What affects how many children people have (teaching, autism, infant)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I would have to agree with Education and intelligence. The conomy doesn't make a difference to some people. Many people on welfare get more money for every additional child they have. I have read that in twenty years our nation will become a Muslim nation because Muslims have a higher percentage of children per married couple than we Americans do. So eventually the government will be controlled by the group of people with the largest ethnic background. The only way that can be stopped is to remove all Muslim from our country now. That won't happen.
Does anyone feel that the state of the economy in the last year or two has affected how many children people are having?
Also, do you think that at any point, people may begin to be concerned with overpopulation, and stop having more than 2 children? Meaning, do you think concerns for the world around them would ever override their desire for more than 2 children? (not talking about adoption of course)
Thanks for input.
Concerns for overpopulation SHOULD stop women at two children. There is no advantage to leaving our children an even more overpopulated world. In fact, we pretty much guarantee leaving them an inheritance of disease, poverty, fammine and war if we do so. Of course, if you subscrbe to the selfish gene theory, you'd have as many as you can so that when disease, famine and war happen (mother nature's ways of reducing populations that have gotten out of control), there's a better chance some of your genes surivive. You just ignore that many of your offspring or thier offspring and so on will die during those events.
I would have loved to have had a third child. I could have afforded a third child. IMO, it would have been irresponsible to have had a third child. I chose to have two for my own reasons but stopped there. While I do feel that someone is missing from our family, I felt it wouldn't have been right to continue to have children. If every woman stopped at two, then the population would, slowly, decrease generation over generation because some women never have children. If we want to leave our children any hope for the future, we need to start culling our population BEFORE mother nature does it for us. Reality is, one way or the other, our numbers will be reduced.
BTW, there are other ways to reduce the population. One is having children later in life. If life expectancies are in the early 80's and it's typical to have children in your 20's, then you will have 3-4 generations living at one time. If life expectencies stay the same but we have our children in our 30's, then you'd have 2-3 generations alive at one time. Many of my friends are already grand parents while I'm still raising a pre teen. By delaying having my children, I delayed when my grand children will be born. Of course it also means I won't live to see my great grand children born but leaving this earth before they are born means there's more room for them.
One thing we need to keep in mind is there is a ripple effect to any decision we make here. If I have one extra child and all of my children and their children stop at two, I end up with two extra grand children and four extra great grand children. The population increase from my decision to have an extra child must echo through all generations before the population increase from that decision stops. I'll use my mom as an example. She had six kids instead of two, if her kids all stop at two, she ends up with 12 grand children instead of 4 and 24 great grand children instead of 8. Each of her great grand children have 8 great grand parents (assuming no incest here, lol) so as 8 family members are dying off, 24 are being born. Had she stopped at 2, she would have had 4 grandchildren and 8 grand children so equal numbers would dying off and being born as her great grand children were being born.
This is a decision that is not just about us. We have to think of what we're leaving the children we have.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 02-27-2010 at 03:44 AM..
I guess I would have to agree with Education and intelligence. The economy doesn't make a difference to some people. Many people on welfare get more money for every additional child they have.
Education is one of the largest factors. Statistically, the higher the education, the less children people have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nite Ryder
I have read that in twenty years our nation will become a Muslim nation because Muslims have a higher percentage of children per married couple than we Americans do. So eventually the government will be controlled by the group of people with the largest ethnic background. The only way that can be stopped is to remove all Muslim from our country now. That won't happen.
I think this is 'the sky is falling' hype. It's not uncommon for religous groups to encourage population growth. It's the best way to spread a religion. The Catholic Church has been promoting large families since the beginning of time. (My husband and I were both Catholic.) The Jewish have been promoting large families to replace population losses from WWII. Yet the Catholics and the Jews didn't manage to outnumber the US population. Even the Latino population (that tends to embrace larger families) didn't manage to overpopulate the United States with Catholics. The reality is that many ethnic groups become very Americanized with each generation. Those Muslim children are less likely to have as many children as their parents and grandparents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I would have loved to have had a third child. I could have afforded a third child. IMO, it would have been irresponsible to have had a third child. I chose to have two for my own reasons but stopped there.
My mother came from a family of two children---her and her older brother. Her brother died when he was 17 years old. Being left without any siblings is what motivated my mother to have more than two children. She had many children as a matter of fact. Her reasoning is because she wanted us all to have siblings throughout adulthood. I'm glad she did! I wouldn't have any brothers and sisters if she had limited herself to two since two died as young adults.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
While I do feel that someone is missing from our family, I felt it wouldn't have been right to continue to have children. If every woman stopped at two, then the population would, slowly, decrease generation over generation because some women never have children. If we want to leave our children any hope for the future, we need to start culling our population BEFORE mother nature does it for us. Reality is, one way or the other, our numbers will be reduced.
Sounds like you would have made a good dictator for China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
I'll use my mom as an example. She had six kids instead of two, if her kids all stop at two, she ends up with 12 grand children instead of 4 and 24 great grand children instead of 8. Each of her great grand children have 8 great grand parents (assuming no incest here, lol) so as 8 family members are dying off, 24 are being born. Had she stopped at 2, she would have had 4 grandchildren and 8 grand children so equal numbers would dying off and being born as her great grand children were being born.
That's not how it works in all families. My husband and I both come from families with six children. In my family, two did not have children, two only had one child, and two had three children. In my husband's family, five didn't have any children (four have no children whatsoever and my husband adopted mine) and one had two children. So my family reproduced one child per sibling. My husband's family reproduced .33 child per sibling.
Education is one of the largest factors. Statistically, the higher the education, the less children people have.
I think this is 'the sky is falling' hype. It's not uncommon for religous groups to encourage population growth. It's the best way to spread a religion. The Catholic Church has been promoting large families since the beginning of time. (My husband and I were both Catholic.) The Jewish have been promoting large families to replace population losses from WWII. Yet the Catholics and the Jews didn't manage to outnumber the US population. Even the Latino population (that tends to embrace larger families) didn't manage to overpopulate the United States with Catholics. The reality is that many ethnic groups become very Americanized with each generation. Those Muslim children are less likely to have as many children as their parents and grandparents.
My mother came from a family of two children---her and her older brother. Her brother died when he was 17 years old. Being left without any siblings is what motivated my mother to have more than two children. She had many children as a matter of fact. Her reasoning is because she wanted us all to have siblings throughout adulthood. I'm glad she did! I wouldn't have any brothers and sisters if she had limited herself to two since two died as young adults.
Sounds like you would have made a good dictator for China.
That's not how it works in all families. My husband and I both come from families with six children. In my family, two did not have children, two only had one child, and two had three children. In my husband's family, five didn't have any children (four have no children whatsoever and my husband adopted mine) and one had two children. So my family reproduced one child per sibling. My husband's family reproduced .33 child per sibling.
I never said it works that way in ALL families. However, in order for my brothers and sisters and I to undo what our mom did, four of us could have had one child and two none. Is it fair to burden the next generation with undoing what you did?
As it turns out, we averaged less than 2 children a piece because two of my brothers only had one child. So there are 10 grandchildren instead of 12 where there should have been 4. It's still significant and it will still echo through all 3-4 living generations before the ripple effect from my mothers decision settles down, unless, of course the 10 grandchildren only have 8 children between them.
I'm not running for dictator. I'm simply pointing out that if we don't, voluntarily, cull our numbers, mother nature WILL do it for us and then many will die. Asking people to be responsible is not the same as ordering them to do something. If we care about our kids, we should care about the quality of their future. Their future is better if we stop the population explosion and start to reverse it.
Enjoying having siblings is not a reason to keep racing to our doom. Many posting here will live to see shortages of fuel and food...and wars over fuel and food because there are, simply, too many of us.
I'm not running for dictator. I'm simply pointing out that if we don't, voluntarily, cull our numbers, mother nature WILL do it for us and then many will die.
I've got news for you. Mother Nature will do it regardless. Mother Nature has been doing it since the beginning of time even when the earth was less populated. That's Mother Nature's job. If you think that voluntarily cutting population numbers is going to prevent mass numbers of people dying, you're misguided. However, you have a right to envision your version of how things should be and practicing it for yourself.
I've got news for you. Mother Nature will do it regardless. Mother Nature has been doing it since the beginning of time even when the earth was less populated. That's Mother Nature's job. If you think that voluntarily cutting population numbers is going to prevent mass numbers of people dying, you're misguided. However, you have a right to envision your version of how things should be and practicing it for yourself.
We are forcing the issue through over population. Look at history. Epidemics and famine are worse when we are over populated. Then we make matters worse when we start fighting wars over limited resources.
While there are no guarantees (I never said there were) we can help ourselves by keeping our population down at levels we can continually support. Disease will still happen but, even there, less population density means slower transmission and a chance at finding vaccines or cures before millions die.
We are hurting ourselves by continuing to grow our numbers. It's time we used our brains.
We don't need to stop having children. We just need to limit the number we have. We need to be below replacement and stay there. Two children per woman works because some will choose not to have children. No one is saying don't have kids. Just don't add to the problem.
Concerns for overpopulation SHOULD stop women at two children. There is no advantage to leaving our children an even more overpopulated world. In fact, we pretty much guarantee leaving them an inheritance of disease, poverty, fammine and war if we do so. Of course, if you subscrbe to the selfish gene theory, you'd have as many as you can so that when disease, famine and war happen (mother nature's ways of reducing populations that have gotten out of control), there's a better chance some of your genes surivive. You just ignore that many of your offspring or thier offspring and so on will die during those events.
1. The world isn't overpopulated. Both populations and living standards have risen, and they show little sign of stopping. As for disease, life expectancies have risen greatly since were at 1 bn or even 5 bn people; as for famine, there are now more overweight people in the world than malnourished people; as for war, compared to the past, the world is at relative peace. However, population growth has been slowing (in relative terms) over the years.
Quote:
I would have loved to have had a third child. I could have afforded a third child. IMO, it would have been irresponsible to have had a third child. I chose to have two for my own reasons but stopped there. While I do feel that someone is missing from our family, I felt it wouldn't have been right to continue to have children. If every woman stopped at two, then the population would, slowly, decrease generation over generation because some women never have children. If we want to leave our children any hope for the future, we need to start culling our population BEFORE mother nature does it for us. Reality is, one way or the other, our numbers will be reduced.[/quote[
That's been happening. The current women today has an average of 2.5 children over her lifetime. This figure is in decline. The replacement rate is 2.1.
BTW, there are other ways to reduce the population. One is having children later in life. If life expectancies are in the early 80's and it's typical to have children in your 20's, then you will have 3-4 generations living at one time. If life expectencies stay the same but we have our children in our 30's, then you'd have 2-3 generations alive at one time. Many of my friends are already grand parents while I'm still raising a pre teen. By delaying having my children, I delayed when my grand children will be born. Of course it also means I won't live to see my great grand children born but leaving this earth before they are born means there's more room for them.
One thing we need to keep in mind is there is a ripple effect to any decision we make here. If I have one extra child and all of my children and their children stop at two, I end up with two extra grand children and four extra great grand children. The population increase from my decision to have an extra child must echo through all generations before the population increase from that decision stops. I'll use my mom as an example. She had six kids instead of two, if her kids all stop at two, she ends up with 12 grand children instead of 4 and 24 great grand children instead of 8. Each of her great grand children have 8 great grand parents (assuming no incest here, lol) so as 8 family members are dying off, 24 are being born. Had she stopped at 2, she would have had 4 grandchildren and 8 grand children so equal numbers would dying off and being born as her great grand children were being born.
This is a decision that is not just about us. We have to think of what we're leaving the children we have.
Yes. No matter how many children we have, we are sure to leave them with a better standard of living and quality of life. That's been the rule over the past 100 years, even despite rapid population growth.
As much as I would love to have a large family (it would be fun to have family dinners and large Christmas gatherings), there's no way I can morally justify the effect of having one. If I want a large family, I will be adopting it. My genes are no better than anyone else's in this world, and I would much rather give love and a home to a child who needs it than have another biological kid and burden the next generation with the effects of my selfishness.
And as for the education/intelligence debate...I'm amazed how many people jumped to thinking that means college educated. I don't think that at all. Look at it on a global scale--countries with poor educational standards, poor health care/birth control information (3rd world countries) are the ones with the highest birth rates. The significance between a HS diploma, college degree, or masters is trivial compared to the differences in understanding of birth control or finances in 1st world vs 3rd world nations.
Yes. No matter how many children we have, we are sure to leave them with a better standard of living and quality of life. That's been the rule over the past 100 years, even despite rapid population growth.
How can you guarantee that? At some point, resources run out. 100 years ago, it wasn't a concern. Today it is.
I would have liked to have had more children but our financial situation and our housing situation didn't allow for us to do so and still have the life we wanted to live, and the opportunities we wanted for our kids.
This is why I may come across as uncaring and unsympathetic when people talk about poor families, especially when the parents didn't have much going for them to start with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
