We Need Larger Families

[sheldonsmom]

So let me get this straight....we should only have 2 kids because it is enviornmentally responsible? Which ones of mine should I get rid of?

We have four living children. Most of my friends have four or five kids. We live in a three bedroom, one bathroom house. I stay at home and homeschool the kids. Our oldest attends community college because of finances. Our son has enlisted in the Army Reserve to pay for college (and because he intends to make the Army his career). I have no idea about the younger two yet.

We do need larger families. Not just for "economic" considerations of the future (i.e. Social Security) but because we are designed to be social. I still believe the Bible when it tells us to be fruitful and multiply.

I wonder what you all think of the Duggar clan with 18 kids! A family should have the number of children the parents think they should have not what "society" thinks they should have. Last I checked, China's one child policy wasn't working so great there.

[GernBlansten]

Here's an interesting view on world population.

 

At the time Jesus was born, its estimated 200,000,000 people on the earth, 0.2 billion.

It took us 1800 years before we reached one billion.

It took us 127 more years or 1927 , to reach two billion.

It took us 32 more years, 1959 to reach three billion.

It took us 15 more years, 1974 to get to four billion.

Another 13 years, 1987, got us to 5 billion.

and 22 more years to get us to where we are at 6.7 billion.

 

Its estimated that by 2025 we will be at 8 billion and 10 billion by 2040.

 

Viral isn't it?

 

I have no fears that the human race will cease to exist due to declining birth rates.

And as for socialization, how can you not be social with 6.7 billion fellow earthlings?

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by gernblansten)

[TheScout]

So?

[Novice_Cubmaster]

The Duggar's CREEP ME OUT!!!

 

I have 2 kids & spend a ton of time with them (and still wish I had more). But how do you manage to do that with 18 kids? Seems that the older ones do a fair amount of surrogate parenting. Glad it works for them.

 

But at least the Duggar's are responsible and have sufficient income to pull it off. The "octomom" CREEPS ME OUT even more.

 

NC

[Nike]

A population can not replace itself if each couple only has two children (to replace themselves) due to premature death. France has actually been depopulating for nearly 200 years, and Paris and the Cote d'Azure are as crowded as ever.

 

If anyone has ever driven across the US, and I have twice, you will see that outside of the 50 mile coastal zone and large interior cities, the place is pretty empty.

 

 

[TheScout]

In the Book of Exodus, the Pharaoh was haunted by the presence and increase of the people of Israel and one of the oppressions he ordered on them was to kill their male children to stop their population increase.

 

There is so much land in the world. You can give each person 1,000 square feet of space and fit the entire population of the world in Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota.

 

People are the world's greatest resource.

[SMT224]

Both as a Scoutmaster and during my time as a leader in the Cubs, I have noticed something that has been fairly consistent over the years: It is the parents of larger families that are the most involved and most helpful. Parents who have 3 or 4 or 5 kids seem to end up becoming leaders more often than parents with one kid, and stick with it longer as well.

 

Logically, one would think that parents who have only one kid to feed and take care of would have more time to be a part of Scouting, but my experience is that the opposite is true. One parent households always seem to have other activities they need to rush off to, or can't make an activity or camping trip because they have other priorities. Yes, one kid families will often crossover with great intentions, but as time goes by, we see less and less of them. Whereas parents with multiple offspring end up being the reliable ones - there when you need 'em!

 

Part of this is the kid too, Scouts who have brothers and sisters seem to do better on camping trips and summer camp, while the one kid per family Scouts seem much more homesick and have a much harder time being away from mom & dad (who are more likely to be helicopter parents by the way!).

 

Are big families better for the planet? Maybe so, maybe not. I don't think it's cut and dried either way.

 

Are big families better for Scouting? Absolutely!!

 

[Mr. Boyce]

The old-hat "natural limits to growth" argument has been discredited, though. Technological innovation and innovations in transport, communications, etc. all improve food production. . . so that is not the concern that it was back in 1969.

 

Although, of course, are EARS are raised to hear the 1969 viewpoint, and our mouths are used to responding in the 1969 fashion, ala Ehrlich.

 

Frankly, the real question isn't the ability of the world to feed the world, but the first world to feed the first world. In fact it may be better for the third world to have a large and healthy first world.

 

If you have studied this issue, you realize that previous extrapolations have been made laughable.

 

 

[Mr. Boyce]

And also, it is unfortunate (again) that this issue has been turned into an us vs. them, blue vs. red, conservative vs. liberal, etc. kind of argument.

 

I think there are real problems with this black/white approach to issues. This issue in particular calls for sensitivity not to old shibboleths (I mention Ehrlich here), but to serious research into human psychology and development, into agricultural productivity, into rates of technological innovation and economic growth.

 

We know more than we did in 1969, so our views should change to reflect this. The first world would benefit from larger families.

[Horizon]

Replacement rate for zero population growth requires an average of 2.1 - 2.2 children for a family.

 

As I said, we have two sons, and having more children would require that we reduce the opportunities that we can give to our children. I have no issue with the Duggars - they are (from what I know) to be self-sufficient. However, since this thread started by stating that I shoukld have MORE children - what part of my son's lives would you like me to take away so that we could add more?

 

While Professor Ehrlich's Malthusian predictions of food shortages have not come to pass, the continued development of open space into housing certainly has. I purchase cables for my iPhone at a site where a National Jamboree was once held. Continued population expansion in the US DOES have an impact on the environment, at the minimum by reducing the open space available.

 

Finally - it would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between numbers of children and volunteering activity. I do not see a trend at all in my volunteer time.

[TheScout]

Maybe in Southern California.

 

But in most of the US there is tons of open space.

[GernBlansten]

Basing our sustainable population level only on available square footage, is well, expected ... I guess.

 

BTW, after we take up all the available space, where do we grow the crops? In planters on our 1000 sqft lots? Do your space estimates consider all the space for the Walmarts and Home Depots?

 

Isn't it funny how those who promote unlimited population growth, also ridicule conservation, recycling, land management, environmental regulations and restrictions on the exploitation of limit resources?

[TheScout]

Well if the 1000 sq feet per person in the world takes up only Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota, that leaves a whole lot of the world left . . .

[Mr. Boyce]

Gern, I know I'm getting a bit obsessive hear, but it's hard for my ears to hear you say that people with a different view on the population subject all dislike conservation, recycling, limits on resource use and so forth.

 

To my ears, this is stereotyping. I think on this issue it's not in the black/white liberal/conservative paradigm.

 

I also think it's important to point out that experts really have no substantive idea of what sustainability really is. It's still highly conceptual. And at any rate, resources we use today may not be the same we use tomorrow. It's a famous quote from a Saudi oil minister, to wit: the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones!

 

The point being that we're working our way away from oil as our energy source. . . and we can find alternative resources.

[Mr. Boyce]

. . . one major difficulty for anyone wanting to impose controls on population growth is convincing enough people---billions---to do this.

 

Or taking the easy route and coercing them to do so through political oppression of rights, forced sterilization, etc. Most find this route morally repugnant on many grounds.

 

I suppose we should be concerned about the West imposing economic pressure on nations to curb growth in order to get aid money. That doesn't seem quite right to me somehow.