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

[Cammie]

Honestly, anyone who is so concerned about overpopulation shouldn't give birth to even one child, but only adopt. I respect people who get up in arms about this topic so much more if they themselves haven't added to the population.

 

 

Really? It would seem to me that there is a place for a middle ground in this discussion. People can feel that 7 Billion and more is not good for the planet (environment, other living creatures, people) but also feel that replacement growth or below replacement growth is a reasonable response to the problem. Suggesting that all people who feel overpopulation is a problem stop having children seems a little extreme.

[Kathleen in VA]

Here's a link to a chart compiled by the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, showing the actual and projected demographics for India from 1950 through 2100. Notice that the population rate is declining and, if things continue as they have, it will continue to decline. The population will peak at about 1,400,000,000 in 2060 and then steadily come back down to about 880,000,000 (what it was in 1995) by 2100.

 

Of course, this is just a projection, but it based on a very sound mathematical model.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

Edited November 10, 2011 by Kathleen in VA

[imagine.more]

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

 

Me either. In fact, I can't even see a darned house light from my house. People should have more babies so I can have neighbors ;)

[Plucky]

Really? It would seem to me that there is a place for a middle ground in this discussion. People can feel that 7 Billion and more is not good for the planet (environment, other living creatures, people) but also feel that replacement growth or below replacement growth is a reasonable response to the problem. Suggesting that all people who feel overpopulation is a problem stop having children seems a little extreme.

 

Why not? If overpopulation is so very dire start with yourself - don't have kids. Be an example.

[Kathleen in VA]

Here's an excellent article from CNN explaining it a bit more:

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/31/the-end-of-population-growth/

 

Total Fertility Rate, even in developing countries, is declining.

[Cammie]

Here's a link to a chart compiled by the United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, showing the actual and projected demographics for India from 1950 through 2100. Notice that the population rate is declining and, if things continue as they have, it will continue to decline. The population will peak at about 1,400,000,000 in 2060 and then steadily come back down to about 880,000,000 (what it was in 1995) by 2100.

 

Of course, this is just a projection, but it based on a very sound mathematical model.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

 

 

What I can share with you is that the Government of India treats its population growth as a very serious and immediate problem. There are other issues besides overpopulation of the planet. In India there already are problems with scarcity of resources (water), overcrowding (in urban areas), lack of access to education and job opportunities. Furthermore, in India, it is often the largest families that are the poorest, have the least access to education and the least ability to improve their circumstances.

[Cammie]

Why not? If overpopulation is so very dire start with yourself - don't have kids. Be an example.

 

 

A very thoughtful and mature response. Thank you for your contributions.

[Guest]

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

 

LOL.

[Plucky]

A very thoughtful and mature response. Thank you for your contributions.

 

I was being serious. I'm sorry you can't be civil.

[Kathleen in VA]

What I can share with you is that the Government of India treats its population growth as a very serious and immediate problem. There are other issues besides overpopulation of the planet. In India there already are problems with scarcity of resources (water), overcrowding (in urban areas), lack of access to education and job opportunities. Furthermore, in India, it is often the largest families that are the poorest, have the least access to education and the least ability to improve their circumstances.

 

Of course, it is a very complicated issue, but this video attempts to explain why population growth does not contribute to poverty. There is no simple answer, but slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. Read the explanations of the facts presented below the video.

 

http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-4-poverty-where-we-all-started

[Cammie]

Of course, it is a very complicated issue, but this video attempts to explain why population growth does not contribute to poverty. There is no simple answer, but slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. Read the explanations of the facts presented below the video.

 

http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-4-poverty-where-we-all-started

 

 

Agreed...slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. However, limited resources are made more limited by increased demand for them. I live in a HUGE city where there is not sufficient water for the population. Most parts of the city get water on alternate days. Some parts don't get water for days and days at a time. We pay for private water tankers. Adding additional people into this mix only creates more demand for a resource that is not available.

 

I came on this thread to understand why people believe the way they do. What is the particular belief system/political system/ religious reason behind the belief? I would like to understand that and not be told that people who feel it is a problem should not have children.

[mycalling]

I voted other. I believe that it's over-populated in a few places but not over most of the world.

[Kathleen in VA]

Agreed...slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. However, limited resources are made more limited by increased demand for them. I live in a HUGE city where there is not sufficient water for the population. Most parts of the city get water on alternate days. Some parts don't get water for days and days at a time. We pay for private water tankers. Adding additional people into this mix only creates more demand for a resource that is not available.

 

I came on this thread to understand why people believe the way they do. What is the particular belief system/political system/ religious reason behind the belief? I would like to understand that and not be told that people who feel it is a problem should not have children.

 

Agreed.

[JessieC]

Honestly, anyone who is so concerned about overpopulation shouldn't give birth to even one child, but only adopt. I respect people who get up in arms about this topic so much more if they themselves haven't added to the population.

 

Having two children is essentially keeping the population at a replacement rate, not adding to it. I do not buy that if you are a parent you have no right to be concerned about overpopulation, and I think it's unfair to say so. I am not saying larger families are incorrect in their choices either, just that we should all be aware of the problem and not just look for 'reassuring' data.

 

Here is what I know of the current UN projection published 10/24/11:

 

Until quite recently, the U.N. was projecting that rates in other parts of the globe would follow a similar downward slope, so that sometime toward 2050 global population would level out at around nine billion. A few months ago, though, the U.N. announced that it was revising its long-term forecast. The agency now estimates that the number of people on earth in 2100 will be ten billion and still climbing.

 

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/10/24/111024taco_talk_kolbert#ixzz1dGWCPlgc

[justamouse]

What I can share with you is that the Government of India treats its population growth as a very serious and immediate problem. There are other issues besides overpopulation of the planet. In India there already are problems with scarcity of resources (water), overcrowding (in urban areas), lack of access to education and job opportunities. Furthermore, in India, it is often the largest families that are the poorest, have the least access to education and the least ability to improve their circumstances.

 

None of those things (apart from large families) have anything to do with over population-they have to do with lack of regulation. They have no sanitary regulations, we won't even take their pharmaceuticals in our house. The caste system doesn't help them with their social ills-none of those problems are from over population.

[Kathleen in VA]

Having two children is essentially keeping the population at a replacement rate, not adding to it. I do not buy that if you are a parent you have no right to be concerned about overpopulation, and I think it's unfair to say so. I am not saying larger families are incorrect in their choices either, just that we should all be aware of the problem and not just look for 'reassuring' data.

 

Here is what I know of the current UN projection published 10/24/11:

 

Until quite recently, the U.N. was projecting that rates in other parts of the globe would follow a similar downward slope, so that sometime toward 2050 global population would level out at around nine billion. A few months ago, though, the U.N. announced that it was revising its long-term forecast. The agency now estimates that the number of people on earth in 2100 will be ten billion and still climbing.

 

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/10/24/111024taco_talk_kolbert#ixzz1dGWCPlgc

 

Well, according to their website today (the UN's, that is) they are not predicting an increase through the end of this century. The author of this article, like Malthus and Erlich before her, reminds me of Harold Camping. Just keep moving the date for the end of the world when it doesn't happen as you first predicted. Very convenient, but starts to sound a little like someone crying wolf. I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

[twoforjoy]

Honestly, anyone who is so concerned about overpopulation shouldn't give birth to even one child, but only adopt. I respect people who get up in arms about this topic so much more if they themselves haven't added to the population.

 

I think that's misunderstanding what the problem is. Overpopulation is a problem of social structures, not individual choices. I don't think the issue with overpopulation is that people who want 1 or 3 or 5 or 12 kids are having 1 or 3 or 5 or 12 kids; it's that in many parts of the world access to education about family planning and birth control is extremely limited. We know that the birth rate declines as female education and opportunities for female education increase, and that access to advanced medical care also makes a huge difference. So, if somebody is concerned about overpopulation, it makes far more sense to address it in a structural way--for example, encouraging the spread of education for females, so that women are given the tools needed to make choices about family size that work for themselves and their families, and to expand access to quality medical care--than to forgo having children they might want to have.

[Cammie]

None of those things (apart from large families) have anything to do with over population-they have to do with lack of regulation. They have no sanitary regulations, we won't even take their pharmaceuticals in our house. The caste system doesn't help them with their social ills-none of those problems are from over population.

 

 

Trying to understand how the caste system plays into the issues I brought up?

 

Believe me, the lack of water in Bangalore is a direct result of overpopulation (on the city-wide scale). Ask anyone who lived in Bangalore 10-15 years ago before the population boom. The lack of access to education, jobs, housing is also a direct result of the increased population. Go to a place like Bombay if you want to see first hand the world we all could be living in when the population continues to climb.

 

Or are conservatives in America going to start working to relax immigration rules so those people living in the overcrowded parts of the world can move to Texas?

 

I agree that India needs better infrastructure and increased regulations. However those issues are separate and distinct from the issue of population density.

[twoforjoy]

 

Or are conservatives in America going to start working to relax immigration rules so those people living in the overcrowded parts of the world can move to Texas?

 

I agree that India needs better infrastructure and increased regulations. However those issues are separate and distinct from the issue of population density.

 

I also wanted to point out that, while extremely high population density is a problem, really low population density is not necessarily a great thing. It's generally not the most efficient way to live. I think a big problem with resources in the U.S. is that so many people live in suburbs. Urban life generally means less driving, and having more people in a smaller area can lead to resources and services being distributed more efficiently. The fact that we do have so much empty space here may be exacerbating our consumption problem, because it's possible for people to have very spread apart from each other, which can lead to inefficient resource and service distribution and more resources being used than would be if people lived closer to one another.

 

ETA: I think people become very defensive about this because it seems like a condemnation: Because of you and all your kids, the world is headed for disaster. I don't think we need to look at it that way. Personally, I think that, once we make sure that women around the world have access to education and family planning and good medical care, and are able to decide for themselves if or how they want to limit their family size, we would probably have the problem solved. If we didn't, then we could talk about whether people should be choosing to have 15 kids. But, right now, a more pressing issue seems to be helping women who do not currently have the means or knowledge to control their family size, if they want to, to do so. When many women are having more children than they'd choose because they lack the education or resources they need to prevent pregnancy, it seems cruel and misguided to focus efforts on punishing/condemning those who have chosen to have large families rather than working to help the many women who would want to control the size of their family if they could to do so.

Edited November 10, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Murphy101]

If we are currently overpopulated, then having even 2 kids will be too many bc at best it would maintain the current population level.

 

So it does make sense for someone to say if you are that upset about overpopulation then they shouldn't have more than 1 kid.

 

I don't have religious/political reasons for not buying into the overpopulation stuff.

 

I don't believe it bc I do not feel there is any evidence of it.

 

I do believe there is plenty evidence of uneven distribution of resources.

[happyhomemaker25]

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:

 

We are the only house on our street with one garbage can on pick up day. LOL Sometimes, only sometimes, we have to bring the extra one out. We have 8 people living in a 3 bedroom 2 bath subdivision home.

[happyhomemaker25]

What I want to know about is the 25% of people that took the poll that "don't believe in overpopulation." Does that mean they think it could never, ever become a problem? That even if we had 100 billion people, there would be enough food and resources for people to live better than just a subsistence level? We would never run out of fresh water (already becoming a problem is parts of the US)?

 

For me it's entirely about my faith. I believe that God created the world and since he tells us to be fruitful and multiply then we should do that. I'm ok with others choosing not to have children or to limit themselves to one or two. I'm not ok with people claiming that those of us with more than 2 kids are going to destroy the world. Yes, I've been called a breeder before in a very negative way. Funny thing though, only one of these kids was born to me. The others were adopted from foster care.

[mommyrooch]

Honestly, anyone who is so concerned about overpopulation shouldn't give birth to even one child, but only adopt. I respect people who get up in arms about this topic so much more if they themselves haven't added to the population.

 

You could almost argue though that if one man and one woman have only 2 children together they are not ultimately adding to the population. That one man and one woman will die so by having 2 children, they have only ultimately replaced themselves in the grand scheme of things.

 

If everyone decided to stop having kids then our species would become extinct. The numbers would quickly decrease. On the other hand though, having kids does not always equate to adding to the overall population. Such a statment really is opaque and doesn't take into account all of the many circumstances that can affect population counts such as disease, medical care, adequate nutrition, etc. There are so many other factors that come into play and have the potential to affect population. Reproduction is just one of many.

Edited November 10, 2011 by mommyrooch

[mommyrooch]

Agreed...slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. However, limited resources are made more limited by increased demand for them. I live in a HUGE city where there is not sufficient water for the population. Most parts of the city get water on alternate days. Some parts don't get water for days and days at a time. We pay for private water tankers. Adding additional people into this mix only creates more demand for a resource that is not available.

 

I came on this thread to understand why people believe the way they do. What is the particular belief system/political system/ religious reason behind the belief? I would like to understand that and not be told that people who feel it is a problem should not have children.

 

:iagree:

[Free]

Agreed...slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. However, limited resources are made more limited by increased demand for them. I live in a HUGE city where there is not sufficient water for the population. Most parts of the city get water on alternate days. Some parts don't get water for days and days at a time. We pay for private water tankers. Adding additional people into this mix only creates more demand for a resource that is not available.

 

I came on this thread to understand why people believe the way they do. What is the particular belief system/political system/ religious reason behind the belief? I would like to understand that and not be told that people who feel it is a problem should not have children.

 

Cammie, Thank you so much for being the rational voice. It is funny when some of the least civil posters advice others on civility.

 

You are absolutely right when you say that in India it is the largest families which have the lowest quality of life. Population is a real issue for us. Most urban and educated Indians do choose to have only 2 kids and no more. Even then, we expect to see population growth at least until 2050.

 

It pains me when I see posts like "I look out of the window and see no one there". How lucky for you, but that is not a reality for the rest of us!

 

And as far comments such as "If you think population is a problem, Why did you even choose to have kids?" go, well we did chose to limit our family size. I do not know many families here in India who DO NOT choose to limit their family sizes. I remember when I was kid, the Family Planning Commission would put out television ads advising that people choose to limit their families to 2 to 3 kids. Now they have revised their suggestion to 1 or 2 kids. Most middle class Indian families that I know of do follow these suggestions.

 

Asking people "Why do you choose to have kids at all?" is pretty much like asking "If you feel population is a problem, Why do you choose to live at all?".

[Cassy]

I can't believe how few people voted 'Yes!' Before voting, I guessed about 80-90% would have agreed that it was. Maybe Europe is more over-crowded than the US :D.

[Melissa in Australia]

I can't believe how few people voted 'Yes!' Before voting, I guessed about 80-90% would have agreed that it was. Maybe Europe is more over-crowded than the US :D.

 

Well I voted yes, and I live in a country with a low population. I don't think Australia is overpopulated, but there seem to be a huge amount of countries that are overpopulated that are trying to spill over and fill up here.

[Plucky]

It is funny when some of the least civil posters advice others on civility.

\

 

I'm thinking you just lumped yourself in that exact camp. :lol:

[Free]

I'm thinking you just lumped yourself in that exact camp. :lol:

 

And how is that?

[Spy Car]

And as far comments such as "If you think population is a problem, Why did you even choose to have kids?" go, well we did chose to limit our family size. I do not know many families here in India who DO NOT choose to limit their family sizes. I remember when I was kid, the Family Planning Commission would put out television ads advising that people choose to limit their families to 2 to 3 kids. Now they have revised their suggestion to 1 or 2 kids. Most middle class Indian families that I know of do follow these suggestions.

 

I took a very interesting course in University that dealt rather extensively with this topic.

 

A strong case was made that people were not "poor" because they had large families, but rather they had large families because they were poor. Why is that?

 

The reasoning is that in poor families, especially those involved in agriculture, the additional labor of children (who begin working early) tends to add more to a family's material wealth than it detracts. This is expecially true as the parents age. In many societies there is no "social safety net" for people in old age except for the care and support of children. So having more children is a form of "social security."

 

There is also much higher child mortality among the very poor in places like India, so losing a child (or even multiple children) is a very real possibility. If the children are your security it is rational to have enough children that some will survive your old age (should you be so lucky).

 

The costs of extra-children (and I'm sorry that all this sounds "cold") is also low among the poor. They are not saving for college, piano lessons, and orthodontics.

 

When a society becomes wealthier, and individual families become wealthier the situation changes. When there are "social security" programs for retirement and/or pensions or other devices in place that make old age secure the need for additional children as ones "retirement plan" goes away (or is at least diminished).

 

And as families develop middle-class aspirations, such as paying for advanced education, or living in comfortable surrounding, the "expense" of a large family soars and there is much less off-set in material benefit.

 

So as families become wealthier and more urban the "rationality" behind family-size as it plays out in real economic terms changes. Not to say people don't make family-size decisions for reasons beyond purely economic costs and benefits, but it is a huge factor.

 

This is the "simplified" version.

 

Bill

Edited November 10, 2011 by Spy Car

[Whereneverever]

I can't believe how few people voted 'Yes!' Before voting, I guessed about 80-90% would have agreed that it was. Maybe Europe is more over-crowded than the US :D.

 

I think parts of the US are vastly less populated the Europe- the state of Wyoming is almost the size of England and has under 600,000 people in the whole state. :tongue_smilie:

 

And Wyoming is more densely populated then Alaska, although they have more people.

[homeschoolmom]

I disagree with the over generalizing statement that smaller families are less green. I'd like to see the stats on that. I won't get into all the things we do I'll simply say I was raised by members of The Silent Generation who grew up during the depression and WWII rations and let that speak for itself. I believe it's all how you were raised. Waste burns my britches.

 

I do agree that entitlement complexes and waste are far more destructive than pure volume.

Edited November 10, 2011 by homeschoolmom
sanitizing for the sensitive hopefully this does it

[Cassy]

I think parts of the US are vastly less populated the Europe- the state of Wyoming is almost the size of England and has under 600,000 people in the whole state. :tongue_smilie:

 

And Wyoming is more densely populated then Alaska, although they have more people.

 

Sounds heavenly!

 

Where we are is one of the less densely populated areas of England, but we only have to travel about an hour down the road and the number of people is quite overwhelming, it can feel a bit scary.

 

I think many of us are speaking purely subjectively. Those who look out their windows and see nothing and nobody for miles. Those of us, like Cammie, and to a lesser degree myself, who are very aware of the milling hoards of people. It's very common here to hear people comment on "Where have all these people come from?" The population of the UK is still growing, as far as I know.

 

As far as big families/small families go, well I have four children, and would have more if I hadn't suddenly got so ancient, but I am concerned about overpopulation. That might sound irrational, but then our decision about family size was purely emotional :tongue_smilie:. I do have friends, however, who have made the decision to remain childless because they feel their are too many people in the world.

 

ETA: Oh, and I know fairly wealthy people, with small families, who make an art of frugality. DH reckons that's why they're wealthy!

Edited November 10, 2011 by Cassy

[twoforjoy]

Sounds heavenly!

 

Except it's also why we use so many resources in the U.S. Living spread out is simply not a very green way to life, unless you are entirely off the grid.

[Murphy101]

I took a very interesting course in University that dealt rather extensively with this topic.

 

A strong case was made that people were not "poor" because they had large families, but rather they had large families because they were poor. Why is that?

 

The reasoning is that in poor families, especially those involved in agriculture, the additional labor of children (who begin working early) tends to add more to a family's material wealth than it detracts. This is expecially true as the parents age. In many societies there is no "social safety net" for people in old age except for the care and support of children. So having more children is a form of "social security."

 

There is also much higher child mortality among the very poor in places like India, so losing a child (or even multiple children) is a very real possibility. If the children are your security it is rational to have enough children that some will survive your old age (should you be so lucky).

 

The costs of extra-children (and I'm sorry that all this sounds "cold") is also low among the poor. They are not saving for college, piano lessons, and orthodontics.

 

When a society becomes wealthier, and individual families become wealthier the situation changes. When there are "social security" programs for retirement and/or pensions or other devices in place that make old age secure the need for additional children as ones "retirement plan" goes away (or is at least diminished).

 

And as families develop middle-class aspirations, such as paying for advanced education, or living in comfortable surrounding, the "expense" of a large family soars and there is much less off-set in material benefit.

 

So as families become wealthier and more urban the "rationality" behind family-size as it plays out in real economic terms changes. Not to say people don't make family-size decisions for reasons beyond purely economic costs and benefits, but it is a huge factor.

 

This is the "simplified" version.

 

Bill

 

 

:iagree:

 

We often half joke that our kids are the only retirement plan we can afford.

[Spy Car]

:iagree:

 

We often half joke that our kids are the only retirement plan we can afford.

 

In much of the world it is literally true.

 

Bill

[Kathleen in VA]

Sounds heavenly!

 

Where we are is one of the less densely populated areas of England, but we only have to travel about an hour down the road and the number of people is quite overwhelming, it can feel a bit scary.

 

I think many of us are speaking purely subjectively. Those who look out their windows and see nothing and nobody for miles. Those of us, like Cammie, and to a lesser degree myself, who are very aware of the milling hoards of people. It's very common here to hear people comment on "Where have all these people come from?" The population of the UK is still growing, as far as I know.

 

As far as big families/small families go, well I have four children, and would have more if I hadn't suddenly got so ancient, but I am concerned about overpopulation. That might sound irrational, but then our decision about family size was purely emotional :tongue_smilie:. I do have friends, however, who have made the decision to remain childless because they feel their are too many people in the world.

 

ETA: Oh, and I know fairly wealthy people, with small families, who make an art of frugality. DH reckons that's why they're wealthy!

 

Yes, the population of the UK is still growing but the Total Fertility Rate is below replacement rate at about 1.6. (2.1 is needed to just replace the current population.) The UN projects the population will continue to grow until about 2040 and then it will begin to decrease thereafter. The population will continue to age, though, which will mean less fecundity overall and then the UK will begin to have more problems associated with a decreasing, ageing population than they do now with their current population - just a different set of problems.

 

http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp

 

ETA: Apparently the link doesn't take you to the actual UK chart, but you can probably figure that out by looking at the links on the sidebar.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Kathleen in VA

[Whereneverever]

Except it's also why we use so many resources in the U.S. Living spread out is simply not a very green way to life, unless you are entirely off the grid.

 

This is true. Everything has to be shipped in. Most people have a truck or SUV- hybrid cars aren't fun on snowy mountain passes. :tongue_smilie: And you have to drive for lots of things- specialists, groceries, ect.

[Cassy]

Yes, the population of the UK is still growing but the Total Fertility Rate is below replacement rate at about 1.6. (2.1 is needed to just replace the current population.)

 

 

There is also quite a lot of immigration, especially from Eastern European countries. These people are mostly young and seem to have high fertility rates. In some areas of the country maternity services have been stretched beyond their limits due to increased demand from this group in particular. I don't know if this is taken into account by the reports you quote. It is also true that some only stay here for a few years (they can earn more money here than at home), and then return to their home countries, I know of a number of Poles who now feel that the standard of living/quality of life is better in Poland than the UK and have gone back home.

 

Anyway, thank you Kathleen, you are giving me some cause for optimism :001_smile:. It still feels a bit out of control though, and I do worry about my boys when everywhere seems so overcrowded and competitive.

 

Best wishes

[Kathleen in VA]

There is also quite a lot of immigration, especially from Eastern European countries. These people are mostly young and seem to have high fertility rates. In some areas of the country maternity services have been stretched beyond their limits due to increased demand from this group in particular. I don't know if this is taken into account by the reports you quote. It is also true that some only stay here for a few years (they can earn more money here than at home), and then return to their home countries, I know of a number of Poles who now feel that the standard of living/quality of life is better in Poland than the UK and have gone back home.

 

Anyway, thank you Kathleen, you are giving me some cause for optimism :001_smile:. It still feels a bit out of control though, and I do worry about my boys when everywhere seems so overcrowded and competitive.

 

Best wishes

 

I don't know if those figures take immigration into account either. That's something to think about. I think the thing to be most concerned about is how the younger, dwindling population is going to support the aging population since it will be their taxes that must cover those expenses. We're already beginning to see that in the US with those paying into Social Security beginning to decrease and those receiving benefits on the increase. In a more socialized country such as the UK, it will probably be an even bigger problem. Not to take away any of that optimism, though.:D

[Free]

I took a very interesting course in University that dealt rather extensively with this topic.

 

A strong case was made that people were not "poor" because they had large families, but rather they had large families because they were poor. Why is that?

 

The reasoning is that in poor families, especially those involved in agriculture, the additional labor of children (who begin working early) tends to add more to a family's material wealth than it detracts. This is expecially true as the parents age. In many societies there is no "social safety net" for people in old age except for the care and support of children. So having more children is a form of "social security."

 

There is also much higher child mortality among the very poor in places like India, so losing a child (or even multiple children) is a very real possibility. If the children are your security it is rational to have enough children that some will survive your old age (should you be so lucky).

 

The costs of extra-children (and I'm sorry that all this sounds "cold") is also low among the poor. They are not saving for college, piano lessons, and orthodontics.

 

When a society becomes wealthier, and individual families become wealthier the situation changes. When there are "social security" programs for retirement and/or pensions or other devices in place that make old age secure the need for additional children as ones "retirement plan" goes away (or is at least diminished).

 

And as families develop middle-class aspirations, such as paying for advanced education, or living in comfortable surrounding, the "expense" of a large family soars and there is much less off-set in material benefit.

 

So as families become wealthier and more urban the "rationality" behind family-size as it plays out in real economic terms changes. Not to say people don't make family-size decisions for reasons beyond purely economic costs and benefits, but it is a huge factor.

 

This is the "simplified" version.

 

Bill

 

I have a different take on this Bill. Being an Indian and having seen both small families and large, it has been my experience that people who have small families have consciously planned it that way. In many cases, in the lower income groups where men take lesser responsibility for family size, the women tend to choose permanent birth control methods as soon as the second child is born. It is her ticket to emotional, mental, physical and financial health.

 

Families with large family sizes tend to be usually those where the women have NOT taken charge of their bodies either out of ignorance or naivete or abuse. There are of course those who have consciously chosen large families due to religious reasons. I do not have the numbers to know how pervasive this is, but must be fairly common especially among Indian Muslims.

 

Perhaps the idea of children as a social security blanket still prevails in rural India, but small families are so universally better off than large ones, that I am quite certain this is a dying attitude.

 

I disagree with the cost of extra children being low among the poor. You don't need to be just saving for piano classes, orthodontics or college to increase costs. Just taking the cost of the basics - food, clothing, shelter, schooling and health care - more children can cripple a family financially and make them miserable. This is something I have personally seen.

[Spy Car]

I have a different take on this Bill. Being an Indian and having seen both small families and large, it has been my experience that people who have small families have consciously planned it that way. In many cases, in the lower income groups where men take lesser responsibility for family size, the women tend to choose permanent birth control methods as soon as the second child is born. It is her ticket to emotional, mental, physical and financial health.

 

Families with large family sizes tend to be usually those where the women have NOT taken charge of their bodies either out of ignorance or naivete or abuse. There are of course those who have consciously chosen large families due to religious reasons. I do not have the numbers to know how pervasive this is, but must be fairly common especially among Indian Muslims.

 

Perhaps the idea of children as a social security blanket still prevails in rural India, but small families are so universally better off than large ones, that I am quite certain this is a dying attitude.

 

I disagree with the cost of extra children being low among the poor. You don't need to be just saving for piano classes, orthodontics or college to increase costs. Just taking the cost of the basics - food, clothing, shelter, schooling and health care - more children can cripple a family financially and make them miserable. This is something I have personally seen.

 

But what you are (rightly) identifying are the differences between an emerging urban population with middle class aspirations (even if they are still "poor" vs the logic and rationale of the rural poor. They have a different calculus of what is rational when it comes to family size. For the urban poor the larger family can be relatively more expensive with housing and schooling and medical and food costs. Their young children don't provide cheap labor to help work on the land and are relatively "expensive." So restricting family size is economically "rational" vs the conditions in the country side where a larger family might still be a better bet for relative security.

 

A child that is going to be sent to school is "expensive." A child that will not be sent to school and will be put to work on the farm is not expensive. The former may be a better route to long term wealth, but people with land and little money for schooling may decide they are better off with more (rather than fewer) children where the urban dweller might make the opposite choice and consciously reduce family size so they can afford schooling for their children.

 

What we miss in the equation sometimes is that something that often appears as always a detrimental decision for poor families (ie: having large families) is not always financially irrational. In poor and rural agricultural areas with no other social welfare programs for the elderly, having a large family is often a person's best bet for not being destitute in old age.

 

This dynamic chances when families become urban dwellers.

 

Makes sense?

 

Bill

Edited November 11, 2011 by Spy Car

[Crimson Wife]

Agreed...slowing down population growth is not a fix for poverty. However, limited resources are made more limited by increased demand for them. I live in a HUGE city where there is not sufficient water for the population. Most parts of the city get water on alternate days. Some parts don't get water for days and days at a time. We pay for private water tankers. Adding additional people into this mix only creates more demand for a resource that is not available.

 

That is not a population problem per se but an infrastructure problem. India has a notoriously corrupt government (Transparency International rates it a 3.3 on the scale where 0 is most corrupt and 10 is least corrupt). If India were better governed, the infrastructure would be much better able to support the current population.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Crimson Wife
fixed typo

[Free]

What we miss in the equation sometimes is that something that often appears as always a detrimental decision for poor families (ie: having large families) is not always financially irrational. In poor and rural agricultural areas with no other social welfare programs for the elderly, having a large family is often a person's best bet for not being destitute in old age.

 

This dynamic chances when families become urban dwellers.

 

Makes sense?

 

Bill

 

What you seem to be saying is that a poor family may make a conscious choice to have a large family because it makes financial sense to them. This is the part I disagree with. In my opinion a large family is not "planned" - it just happens (at least in the Indian milieu). The consequences come later, and if a family does see some benefits that is only in hindsight.

 

Modern birth control methods became popular here in India only in the 1960s. My parents both came from large families which were dirt poor. My parents (and all their siblings) chose to plan their family and have two kids. This was in the 1970s. Their rural cousins on the other hand, who had large families are not doing so well. Where I come from - and I realize this does not apply to other areas of the world - when a person has a large family, it is not seen as a rational well thought out decision. It is instead looked upon as revealing a deplorable lack of responsibility, foresight and education.

[Crimson Wife]

I disagree with the over generalizing statement that smaller families are less green.

 

In the 1950's, the typical U.S. family had 1 car, a 983 sq. ft. house with 1 bath, and 4.5 children. Today, the typical U.S. family has 3 cars, a 2349 sq. ft. house with 2.5 baths, and only 2.1 kids. Is it just coincidental that consumerism has dramatically increased during the same time frame that family sizes have dramatically decreased? I personally doubt that based on my observations.

[Crimson Wife]

It is instead looked upon as revealing a deplorable lack of responsibility, foresight and education.

 

Wow, and I got bashed for stereotyping earlier? At least I acknowledged that not all small families live a wasteful lifestyle (in fact, plenty do not).

 

Did it ever occur to you that many of us are optimistic about humanity's great capability for ingenuity and therefore we reject all the scaremongering put forth by population doomsayers? Babies are blessings, not burdens and it saddens me to see all the anti-child rhetoric on this thread :(

[Free]

Wow, and I got bashed for stereotyping earlier? At least I acknowledged that not all small families live a wasteful lifestyle (in fact, plenty do not).

 

You have not read my entire post and have taken my comment out of context. I was speaking about how few large families in India are actually a result of a well thought out decision. This was not meant as a blanket statement to include all large families.

 

Did it ever occur to you that many of us are optimistic about humanity's great capability for ingenuity and therefore we reject all the scaremongering put forth by population doomsayers? Babies are blessings, not burdens and it saddens me to see all the anti-child rhetoric on this thread :(

 

I do not equate being "pro-child" to bringing as many babies into this world as possible. I would prefer instead to see a world where every child already born is cherished, well-fed, educated and loved.

[Crimson Wife]

I do not equate being "pro-child" to bringing as many babies into this world as possible. I would prefer instead to see a world where every child already born is cherished, well-fed, educated and loved.

 

I do not believe that women ought to bear as many children as they physically can. I believe couples ought to carefully consider how many children they can responsibly parent given their own individual circumstances.

 

However, I feel strongly that modern society places FAR too great an emphasis on consumerism at the expense of children. I hear acquaintances all the time talking about how they'd like to have another child but that they "just can't afford it". And I'm sitting there looking at the lifestyle they have and thinking to myself that they could absolutely afford another child if they truly wanted- they just are unwilling to give up all the luxuries to which they have become accustomed. It absolutely breaks my heart to see so many people valuing STUFF over babies :( Again, not all moms of only 1-2 kids are selfish in this way. But it is very frequently the case in modern U.S. society.

[KJB]

That's true right now. But according to the UN statistics cited in these videos the population will peak at about 9 billion in about 25 years and then begin to drop dramatically. In 75 years we'll be back to 7 billion and then it will keep dropping.

 

It's already happening in Europe and Asia. Russia is paying parents to have children.

 

Check out the video Demographic Winter - you can watch the whole thing on youtube. It goes in to a lot more detail on the subject.

 

Germany gives a tremendous tax incentive for couples to have a second child. My fifth baby was born in Germany which made me a celebrity. :D

[happyhomemaker25]

What you seem to be saying is that a poor family may make a conscious choice to have a large family because it makes financial sense to them. This is the part I disagree with. In my opinion a large family is not "planned" - it just happens (at least in the Indian milieu). The consequences come later, and if a family does see some benefits that is only in hindsight.

 

Modern birth control methods became popular here in India only in the 1960s. My parents both came from large families which were dirt poor. My parents (and all their siblings) chose to plan their family and have two kids. This was in the 1970s. Their rural cousins on the other hand, who had large families are not doing so well. Where I come from - and I realize this does not apply to other areas of the world - when a person has a large family, it is not seen as a rational well thought out decision. It is instead looked upon as revealing a deplorable lack of responsibility, foresight and education.

 

Honestly as a mom with a large family in many cases it's seen as a "deplorable lack of responsibility, foresight and education" here as well. I've gotten some very rude comments about the number of children I have, as if I should know better. My large family was planned though, well planned, as in Dh and I looked at each other and decided we wanted a large family. Granted, I don't fall into the category of giving birth naturally to all of these children. Five of my children were adopted. This was not what we wanted though. It just took 9 years for my body to decide to cooperate. I'm hoping for a couple more at least, though. I'm not trying to argue, I just wanted to point out that it might not be just a cultural thing there. I think in the U.S. we might be more accepting of larger families, but it does not mean a vast majority of the people think it's a good, well thought out decision.