Too many kids? - Page 7 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#181 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 01:51 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
Well, diminishing food supply not right now, but generations in the future, when population growth has continued to grow exponentially.
But what about the point-of-view of at least some anthropologists -- that if we (namely U.S. government) could focus in NOW on more sustainable food-growing practices, rather than producing massive quantities of cheap, sub-standard food, there would probably be less over-supply, and the population would adjust its growth-rate to the available food?

Of course, maybe I don't have a right to talk about this, because we're certainly not "putting (all) our money where our mouth is" right now -- though we do prefer (but can't always afford) to shop in our local farmers' market, and my dh is working on revitalizing the dirt in our yard with earthworms, and trying to figure out ways to get a bigger yield of vegetables each year, without doing anything harmful to the environment.

But if our nation's government made the shift to more sustainable practices -- well, it would certainly help us to make the shift, too. When cash is limited, and you know you can shop Aldi's, or even Price Chopper, for a fraction of the cost at the local health food store ... well, frankly, it's just so tempting to buy the larger quantities of food at cheaper prices, and have some money left over for the other things, and experiences, our kids want to enjoy.

What gets me is, I've heard that there are all kinds of government subsidies for big agriculture -- so surely those same subsidies invested in sustainable, organic food-growing, could help to make organic foods more affordable to the general public. So food production would gradually level off, and population would gradually level off in response. And at the same time, we'd all be supporting the shift to a more livable way of life.

Quinn makes an interesting point, that the advent of contraception really hasn't resulted in a reduction of population world-wide. He thinks (or maybe it's just my interpretation of what he thinks) that if governments would quit subsidizing an ever-increasing food supply, that would do more for population concerns than contraception. And he's not talking about producing too little food, and forcing some people to starve to death: he's saying we should produce enough, and quit aiming for an excess.

Because the excess isn't accidental: it's actually planned and aimed for each year.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#182 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 01:56 PM
 
nugglemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am just going to jump right in, sorry I haven't had time to read the whole thread seeing as how I am a mom who has "too many kids" And Honestly I wouldn't change a thing. My kids do not lack "things" in fact we just got a Wii for christmas, Nor do they lack my love and attention. We spend lots of one on one time doing crafts, baking and sewing. I am not exhausted nor do I feel overwhelmed. My dh and I made the decision that we wanted a large family for many reasons mostly being the values you learn when you don't get everything handed to you and you have to learn to get along with others. My DH comes form a family where he was one of 11 children and I was an only child until I was 14. We live on one income ( I am a SAHM) my kids do go to public school and we eat easy healthy meals everyday.

One problem that the area I live in is having is that people are not having enough children so there is a severe economicy depression occuring, not to mention the lack of people to care for the elderly and do all the jobs that will be left behind when the current baby boom generation retires. Teh government is actually making it desireable to have lots of children by offering tax incentives and bonuses. I can see the value in having one child only, but it is not my personal choice, nor will I feel guilty for choosing to enrich my life with the love of a large family.
nugglemama is offline  
#183 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 01:59 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeanusMomma View Post
I have one child. I'm still quite young (22), and I know I have many childbearing years ahead of me, but I have lots of reservations about having more children (which combats the baby fever I have so often).

One reason is that I'm a single mom. I think I'm providing for ds well and we're doing ok, but for me to have more children, there are childcare costs--which would double--built right in because I don't have the luxury of choosing whether or not to work full time.

Secondly, the environmental aspect has influence on me. Sure, many things I do to reduce my footprint are just "chump change", but what else can I do? I strongly believe that chump change is a great deal better than nothing. In some perspectives, using a tea ball rather than the paper things and religiously recycling whatever I can, may seem hypocritical when I turn around and take a long shower now and then. But isn't that better than NOT recycling AND taking the long showers?

That aspect is very complex, because you can bring up religion and the theory of desiring motherhood being ingrained in every woman (which I don't believe). I don't believe that it's wrong, or even an inferior choice, to have a big family. My point is, at the end of the day, mamas that breastfeed and ec can do so with 1 or 7 children, and 7 children will be a bigger impact than 1 raised the same way, so it's worth considering. To me, it's worth it to avoid having more children partly because of the added waste, but the next mama may have the opposite opinion.

I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families. I don't have all the facts--it could be that bigger families tend to homeschool and have SAHMs, therefore have the time and resources to discipline conscientiously (sp?). Coming back to myself, I know that my patience wears thin at times with my one and only ds and ft work schedule. I know I'd have a harder time avoiding regressing to my own parents' "easy ways out", so for me I just mark that as another tally on the "don't have more children" side.
Good post!



:

You make so many good points! Yes, I completely agree that even the chump change adds up over time, if we all do it. And usually people get on a roll and start with the chump change and continue adding more and more green actions, going from "green-lite" to a deeper green.

Also, yes, I completely agree with how you said, the planet's carrying capacity is something we should at least consider when determining family size.



Kudos to you for being so thoughtful about all of this!
That Is Nice is offline  
#184 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:04 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nugglemama View Post
One problem that the area I live in is having is that people are not having enough children so there is a severe economicy depression occuring, not to mention the lack of people to care for the elderly and do all the jobs that will be left behind when the current baby boom generation retires. Teh government is actually making it desireable to have lots of children by offering tax incentives and bonuses.
Wow! That sounds great! Do you live in the U.S.?

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#185 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:04 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nugglemama View Post
One problem that the area I live in is having is that people are not having enough children so there is a severe economicy depression occuring, not to mention the lack of people to care for the elderly and do all the jobs that will be left behind when the current baby boom generation retires.
That is an interesting point to me. I think, yes, there are indeed parts of this country where there is population decline.

I wonder though if it is due to people not having enough children or due to out-migration? ...you know, the so called "brain drain" where the younger adults move out of more rural or economically depressed areas for the larger employment centers?

If that is the case, as is happening in many rural states, the population isn't really declining, it's just trasferring to other geographic areas.

And in the case of out-migration areas, having more kids isn't going to solve the problem...until there are jobs and other opportunities that make people, especially upwardly moving young people, want to remain in the area.
That Is Nice is offline  
#186 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:06 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

Because the excess isn't accidental: it's actually planned and aimed for each year.
True in a lot of cases.
That Is Nice is offline  
#187 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:07 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
Yes, I completely agree that even the chump change adds up over time, if we all do it. And usually people get on a roll and start with the chump change and continue adding more and more green actions, going from "green-lite" to a deeper green.
I'm glad to hear this positive outlook. It can be so discouraging to hear the deeper greens disparaging those of us who are "chump-changing" our way into a greener way of life.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#188 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:08 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
But what about the point-of-view of at least some anthropologists -- that if we (namely U.S. government) could focus in NOW on more sustainable food-growing practices, rather than producing massive quantities of cheap, sub-standard food, there would probably be less over-supply, and the population would adjust its growth-rate to the available food? ...Because the excess isn't accidental: it's actually planned and aimed for each year.
This is a good point. Yes, the systems could be managed much better. Part of the issue is political, part of it is logistical.

It will be hard to change that.

So, that is why I think it's important to also do things on a personal level, while advocating for change on the societal/world level.

Like Margaret Meade said, "Be the change in the world you want to see."
That Is Nice is offline  
#189 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:13 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I'm glad to hear this positive outlook. It can be so discouraging to hear the deeper greens disparaging those of us who are "chump-changing" our way into a greener way of life.


Well, I think any effort to try to be greener is admirable. I don't even really like to refer to it as chump change, but I see the point the PP was trying to make by calling it that, and I do tend to agree with her. There are big, big issues that need to be addressed.

Still, I prefer to see some one trying to be light green than not trying at all!

There are days I am a light shade of green and there are days I am a deeper shade of green. So I don't judge.

Every effort counts! And if you can do more or want to do more, all the better!
That Is Nice is offline  
#190 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:14 PM
 
nugglemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I live in Quebec Canada and as far as I know it is not brain drain, but just because the younger generation had only one or no children.
nugglemama is offline  
#191 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:17 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nugglemama View Post
I live in Quebec Canada and as far as I know it is not brain drain, but just because the younger generation had only one or no children.
I'm not a resident of Canada, so I was speaking of United States trends. From the little I know of Canada with regard to this issue, I can see you make a valid point.

It is hard to cross-compare countries.

Generally, though, the world as a whole is not having a problem with declining population. In fact, it is the opposite from the news articles I have read.
That Is Nice is offline  
#192 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:19 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I'm glad to hear this positive outlook. It can be so discouraging to hear the deeper greens disparaging those of us who are "chump-changing" our way into a greener way of life.
I think it is counter-productive to make people feel discouraged about being green, any shade of green.

We need to be encouraging people to make the change. And, let's be honest, for some people it is a big change and a difficult transition. So, to any of you who are trying to be green, I applaud you wholeheartedly! Good for you! Keep it up!

That Is Nice is offline  
#193 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:30 PM
 
JERENAUD's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapjack View Post
Well, our doggie bags go to the dog, because we love her

Something else: DH and I are both onlies. My mum and dad were both one of two, his mum and dad were one of three or four respectively. His mum and my dad both died over 10 years ago, when we were in our early twenties.
We're now in a situation where my FIL is wheelchair bound with rheumatoid arthritis and because of shame about his medical conditions, chooses not to leave the house. He's entirely dependent on others, and his brothers, who helped support him before DH finished his education and moved here, are getting on a bit themselves. One has arthritis and is being treated for cancer, one has a wife with alzheimers. They've both got their hands full.
So what this means, bluntly, is that it's down to us. Social services and the district nursing team will do what they can- they do the daily personal care, the washing, the dressing. All the rest of it- including some help with medications- is passed to us to do. Helping him physically manage his money. Shopping. Cleaning. Cooking. The works. And we do it willingly, because we love him- but there's a cost. The cost is us living in fear of my mum having a bad fall, getting alzheimers, rheumatism, anything that would require a comparable level of support, and us feeling forced to choose between our two surviving parents. Just ONE other sibling in our families would ease that pressure on us. And yes, the UK has a pretty good support network for people like my FIL, but they can't- won't- don't, do it all. This could be you. This could be your kids.

Oh, and in terms of consumption, more than half our family's refuse is created by FIL. The convenience/waste correlation, ime, is most closely connected to those who need that ease of use. That's not necessarily young families, but young adults who are learning independence and those at the other end of their lives.
I would hate for this to be the only reason to have another child. It's certainly a valid point, but the number of children you have doesn't necessarily change things. My Mum is one of 3 - except that her brother has autism and thus needs care himself. Her sister died at 50 of a stroke. So, she's alone in trying to care for her parents. And I know of families (like my in laws) where again there are 3 children but only one was doing the work to care for their mother. The brothers moved cross country and the sister did what had to be done. I doubt that this is an exception, either.

I don't mean this as "don't have many kids", I get the concern as my husband is an only and my sister is still a teen. I just meant that it doesn't guarantee anything.

Erica
JERENAUD is offline  
#194 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:31 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeanusMomma View Post

That aspect is very complex, because you can bring up religion and the theory of desiring motherhood being ingrained in every woman (which I don't believe). I don't believe that it's wrong, or even an inferior choice, to have a big family. My point is, at the end of the day, mamas that breastfeed and ec can do so with 1 or 7 children, and 7 children will be a bigger impact than 1 raised the same way, so it's worth considering. To me, it's worth it to avoid having more children partly because of the added waste, but the next mama may have the opposite opinion.
:
That Is Nice is offline  
#195 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 02:37 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeanusMomma View Post
I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families.
I agree with you on this point, as well.

I know for me, anecdotally, I am able to more easily discipline with GD because I have a smaller family.

I know there are larger GD families out there because I've read the moms posts here on MDC, but in real life the large families I know or see have chaos. And let's just say aren't the most gentle when it comes to anything.

For me, I look at a lot of issues when considering small vs. big families:

1. do I have the personal strength and energy to parent all the kids well, including overseeing their education?

2. do I have the financial means to support all of them?

And, yes, I also consider the impact on society and the environment. That's just me, though, based on my own worldview, spirituality, and philosophies. Others will feel differently because they have a different worldview, spirituality, or philosophy.

It is so personal.
That Is Nice is offline  
#196 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 03:16 PM
 
nugglemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 361
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh and as for the statistics in the US the population growth is at replacement levels only. The boom in population growth there is due in most parts to imigration which is a whole other discussion.
nugglemama is offline  
#197 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 03:21 PM
 
meowee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From the latest data I've read concerning the US, urban populations are increasing/ staying at replacement level (due mostly to immigration) but in rural areas the population is plummeting.

There are many parts of europe where population is not even at replacement level, and the holes are being filled by immigration. Japan also is having issues keeping population at replacement level.
meowee is offline  
#198 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 03:43 PM
 
gridley13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Poignant Extravaganza
Posts: 912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We chose to stop at 2... for many reasons. Some personal reasons, some what we believe is social responsibility.
gridley13 is offline  
#199 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 03:48 PM
 
GuildJenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,776
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by flapjack View Post
The cost is us living in fear of my mum having a bad fall, getting alzheimers, rheumatism, anything that would require a comparable level of support, and us feeling forced to choose between our two surviving parents. Just ONE other sibling in our families would ease that pressure on us. And yes, the UK has a pretty good support network for people like my FIL, but they can't- won't- don't, do it all. This could be you. This could be your kids.
That's very true and my sympathies to you. However I have to say from observing my own family (my dad is an only; my mother is not), sometimes siblings arguing over the details of someone's care is just as stressful as having the burden of care, especially as there are no guarantees that a particular sibling will get directly involved in the actual care.

I just don't think one should have children of any number in order to secure a particular outcome in the future.

~ Mum to Emily, March 12-16 2004, Noah, born Aug 2005, Liam, born January 2011, and wife to Carl since 1994. ~
GuildJenn is offline  
#200 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 04:09 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by meowee View Post
From the latest data I've read concerning the US, urban populations are increasing/ staying at replacement level (due mostly to immigration) but in rural areas the population is plummeting.

There are many parts of europe where population is not even at replacement level, and the holes are being filled by immigration. Japan also is having issues keeping population at replacement level.
This is very interesting! So apparently SOMEWHERE in the world, there's a birth-related population explosion -- but here in the US it's mainly caused by immigration?

But some people think Americans should have even fewer babies, to make room for more new immigrants and their babies?

Please note: I'm actually pro-immigration; I'm not saying the U.S. should close the door to anyone who wants to come here. My own great-grandparents (or was it great-great or triple-great?) immigrated to this nation. I'm not a Native American, not at all!

It's just so interesting to me, to find that American fertility really has nothing to do with the world's growing population.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#201 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 04:25 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nugglemama View Post
Oh and as for the statistics in the US the population growth is at replacement levels only. The boom in population growth there is due in most parts to imigration which is a whole other discussion.
:

Quote:
Originally Posted by meowee View Post
From the latest data I've read concerning the US, urban populations are increasing/ staying at replacement level (due mostly to immigration) but in rural areas the population is plummeting.

There are many parts of europe where population is not even at replacement level, and the holes are being filled by immigration. Japan also is having issues keeping population at replacement level.
:

The rural areas in the US is what I was talking about as far as "brain drain" and diminishing population.

The U.S. may be at replacement level, but world wide population is increasing, exponentially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gridley13 View Post
for many reasons. Some personal reasons, some what we believe is social responsibility.


:


Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
This is very interesting! So apparently SOMEWHERE in the world, there's a birth-related population explosion

But some people think Americans should have even fewer babies, to make room for more new immigrants and their babies?


It's just so interesting to me, to find that American fertility really has nothing to do with the world's growing population.
Yes, in many parts of the world, there is birth-related population increase.

I don't think Americans alone should have fewer babies...and I didn't hear anyone say that. I don't think anyone should have fewer babies...just that there are many issues to consider when family planning.

I think American fertility does have something to do with the growing population...maybe we're at replacement levels as a country...but with the world population as a whole growing, another American birth adds to the total count. And since Americans consume more resources than most of the rest of the world, well, that adds to the impact even more.

I don't look at it in national terms. I look at it in world terms.
That Is Nice is offline  
#202 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 04:52 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I think American fertility does have something to do with the growing population...maybe we're at replacement levels as a country...but with the world population as a whole growing, another American birth adds to the total count. And since Americans consume more resources than most of the rest of the world, well, that adds to the impact even more.
But maybe Americans learning to live more eco-friendly lives, makes more sense than Americans having smaller families.

I realize you're not saying that anyone should have fewer kids than they want to have -- you're just pointing out that we're still adding to world population.

Quote:
I don't look at it in national terms. I look at it in world terms.
And of course that makes sense. It's just, I've met some international people who may think in "world terms" when relating to anyone BUT Americans -- but get kind of nasty with Americans. It's like there's the rest of the world, and then there's us "ugly Americans."

So sometimes I feel kind of "nationalistic" in self-defense: if people are going to lump Americans into a separate category from everyone else, sometimes it seems kind of self-defeating to try to include ourselves, as if acting like we're one of the gang will make the others love us.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#203 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 05:00 PM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
However, I have researched the cloth vs disposable issue and it is a toss-up as far as environmental impact.
That sounds nice, but it isn't the case. Cloth diapers make far less of an impact on the environment than disposables do.

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
13yo ds   10yo dd  8yo ds and 6yo ds and 1yo ds  
phathui5 is online now  
#204 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 05:08 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phathui5 View Post
That sounds nice, but it isn't the case. Cloth diapers make far less of an impact on the environment than disposables do.
Yes, I was surprised to hear that it was a "toss-up," too. I mean, I realize there is some pollution involved in the production of many kinds of diapers and covers, and also there are varying degrees of pollution in the laundering, depending on our methods --

But a "toss up?" When a disposable's used one time, and thrown into a land-fill (except for the few that are put through an expensive recycling process and used, for example, to nourish a tree ... I don't quite get how that works) -- and cloth are used for several uses, and often for more than one child.

None of our cloth diapers have ended up in landfills ... they just kind of disintegrate ... I just keep laundering them and noticing there are fewer and fewer as time goes by ...

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#205 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 05:17 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phathui5 View Post
That sounds nice, but it isn't the case. Cloth diapers make far less of an impact on the environment than disposables do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Yes, I was surprised to hear that it was a "toss-up," too. I mean, I realize there is some pollution involved in the production of many kinds of diapers and covers, and also there are varying degrees of pollution in the laundering, depending on our methods --

But a "toss up?" When a disposable's used one time, and thrown into a land-fill (except for the few that are put through an expensive recycling process and used, for example, to nourish a tree ... I don't quite get how that works) -- and cloth are used for several uses, and often for more than one child.

None of our cloth diapers have ended up in landfills ... they just kind of disintegrate ... I just keep laundering them and noticing there are fewer and fewer as time goes by ...
I see what you're saying...yes, if you compare just the issue of garbage or landfill space...then cloth wins.

However, the articles I read compared landfill space with use of water for laundering, and also the disposal of that water with or without cleaning agents added in and the information pointed to both having around the same impact. Neither choice is without impact. I've gone back and forth about what has a lesser impact.

That Is Nice is offline  
#206 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 06:05 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
EC definitely has less impact ... I may get a chance to try that if I get a next time.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#207 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 06:10 PM
 
That Is Nice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
EC definitely has less impact.
Absolutely.
That Is Nice is offline  
#208 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 06:36 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower
Parents don't necessarily need to pay for college, but they should stress education, otherwise kids often go in other directions.
If you think so, then you should stress education. What I should do is remember that my children naturally have the desire to learn and seek out their own best good, and to support their doing so however that happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower
However, I have researched the cloth vs disposable issue and it is a toss-up as far as environmental impact.
Hm. Well, the toxins released in order to manufacturer disposables is far greater than that required to make cotton cloth. That's enough for me. http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...-of-cloth.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeanusMama
I do worry about the gd thing as well. I assume there are armloads of exceptions to the rule, but I'd imagine that, statistically, gd is more popular with smaller families. I don't have all the facts--it could be that bigger families tend to homeschool and have SAHMs, therefore have the time and resources to discipline conscientiously (sp?). Coming back to myself, I know that my patience wears thin at times with my one and only ds and ft work schedule. I know I'd have a harder time avoiding regressing to my own parents' "easy ways out", so for me I just mark that as another tally on the "don't have more children" side.
It seems a straightforward mathematical problem -- "If I have this hard of a time keeping my temper with two children, it would be four times as hard with eight" -- but for us it didn't work that way. The first two were especially difficult because I wasn't prepared for devoted mothering, nor for being dependent on my husband. So in addition to the normal expense of energy in caring for children, I was dealing with working through these extra issues and this was very stressful. Add in that we were younger and so not as financially stable, and that we were still working out how our own relationship interconnected with this whole new thing, and that we hadn't done any research or thinking about what children need, nor work on ourselves to be able to provide it. The result of all that was that we were not especially GD. Our parenting has evolved significantly with each successive child, by trial and error and for emotional survival. Also, the older they get, the more helping hands there are, and the more they can help and entertain each other. Having my fourth baby was far easier than having my first, and having four is easier than having one was for me, in many ways. I wouldn't have predicted that, but it's the reality.

To the OP -- I'm not going to get into the population growth debate, which merits discussion, of course, I just don't have anything to add to what's already been said. I want to instead just comment on the questions put forth in the OP.

I'm glad that we stopped at four; my kids are exactly the same ages as his, minus the baby, and to add a baby into the mix would be stepping over the line of comfort for me. The reason for this is that I'm ready to move past the baby stage. I'm ready to focus on doing things as a family that are harder with a baby, and I'm ready to give myself a little more time and move out of the 24/7 maternal role. My older children are becoming more and more independent, and they have each other to play with, so my work load is lessening. It sounds like your DH's cousin and wife were past that comfort zone at four. Not everyone will be, we're all different and have different life situations.

I don't know what he means by them requiring more time as they get older; in my experience it's far less. It may be that their lifestyle or ideas about what children need make it so for them. Are the kids traditionally schooled? Do they both work for an income? Are they involved in lots of outside activities? What's their philosophy of parenting and the role of the parent in childhood?

I wouldn't have considered having this many kids if we'd both had to work for an income. Given who we are, we couldn't have done it and provided the calm home environment we have, I'm sure of that. As it is, our days are pretty relaxed. This morning, for instance, we slept as long as we all wanted, then we spent some time sitting on my bed embroidering. (My kids are pretty rambunctious, but a focused activity like this quiets them right down.) Then we came downstairs and reheated last night's leftovers for breakfast (I try to make enough so we can do this, so nobody has to prepare food in the morning.) Now the girls are playing with dolls, and one boy is on the computer and the other is reading The Golden Compass. I'm going to take a bath soon, and the girls will probably join me and I'll comb out their hair. The rest of the day will be like that; we weave in and out of each other's paths. There are lots of hugs and kisses along the way. I am being completely honest with you here -- it's not hard. We enjoy our family life very much.
cottonwood is offline  
#209 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 06:39 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,305
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I see what you're saying...yes, if you compare just the issue of garbage or landfill space...then cloth wins.

However, the articles I read compared landfill space with use of water for laundering, and also the disposal of that water with or without cleaning agents added in and the information pointed to both having around the same impact. Neither choice is without impact. I've gone back and forth about what has a lesser impact.

From what I've read, the impact is only the same for cloth vs. sposies if someone is using an actual diaper service. Then you must factor in the 13 times they launder the dipes, the harsh detergents that HAVE to get the stains out, and the fuel for delivery service.

If it is cloth diapers taken care of by Mom vs. sposies, cloth wins hands down. I looked into it because I live in the desert and was concerned about water useage.
Hoopin' Mama is offline  
#210 of 219 Old 12-29-2007, 06:49 PM
 
savithny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
Well, diminishing food supply not right now, but generations in the future, when population growth has continued to grow exponentially.

And not just food supply...all resources.
Yeah. You can't really say "well, right now we have all this extra..." ITs a bit like saying "well, we grew up without seatbelts and we turned out okay."

The graphs of population projections vs. tillable land vs. output are disenheartening, to say the least. We may be talking "generations" in the sense of more than one - but its not hundreds of years in the future that the earth's population will cross carrying capacity if population continues to increase at the current rate. Its less than a century. That means that we'll go from producing surpluses (worldwide) to a worldwide calorie deficit, not even including the calories needed for farm animals. It will require turning marginal lands into farmlands, hastening ecological problems and species extinction. And it will probably be hastened by the sudden focus on biofuels, because growing enough plant mass for the biofuels currently being investigated will use quality farmland that could be used to grow food.

Again, I'm not saying that zero population growth is the answer; I'm just trying to point out that to ignore the issue of rapid population growth is a mistake. I've heard people say "Well, my family only needs a half-acre for a house for us all, and the world has Xthousand acres of solid ground, so there's room on the earth for 50 billion people. Even with green revolution agriculture, there's a limit to how many we can feed.

savithny, 42 year old moderate mom to DS Primo (age 12) and DD Secunda (age 9).

savithny is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off