other planets, we're doing a VERY poor job of controlling our population.

 

:lol: I love people who are able to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with even very serious issues. It is the key to handling them.

[KJB]

In Western Europe, there is a population dearth.

 

"By 2025, the United States will be the only major developed nation with more people under 20 than over 65 — and the only one with a working-age population that will continue to grow. Even in China, growth in the working-age population is expected to peak five years from now and start declining by 2030.The reasons are clear. Women are marrying later and having fewer children — if they have any. Half of the world's women are now having two children or fewer, even in some developing countries such as Iran, Burma and Vietnam.

 

Nations including Hungary and South Korea are seeing unprecedented numbers of women staying single into their 30s — up from a handful a generation ago to 30 and 40 percent, respectively.

 

In places like Germany and Japan, Eberstadt says, the number of women who end up having no children at all is already approaching 30 percent."

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/02/141901809/asian-european-nations-fret-over-birthrate-swoon

[Murphy101]

Compared to the other planets, we're doing a VERY poor job of controlling our population.

 

Well now we don't know that for sure. Yet. It's a big universe. For all we know, somewhere out there is a whole galaxy that thinks we are an endangered species and they have been silently working things in our habitats to encourage breeding. One day, we might discover alcohol and chocolate were introduced by tall skinny bug-eyed creatures from shiny ships.:tongue_smilie:

 

:laugh: People tend to forget that the world's population is affected largely from the other end of life. Those who spread fears of "overpopulation" point at the littlest and youngest humans as the cause of the problem. Somehow, those already living who want to keep on living escape blame.

 

Before antibiotics, the world's population was a lot lower than it is now. One terrible plague could bring the world's population down dramatically. :ack2:

 

Yes. Indeed. Life is always more tenuous than we care to think upon.

[TXMary2]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things. But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

 

:iagree:

[Mama2Many4]

I am religious and I'm pretty sure God knew how many people he would create when making us the earth. There is no people limit on earth.

[mommaduck]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

:iagree:Also, I think some of us would be willing to live with even less if we were ALLOWED to be a bit old fashioned and had a bit of property. There are small families that do a good job with this also.

Edited November 9, 2011 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

Strange. The larger families we're friends with have larger homes and larger, gas guzzling vehicles so they have room for everyone. We only have two and have a tiny home and two, small, fuel efficient cars.

 

I don't think waste is related to family size at all and don't think those that have large families are overpopulating the Earth ~ just like I don't think those with small families are wasteful.

We live in a smaller home, hardly a yard (I miss the farmhouses we used to rent), have been walking to the local store more, and are down to one small vehicle (we have to trade of Sundays with going to church because of this). There are ten of us. Most of what we have is secondhand. We spend the most on food.

Edited November 9, 2011 by mommaduck

[LisaKinVA]

I think the case can be made that certain parts of the globe are overpopulated (usually due to economic aspects), but the case can also be made that certain parts of the globe are under-populated. Both have huge economic consequences, and can lead to human tragedy.

[Crimson Wife]

I wasn't trying to slam small families, just wasteful ones (of whatever size). It has been my observation that most of these wasteful families do have only 1 or 2 kids (or none), given the high cost of living these days making it difficult to have lots of kids and still afford to live high on the hog. I just get so tired of being slammed for supposedly being "environmentally irresponsible" simply because I have 3 kids when the typical 1-2 child family in my area maintains a FAR more wasteful lifestyle.

[Joker]

We live in a smaller home, hardly a yard (I miss the farmhouses we used to rent), have been walking to the local store more, and are down to one small vehicle (we have to trade of Sundays with going to church because of this). There are ten of us.

 

Yea, I was generalizing like another pp. I also stated I don't really think family size has anything to do with waste. Families of all sizes contribute to the waste and I was trying to point out I honestly don't think the problem lies with smaller families. Most smaller families I know didn't purposefully set out to be small (as another pp said). I wanted more but can't. My sis in law wanted more but can't. I took a bit of offense to the idea that I had less children to spend more money. I just don't think family size needed to be generalized the way it was and it doesn't ring true in my circle.

[Murphy101]

:iagree:Also, I think some of us would be willing to live with even less if we were ALLOWED to be a bit old fashioned and had a bit of property.

 

:iagree:

 

It's one of the reasons we doubled our mortgage to move here. We were making do okay in our itty jam packed previous home, but our society does not look upon that kindly.

 

And really it isn't all that happy about it here either.

 

Americans want gold course yards and Martha Stewart homes and luxury cars.

 

If you don't keep a golf course yard, hang your laundry to dry, and have an unsightly 12 passenger van in front - yeah. Not going to make neighbors happy.

[LibraryLover]

Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump waste more resources than one measly Duggar family.

Edited November 9, 2011 by LibraryLover

[mommaduck]

:iagree:

 

It's one of the reasons we doubled our mortgage to move here. We were making do okay in our itty jam packed previous home, but our society does not look upon that kindly.

 

And really it isn't all that happy about it here either.

 

Americans want gold course yards and Martha Stewart homes and luxury cars.

 

If you don't keep a golf course yard, hang your laundry to dry, and have an unsightly 12 passenger van in front - yeah. Not going to make neighbors happy.

Heavens, I would have been happy with a horse and wagon "all ya'll kids hop on in the back now!" :lol: My husband is an urbanite though. I can't be in the middle of nowhere, but my husband says that we can't be in the middle of nowhere, then we have to be in the middle of everything! I want city attitude, country living, right on the edge of everything. I want my cake and to eat it too.

[mommaduck]

Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump waste more resources than one measly Duggar family.

:iagree:

[CAMom]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

 

:lol:

 

And I just flew over Kansas and Eastern Colorado over the weekend and saw nothin'. Looks just the same as driving through Utah and Northern Arizona.;)

[HappyCrazyMama]

I'm looking out my window and I don't see anyone.

I can't even see another house.:D

[Ellie]

:party:

[Leav97]

It's not overpopulation but overconsumption. I would say that the typical larger family I know actually tends to live a MORE "green" lifestyle because of the need to economize. Larger families are not the ones solo commuting an hour per day each in his/her own gas-guzzling luxury vehicle, filling their McMansions with unnecessary stuff all purchased brand-new, cranking up the heat or AC in said McMansion, frequently jetting to far-off locales, relying heavily on highly processed "convenience" foods and/or restaurant meals, and so on.

 

True, a 1 or 2 child family who truly makes an effort to reduce consumption will have a smaller "footprint" than a larger family who does the same things. But it's been my observation that few smaller families actually bother to reduce their consumption in this manner. Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:

 

I agree. It really isn't the size of 1 family that predicts their resource impact. But, the generational impact is different. Minimizing the impact of future generations by only having the children average 2 kids...

 

A family with 2 children, goes on to have 4 grand kids and 8 great grand kids.

 

A family with 8 children, goes on to have 16 grand kids and 32 great grand kids.

 

The difference between 8 households and 32 households is where the resource impact is demonstrated. Could the 8 households still consume more than the 32. Absolutely. But, on national/global averages will they. Probably not. The argument for population control isn't an individual household argument (although that is the obvious place for change). It is a national/global statistics argument. 7 billion people require more resources than 6.

[Kathleen in VA]

Overpopulation is a myth. The rate of population growth has actually been slowing down.

 

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

 

Scroll down to the bottom after you watch the video and you will find links to a few more that explain it further.

[twoforjoy]

I just don't think it's as simple as yes or no, or as simple as how well an individual family manages their resources. The Western lifestyle--even a very simple one by Western standards--uses a lot of resources. The parts of the world where there are fewer people tend to use massive amounts of resources. Quite honestly, the difference between an incredibly resource-wasteful Western family and a very resource-frugal Western family is going to be very minor compared to the difference in resource use between either of those families and most third world families.

 

So I don't think it's as simple as patting ourselves on the back and saying, well, it's okay for our family to have 3 or 5 or 9 kids because we aren't like those wasteful people with one kid. No matter how consumption-conscious we might be, even a bare-minimum Western lifestyle, in most cases, is going to be quite resource-heavy.

 

I don't think the solution is for everybody to have smaller families. I do tend to think that there are enough small families and people choosing not to have any children that if an individual family wants lots of kids, it's not a big deal. But, I do think that dealing with the problem of resource allocation is important, and something that will have to be done in a large-scale way. We have a serious resource-allocation issue, and I think that's a far more immediate and pressing concern that overpopulation.

 

ETA: To be clear, just like I think you can't say, "I have seven kids, but we are really conscious about consumption, so we're not part of the problem," I also don't think you can't say, "I've just got one kid, so I'm not part of the problem." I think it's a collective problem. Our collective lifestyle is unsustainable if we want any kind of just long-term allocation of resources.

Edited November 9, 2011 by twoforjoy

[mommaduck]

I agree. It really isn't the size of 1 family that predicts their resource impact. But, the generational impact is different. Minimizing the impact of future generations by only having the children average 2 kids...

 

A family with 2 children, goes on to have 4 grand kids and 8 great grand kids.

 

A family with 8 children, goes on to have 16 grand kids and 32 great grand kids.

 

The difference between 8 households and 32 households is where the resource impact is demonstrated. Could the 8 households still consume more than the 32. Absolutely. But, on national/global averages will they. Probably not. The argument for population control isn't an individual household argument (although that is the obvious place for change). It is a national/global statistics argument. 7 billion people require more resources than 6.

But you can't predict that they will all follow suit.

 

Example:

 

My father is one of three children. He's fathered four children (two different women). His sister and brother are both "child free by choice".

 

I am one of ten (if you count all halves, halves of halves, and step). I have eight, one sister has three, two sisters have two, two brothers each have one, and four siblings have no children (one will not due to mental disability and one might be either child free by choice or just severely delaying any children). So, out of ten kids, there are only seventeen grandkids...and then we don't even fall all under the same parents.

 

One the other hand, you have the case of my husband who is one of three (two brothers and a stepsister). Stepsister was childless (she passed away a couple of years ago, but was unable to carry any children). His brother has eight and we have eight. Two boys; sixteen grandchildren.

 

One of my children wants a large family; one has said she would rather adopt or become a nun :lol: So you can't predict numbers based on one couple's family size.

[SailorMom]

Any one seen Idiocracy???

It is very offensive, rude, etc., so I'm not necesarrily recommending it, but the very beginning of the movie.... It certainly makes a case for certain people needing to have more kids :)

If you haven't seen it, be aware that this is in support of regular people like us having large families. But it is not saying there is anything wrong with not having large families (I only have 2)....

[Jennifer3141]

Why is this question asked in the past tense?

 

I do believe in overpopulation within our current unsustainable system. I think continuing to believe we can raise cattle on corn, let alone GMO corn is both cruel and stupid. I believe sneaking soy into EVERYTHING because it's cheap and we can breed more sick babies on it is insane and a crime against humanity.

 

I would like us see taking the climate of geogrpahical regions into account before we decide that say, Texas will be our cattle state.

 

I think raising generations of people on plastic they think they can just toss out the window or into their oceans is just as stupid as people from the Middle Ages peeing and pooping in the same river they drew their drinking water from.

 

I would like to have a rational discussion about money, class, and family sizes for the first time in world history.

 

Basically, I'd like to see humanity grow the %$#!%$# up already.

 

Some people are probably always going to want to have big families. Some people are probably always going to want to have no families. If the big family is zero waste and grows its' own food for the most part, and the zero child family lives on Chinese takeout in plastic containers that they toss over night in the garbage; those families have different envirnonmental impacts. And before we can get into the equations of two breeding 4, 6, or 13 we need to look at all the other factors.

[Leav97]

But you can't predict that they will all follow suit.

 

Example:

 

My father is one of three children. He's fathered four children (two different women). His sister and brother are both "child free by choice".

 

I am one of ten (if you count all halves, halves of halves, and step). I have eight, one sister has three, two sisters have two, two brothers each have one, and four siblings have no children (one will not due to mental disability and one might be either child free by choice or just severely delaying any children). So, out of ten kids, there are only seventeen grandkids...and then we don't even fall all under the same parents.

 

One the other hand, you have the case of my husband who is one of three (two brothers and a stepsister). Stepsister was childless (she passed away a couple of years ago, but was unable to carry any children). His brother has eight and we have eight. Two boys; sixteen grandchildren.

 

One of my children wants a large family; one has said she would rather adopt or become a nun :lol: So you can't predict numbers based on one couple's family size.

 

I agree. You can't predict the future for individuals. I didn't even try to compare what would happen if the 8 kids all choose to have 8 kids. Heck, predicting the future of very large groups is problematic.

 

The statistics show that 8 kids are on average going to have more children then 2.

[I talk to the trees]

I wasn't trying to slam small families, just wasteful ones (of whatever size). It has been my observation that most of these wasteful families do have only 1 or 2 kids (or none), given the high cost of living these days making it difficult to have lots of kids and still afford to live high on the hog. I just get so tired of being slammed for supposedly being "environmentally irresponsible" simply because I have 3 kids when the typical 1-2 child family in my area maintains a FAR more wasteful lifestyle.

 

So it's okay for you to make sweeping generalizations about 1-2 child families, but it's not okay for them to respond in kind? Hmmm... Your logic sounds rather like some of the arguments I have heard against homeschooling. You know the one: "Well, I knew a couple of homeschooled families, and boy! Were they wacko! So all homeschoolers are wacko!"

 

Just because you are "tired of being slammed" doesn't give you carte blanche to slam others, and that's exactly what you were doing in your first post with "Most of the time, having fewer children only seems to free up financial resources to support a wasteful lifestyle :thumbdown:"

[Plucky]

I care more about what we are doing with the people we are responsible for, and if every capable family would take in one other child to love and care for then our world would be a much better place. I don't necessarily mean adoption either, one can impact one or two children for a year, many for a summer, or one for a lifetime.

[WeeBeaks]

I can't say I'm as concerned regarding the number of people on the planet as I am about the way we live our lives.

 

I agree with previous posters about certain living style problems - plastics, waste, perfectly good food thrown out (agriculturally pre-consumption level, and at the consumer level) and so forth. I think there is plenty of food for all and then some, but we are not doing a good job of stewardship of our global resources.

 

I have heard that our population at this density is leveling off and will then start decreasing. I'm not an expert on that, but it makes sense when I look at the numbers on the age of the population and the childbirth figures from most countries. How that will play out I don't know with regard to global economies.

 

I don't think the big/small families war are the heart of the problem and focus on that and bickering only distracts us from solutions, which I think should be more on resource allocation and conservation. I don't agree with what China has done with its policies or the abortion numbers seen coming from India and other countries. I'm religious, but even coming at it from a secular angle, it is very worrisome to me.

 

In my community, I'm seeing hopeful signs on a small scale - more and more lawns are gone, artificial turf or native landscaping (we live in a low water area), gardens are going in, locally grown produce, backyard chickens, on and on. That is only my little urban corner. More bicycles than ever are seen in our little corner. Our minivan may not be the most efficient vehicle on the planet for sure, but I am now down to driving less than 4000 miles annually.

 

Sorry, I got off track a bit. I like to focus on what I can do personally and locally rather than feel that another small human life should not be here. What right do I have to say that? My belief system says I have no right to decide who should be allowed to be born and who shouldn't. And I believe there is room for all if we are more aware of conservation on a global scale, which honestly won't happen unless some people/countries are forced on that.

[....]

I agree. You can't predict the future for individuals. I didn't even try to compare what would happen if the 8 kids all choose to have 8 kids. Heck, predicting the future of very large groups is problematic.

 

The statistics show that 8 kids are on average going to have more children then 2.

 

Yeah, of all my cousins and siblings, only ONE person had a kid (besides me). In fact, I think our family name ends with my dad and uncles (not that I'm worried about the family name). No one in our generation (in my family) is having kids or even getting married.