Over Population

[StrawberryMumma]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.