Over Population

**wysiwyg** · January 1st, 2013, 08:34 PM

It could very well be one of those 1, 3, 9 or 17 children who grow up & DO in fact solve those dilemma's though..

This was the point I was going to make there are so many thing we could eliminate which have no positive impact on the earth their impact is all negative but children are really the one thing that can have both positive and negative impact in that children may change the way we live meaning the earth can support more humans than it can currently.

Also as the number of children 'we' have has gone down consumption of resources has gone up in that people spend money that previously would have gone on necessities for extra children on all sorts of things which are detrimental environmentally - many large families are more environmentally friendly than those with one or two children.

We are only having two, you could say for environmental reasons because if we had more we couldn't stay close to public transport and only run a small car, but that is different to the idea of overpopulation. I think is up to individuals to choose - any form of control I don't think is sensible until all other things have been looked at (Excessive consumerism we currently have I think might be exacerbated by limiting children number)

To answer OP if my DH talked about being concerned about overpopulation without having previously demonstrated an interest in environmentally aware / sustainable living - I would find it a little odd.

**AndiE** · January 1st, 2013, 08:38 PM

I do think about it and I do believe that one day there could well be a cap on the number of children we have (... not necessarily in my lifetime though).
Having said that, no ... it didn't impact on our decision to have three children.

But just to reflect on politics of not-so-old ... anyone remember that famous/infamous quote about producing children: "One for the dad, one for the mum, and one for the country". That came with the baby bonus, approx 8-9 years ago. So the idea of curbing the population apparently isn't a main concern for our "leaders".

**~ Mylitta ~** · January 1st, 2013, 09:12 PM

WHAT IS REPLACEMENT LEVEL FERTILITY?

Replacement level fertility is the number of babies a female would need to have over her reproductive life to replace both herself and her partner. Given the current mortality rates for women aged up to 49 years in Australia, replacement fertility is estimated to be 2.1 babies per woman. Since 1976, the total fertility rate for Australia has been below this replacement level. Even if female mortality declined to zero for women until the end of their reproductive lives, the replacement level would still be 2.05 (1.05 male and 1.0 female babies) – higher than the total fertility rate of 1.89 babies per woman for 2010.

In a nutshell, if you take immigration out of the equation, we actually have a declining population in Australia. Looks like Aussies are already doing their bit when it comes to population control

Personally it never really entered my mind to limit the number of children I had for this reason. If it had, I probably could have justified it by saying I was having my sister's share of children because she never wants to have her own, lol. With Australia's current fertility rate being only 1.89 children per woman, I guess one could argue that having 3, 4, 5, or more kids really is only "using up" someone else's allotment of children to replace adults (as a previous poster suggested is what is ecologically allowable...).

**Freya** · January 1st, 2013, 09:45 PM

Personally if Australia ever brought in a limit on the number of children a family could have, I would vote against it. I would hate to think of how things would go when there was a limit on children. Some of the things I have read/seen about in countries where this is enforced, makes me sick to the stomach

.

This raises a good point. What's the next step from a policy like this? A ban on Ivf and other reproductive medicine? If you lose a child at birth or shortly after, it still counts and you cannot have another one even if your still short of your 'allotment'? Would people be willing to agree to gender selection reproductive medicine so I could have my boy/girl combination of kids if I'm only allowed two? I would want to contribute a boy and girl to the population for reproductive reasons; what happens if the balance of men vs women (which is apparently already out of sync) becomes even more pronounced? Hello end of the human population, it would make a great plot for a sci-fi book

I certainly think quality of people should count in something like population control. I also think that no government is at all equipped to regulate a really unfathomable and unfeasible law such as population control/ family size limiting.

**krysalyss** · January 1st, 2013, 09:53 PM

Yes, it was a consideration of ours. The planet can only carry so many humans. I guess this is on my mind more than most because I work with wildlife, but I just see it as a reality of living within a finite ecosystem. For what it is worth, no I am not enforcing population control on other people, and yes we do try to reduce our ecological footprint in other ways, including small fuel-efficient car, insulation, solar power, compost toilet, water tanks, vege patch etc. It is one part of the whole picture and I think it is really still a taboo subject for a lot of people.

**StrawberryMumma** · January 1st, 2013, 10:10 PM

Actually from a biological/environmental perspective, it is totally about the number. John Q Citizen requires X litres of clean drinking water per day and X litres of clean air per day and X amount of nutrient rich food per day. The finite resources of the planet absolutely care about the actual number. Your 1, 3, 9 or 17 children could all be fabulous souls, productive and caring and live as sustainably as possible, but if they need to share access to limited water with 10billion other people, none of their best traits will solve that dilemma.

Hmmm...yes "fabulous souls"...that's exactly what I meant..

**Three Graces** · January 2nd, 2013, 04:01 PM

This thread has got me thinking over the last day or so and I think Freya raised some valid points re: what would happen with IVF Medicine and gender selection if we were restricted to x number of children etc. What would happen if you had your 'allocated number' of children, but fell pregnant with multiple babies on your last pregnancy, tipping your number to 3 or 4 children? What happens if you've reached the 'quota' only to fall pregnant again, unexpectedly? It would seem that 'accidental' pregnancy would be ok, but not if you 'planned' to have more than 2 children. I just don't think policy to restrict pop'n growth is the answer or would even be accepted in this country.

You could argue that if everybody turned vegan, we wouldn't be relying on the vast amount of land and water needed to raise stock for our consumption. I've read that with the increasing economies in India and China and their adopted Western diets, that the demand for red meat is only on the increase. It's just not going to be sustainable, yet if we dropped red meat altogether and invested the land and water to growing grains/vegetables etc, there would be far more food available for the world's pop'n.

Also, who here decided to have children, just for reproduction purposes? To carry on your genes and continue the human pop'n? I think most of us in this day and age and country decide to have children for our own reasons (excluding surprise pregnancies here) - wanting to experience being parents, having a baby/babies, wanting siblings instead of an only child etc. Did anybody think, we'll have one to replace mum and one to replace dad to maintain pop'n size?
I think it's easy to say "let's limit how many children we have", when you're happy with having 1 or 2 children, but how would people feel if our Govt said that you could only ever have 1 child? Or some people weren't allowed to have any children? I think if the decision was taken out of our hands and we were dictated to re: size of our families, people would quickly argue the other way: how dare we be told how many children we can have?

Anyway, the OP has generated some thought on the topic. I'm not sure if any of our comments have altered the way that KAM views it: Just pick the arguments that you like the best to support any further argument with DH

**onthefly** · January 2nd, 2013, 05:00 PM

I'm not sure if anyone's said we should control other people's reproductive rights? In any event, it's certainly dicey territory and liable to get people upset! And little wonder. From some of the responses in here it seems many people take offence at the suggestion someone else might decide how many children they can have.

Obviously some people are taking some personal responsibility for their own contributions to this issue. I understand that. I wouldn't support social engineering to restrict reproduction, though.

Growing crops takes a lot of land - calorie for calorie, meat uses less. We could probably stand to eat less meat, though, yes

**Three Graces** · January 2nd, 2013, 06:41 PM

I guess i just forwarded the vegan argument as I think this would have more of an impact on reducing waste of resources than capping your family:

It takes, on average, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of meat protein for human consumption, [whereas] it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil- fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of protein from grain for human consumption.
—David Pimentel, Cornell University

In response to KAM's OP: "Is it really something we should be thinking about?" - I'd say - if you really wanted another baby, I believe that there are other ways of reducing our impact on the environment/resources which could counteract the impact of adding one more child to your family.

**Dansta** · January 2nd, 2013, 06:54 PM

I've read most replys and I have to admit the whole two children per couple thing is an interesting idea - until you realise - in my street there are 7 adults - and DH and I have two kids. how ever, three men do not have children. the other women has one DS and her DH has a DD from another marrage (both children are grown and one has his own DD and she has her own DS..) now add into this mix, the fact that DJ would not be able to have a 'normal' child (gentic issues with him and they would be the same in any offspring) there for DH and I only have "one" child from which we could expect off spring so would we then with the idea of two children only rule be allowed to have another - to replace myself or DH? and maybe another to replace a neighbour who has not had a child also?

A little off the subject but i do recall reading a book (the time keeper? or something) where all people had a roll. and the likes (like women where chosen to pop babies out) and in once case a women had twins - they selected the "strongest one" to live the other they dont explain what happned after they chose. and the idea that children who are not "perfect" are not wanted is crule. i live with my son and his issues but i wouldn't not want him KWIM?

i agree the world is consumeing more and giveing less back - i think thats alot to do with people focusing on work more then before and the fact land sizeing is getting smaller so people cant/dont know how to grow at least *some* of their own...

As for it being a reson not to have another - no. i dont see it as one for me - where we are ect.

and DH has baught it up for us - so it wouldnt be a huge shock but if he never had before i'd be asking why now...

**Phteven** · January 2nd, 2013, 07:03 PM

The vegan argument is a bit misleading because it supposes that all land that is farmed is suitable for cropping and that farming is usually monocultural. Lots of land that is too marginal for cropping can be used to raise animals sustainably and animals can be used as part of a holistic farming approach ie chickens can be used in permaculture gardens, pigs can eat household scraps, sheep and cattle can graze land that is being rotated. Also, in the Australian context, eating feral animals would be a great way to reduce their numbers and farming native animals for food would be far more sustainable than cropping.

**Butterfly Dawn** · January 2nd, 2013, 07:09 PM

Just to say- the 1 child policy of China is just for those of the "hun" race. And there are loop holes. If your 1st child is disabled or menatally challenged you can have a 2nd child.
you can pay a fine and register your 2nd/4th etc child or just don't register them.
now- if u r an only child and marry an only child u can have 2 children.

forced abortion is meant to be illegal now but...

its a horrid thing to impose. and it hurts many. particularly as many of the other races here have more children and often don't/ can't care for them.
but Chinese know- China has too many people.

its a complex thing

**Chrispe** · January 2nd, 2013, 07:10 PM

I grew up in a family with 6 kids. We had enough rainwater to cover all our needs (only had mains for emergency use). Solar powered house & no air con. (House was built in 1800s so doesn't need it) we had chickens, sheep and dad worked for a market gardener. My mum is the op-shop queen, and was a firm enforcer of Reduce Reuse Recycle.
Now the only thing they didn't do was make bio-fuel, but that's only because they didn't know about it back then (as in my parents didn't know).

Our little acre was totally self sustaining.
If everyone lived like that we wouldn't have to worry about population growth.

**Teeki** · January 2nd, 2013, 07:44 PM

I think the thing is, everyone should be trying to live sustainably, no matter how many people are in the family. I've only got one child, but I'm certainly not thinking "Well I'll use loads of water and power now, and cut back if we have more kids to even it out". We do our best anyway, no kids or 8 kids.

If you use that as a base, that everyone is doing their best for the environment, it is still in the best interests of the planet to have less children. If everyone in this thread said "We grow our own food, use rainwater and solar power etc so we'll all have 4 kids" then those four children (times however many are in the thread) grow up to require more land and resources of their own. They also live "sustainably" so they all have 4 kids. No matter how well all these people are looking after the planet, they're still putting more strain on resources than if we, and then all our children, only had two. It just grows exponentially.

As for the original question, it is something I've considered. In my work I deal a lot with primary production and the fact that we are already needing more base foods worldwide, and the question has been raised as to what Australia will do to 'help' by increasing production for exports. To increase production of grains etc we need to clear more land, which has its own environmental issues.

I don't think though, that a cap on families is the answer (not that the OP asked that specifically). I think education is the key, and maybe more people will strive to do their part for the planet or decide of their own accord to have fewer children.

**leesha** · January 2nd, 2013, 07:47 PM

I'm sorry but the original topic was over population and if anyone thought of this when they started a family. The consensus seems to be either one for mum and one for dad ( apparently as per maths) or as previous plus one for the country.
Does anyone have written evidence that this is correct or is this just because someone said it was? I'm curious...