Over Population

[Three Graces]

hmm, the cynic in me wants to ask whether people consider only using one car or no car at all, not use central heating/air conditioning etc and whether people would happily drink recycled sewerage to reduce the impact on the environment and strain on (water) resources in this country before deciding not to have more children?
I think it's too simplistic to just say 'don't have more than one child or 2 children' etc: like what Pumpkin Zulu said - it's the way that we're already choosing to live that has more of an impact than the actual size of the family. I also believe that as we (stupidly) exhaust resources, we're going to be forced to utilise more sustainable ways and truly embrace things such as solar energy and wind power on a much larger scale. So, to answer your question (finally) no, we didn't take it into consideration when we had our 3 children.

I just looked at your signature and saw that you've got 3 angel babies and your 2 DD's. You don't think that there's a tiny possibility that DH is worried that you might lose another baby if you tried again? Just putting it out there. I hope you're able to work through this with your DH, given this is the first time he's raised the issue against having more children.

[Freya]

No we didn't consider it when we decided on family size. I think you'll find statistically 3 or more child families are not the norm. Anything above 4 would be unusual. In my experience those with 'large' families tend to live more financially and ecologically conscious than those I know with less than 3 children.

I think limiting family size is a lazy solution to 'over population' and the burden on resources; it clearly hasn't worked for China and instead opened up a whole new world of problems.

[Phteven]

hmm, the cynic in me wants to ask whether people consider only using one car or no car at all, not use central heating/air conditioning etc and whether people would happily drink recycled sewerage to reduce the impact on the environment and strain on (water) resources in this country before deciding not to have more children?

Crazy as it seems....... people do. They even build eco houses, permaculture gardens and use composting toilets

[Floweryfields]

hmm, the cynic in me wants to ask whether people consider only using one car or no car at all, not use central heating/air conditioning etc and whether people would happily drink recycled sewerage to reduce the impact on the environment and strain on (water) resources in this country before deciding not to have more children?

There was a toilet flushing thread recently where people couldn't bare not flushing away wee every time so the cynic in me also wonders the same thing. There surely must be plenty of responsible alternatives before we go down the population control path?

[onthefly]

I think, realistically, we have to do both. The human population is growing - and it's something that has to be considered on a global level, rather than just locally. But yes, lifestyles need to change, too. They will, rapidly and painfully, when they have to. It makes sense to consider both before we actually *have* to.


If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.

[leesha]

It's never crossed my mind. I'd just like to know who decides the number of children is too many. Why is two ok but not three or even six. I'm more worried about the people out there who can't look after their children properly.

[Phteven]

It's never crossed my mind. I'd just like to know who decides the number of children is too many. Why is two ok but not three or even six?

Maths... 2 children replace the 2 parents who had them. 3 children adds extra.

[onthefly]

I have thought about it, too. I want more kids, but in my head I honestly wonder if I should (for now selfish me is winning).
Regardless of whether you consider Australia overpopulated or not, our lifestyles are, generally, unsustainable - there will be future debt to be paid, one way or another.

Sometimes, and this may be selfish me again, I wonder whether maybe we *should* have more kids, though, to raise more responsible adults for the future. that's pretty conceited, though.

ETA - 2 to replace 2 is a simplistic equation, yes, but it reflects taking personal responsibility within your own sphere to not boost the population further and, replacement rate is 2.1 or something like that I think, so allows for the odd couple to have 3 or more

[*Efjay*]

What about the people who don't have kids? Or the people who die before having kids? Saying 2 kids to replace 2 parents is pretty lame

[jellybean88]

Yeah and kids die sometimes so you could consider the 3rd not too much but a spare and yes agree with people not having kids allows extra somewhere else

[LuluHB]

I think its very simplistic to just say two parents, two kids = global/environmental responsibility. You could do that, and then the four of you could live an extremely irresponsible lifestyle that really provides a footprint more like 10 people. Or you could have a family with 5 kids that live a very sustainable lifestyle that has a footprint more like 3 people. You can't just do a head count - it simply doesn't work that way.

No, I didn't consider the global ramifications of having a third child. I considered the population of my own household.

ETA: Answering the OP

[Phteven]

The equation may be simplistic but chances are that a couple who have an only child or 2 children to help reduce overpopulation are probably seeking to minimise their footprint in other ways.

[PumpkinZulu]

Up until now, we have actively chosen not to own or drive a care for environmental, not financial, reasons. Even when DD1 was born, we made sure we could sustain our decision to rely on public transport, walking or riding. So it does so happen that people make (what might be seen to others to be extreme) decisions to maintain a more environmentally concepts lifestyle. Unfortunately, once we found ourselves about to become a 2 children family (which wasn't our plan, plan was DD1 in school, TTC #2 and still not own a car, still live urban etc) we needed to make the decision to move further out so we could afford a big enough home. We're now not within walking distance of everything, with loads of quick and easy transport options. We're quite isolated compared to what we were, so I went and got my L's, because living here with two kids and no real way of getting around is a recipe for disaster. So I can see how people make environmental lifestyle choices. But I'm just not sure if population control is the answer

[Jellyfish]

We only have one car that we use sparingly (DP walks or bikes to work, we are walking distance from most other things; shop, park, doctor), we choose our location to enable this. We also don't have air conditioning. The day I found out water wasn't recycled blew my mind (when I was a child) and we do keep a tank and use our grey water where we can. We also have a vegie garden and try to source other goods as locally as possible. We do yellow let it mellow, brown flush it down lol.

For us the child consideration isn't instead of other things and is also not something I would enforce on anybody else or believe should be a law or anything, just one we are conscious of for our own family.

[mummajj]

There are so many other ways to minimise our impact on the land than to reduce the amount of children we have. I get that it's one way...but the thought of little souls not being able to see this beautiful planet before its made compulsory to use cloth nappies or to own electric car (they were just first examples that popped into my head) is very sad.
We are stopping after 2. But not for environmental reasons.for sanity reasons lol.

[StrawberryMumma]

I think to worry about the number of children is a bit silly. What matters is that each of us are raising children that are productive, intelligent, thoughtful, generous, and that have the desire and motivation to make society a better place to live. People with those kinds of character traits have the potential to change lives, help the environment and do amazing things.
That's what is important. It's not about the number.

[LimeSlice]

I think to worry about the number of children is a bit silly. What matters is that each of us are raising children that are productive, intelligent, thoughtful, generous, and that have the desire and motivation to make society a better place to live. People with those kinds of character traits have the potential to change lives, help the environment and do amazing things.
That's what is important. It's not about the number.

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.

[*Efjay*]

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.

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..


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.