Contraception Destroying Rural America (wisdom, rating, financial, claim)
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.
How will having more children mitigate this? What prevents these new children from moving to the cities?
A certain percentage of grown children will always want to remain closer to their family and their ancestral home, even if they need to struggle to make it happen. They want their own children to know their grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.
"Not responsible for the whole world." Interesting. If we aren't our brother's keeper, then why are you pushing this married-women-need-to-pop-out-babies line? Hypocritical for you to worry about the disintegration of society and to attempt to sway others to your POV but tell others that their concern over overpopulation, the destruction of habitats, and the extinction of species overblown, don't you think?
"Not responsible for the whole world." Interesting. If we aren't our brother's keeper, then why are you pushing this married-women-need-to-pop-out-babies line? Hypocritical for you to worry about the disintegration of society and to attempt to sway others to your POV but tell others that their concern over overpopulation, the destruction of habitats, and the extinction of species overblown, don't you think?
You are your brother's keeper. But "saving the planet" at the expense of the people in your own backyard is not the way to go.
Overpopulation is a myth. I am worried about the destruction of habitats, however - human habitats primarily.
A certain percentage of grown children will always want to remain closer to their family and their ancestral home, even if they need to struggle to make it happen. They want their own children to know their grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.
If it's strictly a paper game, fine. You're talking real life.
I grew up in the rural south. I left. I live outside a large city. Why? My husband is an audio engineer. Why? Because he loves it. As much as we love living in the country, that's not an option in today's economy. There is no work in rural America for him. There is no work for me.
We don't have the money to buy a working farm large enough to support us. They cost upwards of $300K -$1 mil. How can we afford it? Then there are the animals and/or machinery to buy. With the ridiculous regulations, raw meat or milk cannot be sold without proper procedures, which aren't free. How can the average person, even if they want to, farm? It's not feasible.
If you could magically solve these two legitimate problems, you might find more people living in rural America.
On a side note, you come off as very judgmental towards anyone who leaves their "ancestral home". What is our "ancestral home" anyway? My parents are from the Midwest. Their grandparents were from Tennessee, Alabama, and Missouri. Their ancestors traveled via boat to this country. Where should I be living?
As I noted earlier, urban and metro areas have always grown naturally through in-migration. They don't need high birthrates to survive. Rural areas need higher birthrates because a higher percentage of rural dwellers migrate to the cities.
And you're blaming contraception. As if people would stop migrating to the cities if not for contraception. Well, I know y'all hate such ideas... fanatical Muslims do too, but let us strive to use logical arguments beginning a decision whether you want to talk migration of population or contraception. Mixing both, is rather... stupid.
If it's strictly a paper game, fine. You're talking real life.
I grew up in the rural south. I left. I live outside a large city. Why? My husband is an audio engineer. Why? Because he loves it. As much as we love living in the country, that's not an option in today's economy. There is no work in rural America for him. There is no work for me.
We don't have the money to buy a working farm large enough to support us. They cost upwards of $300K -$1 mil. How can we afford it? Then there are the animals and/or machinery to buy. With the ridiculous regulations, raw meat or milk cannot be sold without proper procedures, which aren't free. How can the average person, even if they want to, farm? It's not feasible.
If you could magically solve these two legitimate problems, you might find more people living in rural America.
On a side note, you come off as very judgmental towards anyone who leaves their "ancestral home". What is our "ancestral home" anyway? My parents are from the Midwest. Their grandparents were from Tennessee, Alabama, and Missouri. Their ancestors traveled via boat to this country. Where should I be living?
I don't mean to be judgmental about people leaving their ancestral home. I've moved around quite a bit over the years throughout California, but didn't really have an ancestral home to leave in the sense of a city or town with family in it. I wish it had been different for me. However, for the past 7 years I've lived just outside of a small dusty farm town (pop. 7,000) on some acreage and have been involved in the town's struggle to survive. You meet people whose families have been here five generations. I know these families and I know the sacrifices many of them are making to stay here. It can be done, but it is a sacrifice. If these families had more children things would have gone easier for this town.
You're certainly right about farming. I've lived and worked on a couple of small farms myself. That is indeed a significant piece of the puzzle and I don't see the problem being solved anytime soon. In the meantime, however, these towns will have to develop their non-agricultural economies in order to survive.
I don't mean to be judgmental about people leaving their ancestral home. I've moved around quite a bit over the years throughout California, but didn't really have an ancestral home to leave in the sense of a city or town with family in it. I wish it had been different for me. However, for the past 7 years I've lived just outside of a small dusty farm town (pop. 7,000) on some acreage and have been involved in the town's struggle to survive. You meet people whose families have been here five generations. I know these families and I know the sacrifices many of them are making to stay here. It can be done, but it is a sacrifice. If these families had more children things would have gone easier for this town.
You're certainly right about farming. I've lived and worked on a couple of small farms myself. That is indeed a significant piece of the puzzle and I don't see the problem being solved anytime soon. In the meantime, however, these towns will have to develop their non-agricultural economies in order to survive.
I working on a response to a previous post of yours, but I wanted to tackle this one.
How can you acknowledge these problems, and still blame contraception for the problems? It's difficult to converse with you since you are all over the map - Be your neighbor's keeper but not the refugee's in Iraq. Regulations and finances are legitimate problems but the real culprit is birth control. What??? It's easy for me to understand why some folks have abandoned this ship to its inevitable future.
I don't mean to be judgmental about people leaving their ancestral home. I've moved around quite a bit over the years throughout California, but didn't really have an ancestral home to leave in the sense of a city or town with family in it. I wish it had been different for me. However, for the past 7 years I've lived just outside of a small dusty farm town (pop. 7,000) on some acreage and have been involved in the town's struggle to survive. You meet people whose families have been here five generations. I know these families and I know the sacrifices many of them are making to stay here. It can be done, but it is a sacrifice. If these families had more children things would have gone easier for this town.
You're certainly right about farming. I've lived and worked on a couple of small farms myself. That is indeed a significant piece of the puzzle and I don't see the problem being solved anytime soon. In the meantime, however, these towns will have to develop their non-agricultural economies in order to survive.
If the families had had more children, the children, along with the sacrifices, may have had the opposite effect you are suggesting. More stressors on a family, and the expense of children is a stressor, can cause the dissolution of a family, or cause the family to move to an urban area where the family has a better chance of meeting its financial needs. Your proposal could possibly lead to even greater erosion of rural populations.
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.
