A couple has 9 children, the children, grandchildren, etc. have 3 kids on average. 19,683 children will be born in the eighth generation if my math is correct. The number will skyrocket with each next generation. Taking animal cruelty into account(farm animals killed, fish killed, wildlife killed by domesticated pets, etc.) the one couple will contribute to an amazing amount of suffering. Humans are likely to suffer from this over the long-term. Should a good society despise people with very large families the same way we despise others today(dictators, for instance)?
Number of children a sign of character
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
ledboots
Peace
I emailed the Duggers, family with 20 kids, about going vegetarian years ago. I pointed out that they had a special responsibility to conserve resources since they chose to have so many children.
I received a nice email in return saying that they eat meatless dinners a few times a week, recycle, buy local and shop at thrift stores and hand down clothes, etc.
I received a nice email in return saying that they eat meatless dinners a few times a week, recycle, buy local and shop at thrift stores and hand down clothes, etc.
I don't think it's wise to despise any group, generally speaking. We may disagree and not approve of their practices, but for the most part, I think we (collectively) go about trying to make change in the wrong way when we try to get people over to our side/way of thinking with anger, ridicule, etc.
One of the big problems is overpopulation has potential to cause greater human suffering than all of human's wars combined many times over. The only reason we haven't had a crisis yet is because many of us choose to have very few children. I can't see how they're much different than a person like Timothy Mcveigh.
Even if they promoted family farms they'd still be contributing to a horrible amount of suffering. I would think their children are likely to have a lot more children than is the norm. According to Wikipedia Jim was in the House of Representatives. He fits in very well.
yakherder
老外
People have less children on average as their societies industrialize for the same reason as people in low tech, agricultural based societies have larger families. Self interest.
When a child can begin returning the investment, so to speak, by helping out around the farm at age 4, it is economically rational to have as many as possible. When a child must go through 20+ years of education before they cease to be a financial burden, it's not so economically rational anymore. We would already be in population decline if not for immigration from impoverished, failing agricultural societies. Those people who have like 20 kids are outliers whose contribution to population growth is negligible compared to whatever trend the average person is following, which is to have fewer kids than ever before.
When a child can begin returning the investment, so to speak, by helping out around the farm at age 4, it is economically rational to have as many as possible. When a child must go through 20+ years of education before they cease to be a financial burden, it's not so economically rational anymore. We would already be in population decline if not for immigration from impoverished, failing agricultural societies. Those people who have like 20 kids are outliers whose contribution to population growth is negligible compared to whatever trend the average person is following, which is to have fewer kids than ever before.
Freesia
not my business.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Reaction score
- 7,866
- Lifestyle
- Other
I dont know if it is the amount of people is the direct problem, but land usage. Food can be grown in "vertical farms" and in backyards and community gardens, and as long as forests and ecosystems are conserved, things can continue as usual. I think the problem more is industrialisation. Though of course too many people is not a good thing.
Obviously in the days of farming you had to have bigger families, but it still wasn't necessary to have 20 kids. A country isn't going to grow from around 4 million in 1790 up to 318 million 225 years later just through immigration. Excessive births has played a very large role as well. Realistically overpopulation isn't just a problem in the United States, as almost every country in the world is overpopulated.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
'Responsible' people stop breeding ...
Catholics (and the like) won't ...
Catholics (and the like) become majority ...
Pope (or the like) becomes world president ...
World full of Catholics (and the like) with zero legal contraception ..
That makes it irresponsible for 'responsible' people to stop breeding, doesn't it?
Catholics (and the like) won't ...
Catholics (and the like) become majority ...
Pope (or the like) becomes world president ...
World full of Catholics (and the like) with zero legal contraception ..
That makes it irresponsible for 'responsible' people to stop breeding, doesn't it?
Clueless Git
Plant powered
In the UK the main 'culprit' for population growth is not too many people being born.
The main culprit is not enough people dying.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
Clueless Git
Plant powered
Yea, but who wants to help that statistic?
I have parents I could 'donate', BC.
Seriously though this whole anti-natalist thing chaffes mah britches most mightily.
The obvious answer to population growth is to seriously address poverty.
That means seriously sharing the wealth.
The comparatively wealthy* ignore that (and with no offense to RF1 personaly) prefer to ask questions that really boil down to "can't we just despise the genuinely poor?".
*I'm defining 'the comparitively wealthy' as all those of us who live in countries where there is a social security system other than having lots of kids, btw.
According to the book I'm reading, Germany was gaining 800-900,000 people per year prior to World War 1. They were looking at more land, and may have been a major factor as to why Germany fought the war. Another book I read mentioned Rwanda having one of the highest population densities prior to their genocide in 1994. Population growth may have been a big factor in the genocide. Population growth has been a problem for many countries for a very long time.
I figure a couple having 2 children with all of the children, grandchildren, etc. having 3 children would contribute to 4,374 children by the eighth generation compared to the one with 9 children producing 19,683 by the eighth generation. Makes a huge difference. People like Octomom and the Duggars have the same basic hatred for life that people like Christopher Columbus, Genghis Khan, Timothy Mcveigh, Don Tyson, religious extremists, and many, many others have. I can't see a big difference between them.
Clueless Git
Plant powered
You can't see a big difference between wanting a larger than average family and genocide?
With total and utter respect for whatever strain of bats it is that dwell in your belfry; I don't think most people are going to struggle with that one, quite frankly.
Blobbenstein
.......
6 children per couple, or 3 children per couple?
if you mean 3 children per couple, that is only 1.5 children per individual and 2*(1.5^8)= 51 in the 8th generation.
I so rarely agree with CG, but I do agree with this.
kazyeeqen
Superb Owl
Me too.
This I don't agree with though.
1.) 'Responsible' people are self-labeled and not reliable judges of their own responsibility level.
2.)Even if they were there's no way they are going to compete with organized religion just because they think they should. Religious people have a mandate from God, people who think they are smarter than Catholics are just being arrogant and doing what they want and rationalizing it, there's no comparison.
3.) Catholics aren't all bad. If the world filled with them (or any religious group, as per your example) those humans would self-regulate, as any group would. They are no more or less likely to destroy themselves/commit heinous crimes/cause massive extinctions/etc than any other group of people.
Very large families and larger than average families are two entirely different issues. I think most non-human species would agree with me on this issue, so that's more important to me than anything else.
Ron Paul's 5 children is the main reason I would never vote for him. I read autobraghies about pro wrestlers and decided to stop watching pro wrestling(after watching it for probably half of my life) after reading about how many have big families. Population size is by far the biggest issue in the world today, having an impact on almost every important issue(including what I consider to be the second and third most important issues animal rights and resources). I'm not going to tell people how many children they should have, but at the same time I feel I have a right to be very critical of people who have very large families. Larger families basically has the same long-term effects genocide does, so I can't see a big difference.
Quite a few non-human species have very large families indeed. I don't think that they think bout it, but if they did, they would consider it to be very natural and normal.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
