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

[homeschoolmom]

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.

 

One stat does not a study make. I disagree on summation without a broader study. Nuff said.

[In2why]

: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:

 

 

I agree. I also look at some of the people in the world and think it is a shame we are so protective. It might not be a bad thing to thin the herd a bit, :D before they reproduce.

[Cammie]

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.

 

 

I would be the first to agree that corruption in India is ever present. However, better governance won't increase the amount of water available to Bangalore nor will it change the fact that the population is simply too large for the resources available.

[In2why]

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."

 

 

If we want our children to have jobs under the current world economic system then consumerism is important. But it is also clear that it is a ponzi scheme as well. Over population isn't just about consumerism, but economics as well.

[In2why]

: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.

 

 

Could you explain this post. I am confused.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

Your family is an example of what happens when there are alternatives for upward social and educational mobility. When these opportunities exist family size tends to fall (sometimes dramatically) as people see they can have a better life through family planning.

 

But when these prerequisite conditions do not exist it may be rational not to reduce family size. That is a point people miss. There must be opportunities beyond scratching out a living on the land to induce the change.

 

Bill

[In2why]

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.

 

 

I also have this concern. There are so many children in need of homes. Even if they are temporary, it really makes a difference in a child's life.

[mommaduck]

Could you explain this post. I am confused.

Posts #78 and #79 explain it ;) There are high standard of living expectations than are necessary in some areas, cultures, or within families. This either legally keeps someone from being able to live, still within reason, a simpler life or creates a peer pressure/under threat situation for those that go against the grain where simpler is seen as equaling neglect as the extended family is used to a higher standard of extras (each having their own bedroom, having a certain amount of toys or technology, having a/c when it might not be necessary for the climate, etc).

[JumpyTheFrog]

As far as the stereotype of large American families as being irresponsible, I have a suggestion about where the stereotype may come from. I suspect your average American has had more exposure (in real life, movies, or TV) to families that are large because of people's irresponsibility, rather than because they were planned that way. (I'm talking about current times, not 60 years ago when families were generally bigger.)

 

When I say this, I'm thinking of women who start having babies in middle or high school and wind up with kids by many different men. Most people consider this behavior reckless. If you've met many women like this, or seen it on TV enough, it's probably harder to imagine a couple getting married, staying married, choosing a large family, and then not letting those kids grow up into thugs.

[SailorMom]

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.

 

In the 1950's birth control was not legal in the US. If you lot at the stats I think you'll see that the birth rate dropped when it became legal, and women began enterring the work force. They didn't enter the work force to have more money - they did so because they wanted to.

More money became available, and more consumerism followed.

[mommaduck]

In the 1950's birth control was not legal in the US. If you lot at the stats I think you'll see that the birth rate dropped when it became legal, and women began enterring the work force. They didn't enter the work force to have more money - they did so because they wanted to.

More money became available, and more consumerism followed.

Not true. BCPs and abortion were not legal. Other forms of BC were legal.

[SailorMom]

SO - here's the deal.

A basic fact of science is that you can't make something from nothing.

There are a finite amount of resources here on Earth. We cannot grow more food indefinitely because there is only so much matter for food to be made of.

So - at some point - we will have to begins mining other planets/moons or colonizing them. Or - there will be some sort of population altering plague due to a drop in food quality and sanitary conditions.

When will this happen? Who knows. I think it is already a huge problem in other countries - but in western countries we just aren't feeling it yet.

Already in the South-western US there is a huge problem with water.

No matter how advanced we get, we can't just make water appear in the desert..... We never should have built up out there like we have. Silly humans.

[SailorMom]

Not true. BCPs and abortion were not legal. Other forms of BC were legal.

 

 

Yeah - because condom use is so popular and effective.

[mommaduck]

As far as the stereotype of large American families as being irresponsible, I have a suggestion about where the stereotype may come from. I suspect your average American has had more exposure (in real life, movies, or TV) to families that are large because of people's irresponsibility, rather than because they were planned that way. (I'm talking about current times, not 60 years ago when families were generally bigger.)

When I say this, I'm thinking of women who start having babies in middle or high school and wind up with kids by many different men. Most people consider this behavior reckless. If you've met many women like this, or seen it on TV enough, it's probably harder to imagine a couple getting married, staying married, choosing a large family, and then not letting those kids grow up into thugs.

This is many times the assumption. When we were used as a class project for a friend, just our family size/urban living, caused everyone in the class to assume that we were a minority with numerous baby mamas and baby daddys, because they couldn't possibly "all be ours".

[mommaduck]

Yeah - because condom use is so popular and effective.

You forgot diaphragm (which many women have used successfully then and today), tubal ligation, NFP/FAM, etc.

[twoforjoy]

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.

 

Wow. That's harsh and, I think, wrong.

 

When middle-class people talk about not being able to afford another child, I don't think they mean they couldn't afford to feed the child. They're thinking about things like how they'd pay for college for another child. Given the cost of education, this isn't some small fee they could pay if they just gave up the daily latte or traded their SUV for a used car.

 

We figure we can't afford to send them all to college at this point, anyway, and I'd like to have another, but I most certainly would NOT ever judge anybody as "selfish" for having fewer children.

 

I'm really, really bothered by the attitude of moral superiority that some people are giving off on this thread. Having more children than average doesn't mean you are more generous, selfless, or just generally better than average.

[JumpyTheFrog]

One of the previous posters wanted to know why some people don't believe overpopulation is ever possible. Here is one reason. I want to preface this by saying that only a tiny position of Christians believe this.

 

Some Christians (whom I would call Quiverfull) believe no baby is concieved without God's direct participation. While they might not realize it, the logical extention of this belief is that every time any couple has a chance of conceiving, God is deciding which sperm and which egg will meet up. As in, "Nope, that sperm would result in a boy, and they need to have a girl, so I'll have that one get stuck in cervical mucous." Or "Her health is bad and she shouldn't have another baby now, so even though they mate like rabbits, none of the sperm will make it for the next year."

 

People of this belief don't think having a functioning reproductive system is enough to conceive. Hence, they think that every baby ever born was specially chosen by God to be created, and therefore could never result in overpopulation.

 

Please note, as a non-Catholic, this doesn't seem to be the Catholic view. I'm thinking of the extreme QF types (like Nancy Cambell) that think even if a woman has cancer, she is sinning to use contraception because God is supposed to be the one to decide every time if the woman will conceive. In their mind, there is no such thing as a woman becoming pregnant because the reproductive system works properly as a system God set up.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Let me add that I personally know women of the above viewpoint. One had been ill for 2-3 years after having one of her kids. She was having to use a wheelchair to go shopping even. When she (of course) became pregant again, while not using contraception, she emailed me and wanted to know why God would choose for her to have a baby now. I was very tempted to say something like, "What do you expect? Babies tend to happen unless you try to prevent them. That's how God set up the system."

[Murphy101]

Not true. BCPs and abortion were not legal. Other forms of BC were legal.

 

Actually it depended on the state. Condoms were illegal in Oklahoma.

 

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 :(

 

:iagree:

 

I would be the first to agree that corruption in India is ever present. However, better governance won't increase the amount of water available to Bangalore nor will it change the fact that the population is simply too large for the resources available.

 

Actually better governing absolutely does increase available resources. Better governing means more access to water and cleaner water and filtration programs to make undrinkable water safe. It means distribution of funds to make that happen in all areas instead of only the living locals of corrupt officials.

 

If we want our children to have jobs under the current world economic system then consumerism is important. But it is also clear that it is a ponzi scheme as well. Over population isn't just about consumerism, but economics as well.

 

This is so true and often over looked. Simply put, if everyone decided to buy less, and live more simple lives - the economic impact would be brutal over all even if some are saving money.

 

Your family is an example of what happens when there are alternatives for upward social and educational mobility. When these opportunities exist family size tends to fall (sometimes dramatically) as people see they can have a better life through family planning.

 

But when these prerequisite conditions do not exist it may be rational not to reduce family size. That is a point people miss. There must be opportunities beyond scratching out a living on the land to induce the change.

 

Bill

 

I will go further and say family planning is often the last key in that.

If women go to school longer, they usually put off marriage longer.

The older a woman is when she marries and starts having regular relations, the fewer children it is possible for her to have.

It is actually very difficult/ unlikely for a woman to have more than 5 kids if she waits until 25 to marry. Most who don't marry until 30, won't have more than 3 whether they want more or not. Will some? Yes. But most won't. Historically the average was 5 before the advent of birth control. And iirc the average of the to survive to adulthood was 3. Historically the biggest factor of how many children a woman had was the age of marriage.

[Spy Car]

I will go further and say family planning is often the last key in that. If women go to school longer, they usually put off marriage longer.

The older a woman is when she marries and starts having regular relations, the fewer children it is possible for her to have.

It is actually very difficult/ unlikely for a woman to have more than 5 kids if she waits until 25 to marry. Most who don't marry until 30, won't have more than 3 whether they want more or not. Will some? Yes. But most won't. Historically the average was 5 before the advent of birth control. And iirc the average of the to survive to adulthood was 3. Historically the biggest factor of how many children a woman had was the age of marriage.

 

It is a very good point.

 

Bill

[In2why]

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.

 

There isn't anything wrong with liking stuff, and liking children. (or even stuff and not children) I have 5 children through birth, adoption and fostering and easily could have more, but money doesn't just buy stuff, it also pays for experiences, and can equate to savings so that a person is self sufficient their entire lives. When people say "they just can't afford it" I am sure they mean by their standard of living and I am not sure why that breaks your heart. I am not even sure if that is selfish. It isn't as if there are a shortage of children in the world.

[In2why]

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

 

Parents get tax credits/incentives here in the US for having children as well.

[Crimson Wife]

In the 1950's birth control was not legal in the US.

 

On the contrary, barrier contraceptives such as condoms and diaphragms have been widely used in the U.S. since the early part of the 20th century. In 1940, a full third of married couples in the U.S. used the diaphragm. By 1955, 60% of married couples in the U.S. were using some form of barrier contraception.

 

The high average fertility rate in the U.S. during the 1950's was not due to a lack of access to contraception but rather social norms that favored women marrying at a relatively young age and discouraged them from pursuing higher education and participation in the paid labor force.

[Murphy101]

On the contrary, barrier contraceptives such as condoms and diaphragms have been widely used in the U.S. since the early part of the 20th century. In 1940, a full third of married couples in the U.S. used the diaphragm. By 1955, 60% of married couples in the U.S. were using some form of barrier contraception.

 

The high average fertility rate in the U.S. during the 1950's was not due to a lack of access to contraception but rather social norms that favored women marrying at a relatively young age and discouraged them from pursuing higher education and participation in the paid labor force.

 

Site your source, please. It is my understanding BC, including condoms, was illegal in most states in the 50s. And he met/married my mom in the the late fifties/early sixties and my mother often said birth control was not available and certainly not affordable. And even for those it was available for, it was considered only something slutty women did, so most women didn't use it, even if they were married. Also, the BC available was actually far more dangerous than today's versions. Many women were rightly scared of using it. Those that weren't scared off, risked a much higher rate of death, complications, and cancer. ETA: and the kicker of all that? The BC still had a high failure rate.

[akmommy]

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

 

:lol::iagree: