a question for large families

[Rose-Roget]

I am a mother of 2, and that is all I personally have sanity for. A dear friend of mine just had her 5th child and is a fabulous mother to many. A lady I was talking to cited the idea of population overgrowth as a reason to be against people having many children. I completely support my friend's (and others') right to have large families if they can do it, but I stammered in response to this lady's argument. What could I say to support my friend? TIA

[~Charlie's~Angel~]

I would have said, and I quote,"That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard." But that is just my opinion.

FTR, I have 2 also, and I am emotionally tapped. We are also finacially tapped, and would be in big trouble if I got pregnant right now. HOWEVER, If I were to get pregnant, we would deal. Somehow. And this is someone who firmly believes in BC (and takes it plus uses condoms) and believes in the freedom of choice. I often marvel at how the moms of 4, 5, 6, 10!! can keep it together.

Sorry, I see this question was directed at people with large families. Honestly, it feels like we are large sometimes.

[cappuccinosmom]

I would have said, and I quote,"That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard." But that is just my opinion.

Agreed.

We view children as resources and a benefit to the world's future. Some people may limit their family size and their consumption, some will limit family size but increase consumption...we will enjoy whatever children come our way and work to decrease consumption and give them the tools to be tomorrow's leaders and thinkers and problem solvers.

[~Charlie's~Angel~]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

Agreed.

We view children as resources and a benefit to the world's future. Some people may limit their family size and their consumption, some will limit family size but increase consumption...we will enjoy whatever children come our way and work to decrease consumption and give them the tools to be tomorrow's leaders and thinkers and problem solvers.

Said so much better then me.

[seashells]

I am a mother to only one, but I hope I can weigh in. I do think population is a concern. I do not, however, feel concerned in the least about large, loving families.

People who plan for, have resources for, have patience for and love for large families are NOT the problem. And that's all I have to say about that.

[kittywitty]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

Agreed.

We view children as resources and a benefit to the world's future. Some people may limit their family size and their consumption, some will limit family size but increase consumption...we will enjoy whatever children come our way and work to decrease consumption and give them the tools to be tomorrow's leaders and thinkers and problem solvers.

Originally Posted by seashells

I

People who plan for, have resources for, have patience for and love for large families are NOT the problem. And that's all I have to say about that.

A big to both of these. I'm about to have #5. I can not imagine telling people some of the rude things I've heard about people with more than one kid because of "population overgrowth". If they're that concerned, they can financially support helping people who want birth control and supporting those of us who want a kid/more than one kid. We are Earth loving people who live off far less than most families of 3 we know. And it's an individual's choice. This conversation can get out of control, so that's all I'll say about that.

[MyFullHouse]

I have to admit, even sitting here pg with #5, I am concerned about (regional) overpopulation. However, we've spent the past few years working toward a more sustainable lifestyle, and we intend to continue chipping away at our consumption with the big dream of having our own little homestead one day. And we intend to raise all of our children with the same ideals.

I have a very hard time accepting population numbers as a greater issue than individual consumption levels.

[Rose-Roget]

Thank you, everyone! Those comments really help.

[seashells]

Originally Posted by MyFullHouse

I have a very hard time accepting population numbers as a greater issue than individual consumption levels.

Bingo. Easy to pont the finger at large families but the issue is not the number of people but amount of resources.

My parents are just a 2-person household and they consume way too much. They don't care. Convenience and comfort come first in their minds. But nobody ever says anything about that. I'm quite sure there are plenty of 7 person households who consume way less than my parents do.

[Mama~Love]

Originally Posted by MyFullHouse

I have a very hard time accepting population numbers as a greater issue than individual consumption levels.

Originally Posted by seashells

Bingo. Easy to pont the finger at large families but the issue is not the number of people but amount of resources.

My parents are just a 2-person household and they consume way too much. They don't care. Convenience and comfort come first in their minds. But nobody ever says anything about that. I'm quite sure there are plenty of 7 person households who consume way less than my parents do.

Just saying it's the wastefulness of society that causes the most problems, not large families.

I would think it would be the opposite - large families tend to make do with what they have by handing down clothes, reusing what they can, making from scratch when possible, whereas smaller families tend to go with what's more convenient, go on more trips, etc.

No offense to smaller families - this is just a general statement to the population at large - NOT anyone here specific.

[mambera]

Not a mom of many, but I agree that is totally ridiculous.

1) A bigger problem than population overgrowth in general is the imbalance between older and younger people that is looming. The reason Social Security in the US is going to fizzle out is that there are not enough upcoming workers to support the ones heading into retirement. Young people are an *asset,* not a liability.

2) Holding individuals personally responsible is not the way to make global-level changes in the population. It's been shown time and time again that if you educate women and provide them with effective birth control and economic options other than dependence on their future children, they will (on average) choose to limit their own childbearing. If all the women in the world had access to these goods, population would be naturally limited by choice. (Population growth is actually below replacement in many developed countries.)

Supporting the few individuals who would choose larger families under these conditions would not be a problem.

[seashells]

OK, here's another one.

If those people are so concerned about resources (and I am one of those - I use reusable toilet paper, guys) then why not target divorced households? Divorce is creating multiple households where there used to be one, and thus substantially increasing the resources spent.

Well, anyway, I don't want to point the finger at divorcees either but the point is, why single out parents of many? They are no more the problem than small, resource-guzzling households or divorced households or households of people with certain special needs or any number of other possible "culprits." Heck, while we're at it, let's point the finger at EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN since we ARE collectively the biggest problem in the world.

[MommyKelly]

As Mom to 9 I hear this a lot. I know with our lifestyle we use less of the earths resources then friends I have with 1, 2 or even no kids. So I am really not concerned about it. LOL

Also I have several family members that odds are will never have kids so I am just taking their share. LOL

Some people just like to complain about anything

[Drummer's Wife]

Originally Posted by mambera

Not a mom of many, but I agree that is totally ridiculous.

1) A bigger problem than population overgrowth in general is the imbalance between older and younger people that is looming. The reason Social Security in the US is going to fizzle out is that there are not enough upcoming workers to support the ones heading into retirement. Young people are an *asset,* not a liability.

2) Holding individuals personally responsible is not the way to make global-level changes in the population. It's been shown time and time again that if you educate women and provide them with effective birth control and economic options other than dependence on their future children, they will (on average) choose to limit their own childbearing. If all the women in the world had access to these goods, population would be naturally limited by choice. (Population growth is actually below replacement in many developed countries.)

Supporting the few individuals who would choose larger families under these conditions would not be a problem.

This makes sense to me.

[mntnmom]

Originally Posted by cappuccinosmom

Agreed.

We view children as resources and a benefit to the world's future. Some people may limit their family size and their consumption, some will limit family size but increase consumption...we will enjoy whatever children come our way and work to decrease consumption and give them the tools to be tomorrow's leaders and thinkers and problem solvers.

This is my husband's arguement. We are building tomorrow's well adjusted, socially responsible adults. The world will always need thoughtful, compassionate leaders.

[Just1More]

Eh. I can't find it right off, but can't you put the whole world's population on their own square yard in Florida? Or Texas? Or something like that?

The point being, sure, there are a lot of us...but we could always move to Iowa.

[pauletoy]

I feel that we (a family of 6) are doing the world a favor. Hopefully, one day there will be more ecologically minded people and less ignorant people such as the lady the OP mentioned. We are just doing our fair share of repopulation!

No, seriously our ecological footprint is much, much less than anyone we know including some single people.

[cappuccinosmom]

Just found an article that answers this very question.

Big Families are the New Green.

It expresses very well the perspective of a big family. Overtly religious, just fyi, so nobody's surprised when they click the link.

[phathui5]

Has anyone else seen the movie Idiocracy? I always think of that when I hear the population argument. If anything, well-educated, responsible people need to have more children, not less.

[boysmom2]

I think I remember reading a great response in one of the Dr. Sears books. Some busy body was giving Martha Sears a hard time because she had 8 dcs. Her response was, "the world needs MY children."

I only have 3 kiddos so far and some people seem to think I'm nuts. I think some people just need to be nasty.