Why aren't large families stigmatized socially?

[Oxigen_Waste]

We've known for decades that overpopulation is the world's biggest problem (especially combined with dwindling resources), so why are we still so accepting and encouraging towards the practice of having multiple children? It should be common sense by now that you shouldn't have more than 1 kid (of your own, feel free to adopt as many as you want).

 

I get why some developing nations and the entire third world have that mentality since kids are pretty much the only asset there is and with infant mortality rates as high as they are it's understandable why people there have so many kids, but why on earth aren't we doing something about this in the developed world. oO There's no economy to stimulate anymore, ever since globalisation took over in the 80's. It's goddamn irresponsible and it bothers me that it's so well accepted! I mean, people get ridiculous amounts of flack for being smokers (not condoning smoking, but nor do I understand why one would condemn it, it may be a bit bothersome but it's mostly harmless to us non-smokers) but contributing to the worst problem in the world is completely ok?

 

Edit - Been checking some numbers out, turns out the UK is quite a light offender in this regard, being only ~10million over it's optimum population, but I think this is a discussion worth having.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste

[Daft]

Justify your rationale for overpopulation being the world's biggest problem.

[The Peeps]

I was going to make a post but I dunno, I'm not feeling it. I will just say I disagree.

[EEVILMURRAY]

As someone with a brother, I thought I should bring this defacement of common sense to my Mum's attention.

 

It should be common sense by now that you shouldn't have more than 1 kid (of your own...

*Shakes her head* "... No."

feel free to adopt as many as you want).

*Laughs*

[Murr]

It's all about

 

 

 

 

I want 2 children in the future, and not for child benefits. Does that make me part of the problem?

[Oxigen_Waste]

Justify your rationale for overpopulation being the world's biggest problem.

 

Is this a semanthics thing? (As in, it's humanity's biggest problem, not the world itself, obviously).

 

If not, I really don't see how you could even ask that. It's by far the worst problem in the world right now, well, no, dwindling resources are (energy and water) but dwindling resources are only a problem because of overpopulation and overcomsumption. We've passed the sustainability mark of 3 billion people (although the ideal number would be 2) ~40 years ago and we just keep on going at an increasingly faster rate. How is this not common sense? oO

[Guy]

The Earth can take a few billion more, she's a tough old girl.

 

As cruel as it sounds, my lifetime on this Earth is far too limited to spend worrying about something that can't really be fixed. I'll just trust in future generations to do whatever the hell they want when the time comes. Just like the giant garbage ball in Futurama.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Guy
Adding more responsible insight.

[Oxigen_Waste]

I want 2 children in the future, and not for child benefits. Does that make me part of the problem?

 

Nah, it makes you neutral. 2 is basically cancelling yourself out. 3 is where you start being part of the problem.

[Agent Gibbs]

Not sure i'd say its the worlds greatest problem, but its certainly up there

 

world population in 1950 was 2,555,982,611

world population in 2000 was 6,082,966,429

world population in 2011 was 7,021,836,029

(can't find more up to date figures that aren't on wikipedia)

 

thats considerable growth for a planet of fixed size, thats actual landmass is decreasing due to global warming.

 

 

why isn't it stigmatised? because of the simple fact that society is set up to praise mothers and children

Edited August 13, 2013 by Agent Gibbs

[Oxigen_Waste]

The Earth can take a few billion more, she's a tough old girl.

 

The earth can take alot more than just a few billion more. It's us humans who are fucked.

 

For an intelligent species, we're pretty adept at self-sabotage.

[Daft]

Is this a semanthics thing? (As in, it's humanity's biggest problem, not the world itself, obviously).

 

If not, I really don't see how you could even ask that. It's by far the worst problem in the world right now, well, no, dwindling resources are (energy and water) but dwindling resources are only a problem because of overpopulation and overcomsumption. We've passed the sustainability mark of 3 billion people (although the ideal number would be 2) ~40 years ago and we just keep on going at an increasingly faster rate. How is this not common sense? oO

 

You've made a lot of assumptions to get to that point. As a race we simply do not respect the world. I don't doubt the would could sustain our current population if weren't so wasteful.

 

In terms of resources, distribution is a much bigger issue than quantity. We won't ever really run out of energy, water too. We need to reassess current infrastructure and nodes of distribution and then make it work on a global scale, at the very least. But there is a lot more to change, and curbing population is a facile notion.

 

You are turning a very complex matter into a game of numbers - and while that realisation isn't necessarily common sense, it should be.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Daft

[Agent Gibbs]

The Earth can take a few billion more, she's a tough old girl.

 

As cruel as it sounds, my lifetime on this Earth is far too limited to spend worrying about something that can't really be fixed. I'll just trust in future generations to do whatever the hell they want when the time comes. Just like the giant garbage ball in Futurama.

 

I'm hoping it will occur in my life time and the solution will be like The Running Man

First episode could have all the reality tv celebs on

[Mr-Paul]

Population will keep on growing as people are living longer and as healthcare improves around the world. And the vast majority don't have more than a couple of children. As you said yourself, people in developing countries have more children due to high mortality rates/lack of contraception. In this country, those who have large numbers of children (and can't afford to support them without the support of the state) are stigmatised.

 

Of course, dwindling natural resources is a problem, but alternative forms of energy are becoming more prominent, and even more will come in the future. And you mention the economy, which is in a slump right now, but who's to say things won't get better, and the world can be a prosperous place? You don't really have any proof that the rising population is really leading to the regression of society.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Mr-Paul

[Oxigen_Waste]

As cruel as it sounds, my lifetime on this Earth is far too limited to spend worrying about something that can't really be fixed. I'll just trust in future generations to do whatever the hell they want when the time comes. Just like the giant garbage ball in Futurama.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to act high and mighty here, I'm just like you and I'll probably end up having 3 or 4 kids, knowing myself... I just thought this was a discussion worth having.

 

You've made a lot of assumptions to get to that point. As a race we simply do not respect the world. I don't doubt the would could sustain our current population if weren't so wasteful.

 

In terms of resources, distribution is a much bigger issue than quantity. We won't ever really run out of energy, water too. We need to reassess current infrastructure and nodes of distribution and then make it work on a global scale, at the very least. But there is a lot more to change, and curbing population is a facile notion.

 

You are turning a very complex matter into a game of numbers - and while that realisation isn't necessarily common sense, it should be.

 

I made no assumptions at all. This is taught in any advanced geography class. It ain't complex at all. Anything over 3 billion is unsustainable. 1.5-2 billion being the ideal as far as quality of life goes. It has always been a game of numbers. That's what geography is all about. There have been several studies and they all reached the same conclusion. Anything over 3 billion is unsustainable. And ever since the 1980s, we've been getting progressively worse and worse.

 

You don't really have no proof that the rising population is really leading to the regression of society.

 

What the hell?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_population

 

----

 

Because relevant:

 

 

In this country, those who have large numbers of children (and can't afford to support them without the support of the state) are stigmatised.

 

For different reasons. Even people who can afford to raise their kids should be stigmatized. You gotta appreciate the irony, though... the ultimate western delusion... people on wellfare get stigmatised for "living off others", which is exactly what the entire civilized world does to the rest. It's too good. :P

 

Of course, dwindling natural resources is a problem, but alternative forms of energy are becoming more prominent, and even more will come in the future. And you mention the economy, which is in a slump right now, but who's to say things won't get better, and the world can be a prosperous place? You don't really have no proof that the rising population is really leading to the regression of society.

 

Alternative forms of energy can't sustain a growing population, that's the problem. It's not that we'll run of out energy, it's that it can't be generated fast enough to sustain such numbers.

 

The economy is in a slump right now. That's a very hopeful statement, and I hope you're right, but I don't think we'll ever get back to prosperity without strict regulation. The economy has been in the shitter since the 80s completely fucked everything up. These boom bust cycle models benefit absolutely nobody except the rich. Welcome to neo-feudalism. =(

Edited August 13, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste
Automerged Doublepost

[Fierce_LiNk]

This is quite a complex issue, but I'll start off by saying that I disagree with your opening post, OxyWaste. But, I'll also say that, as humans, we are quite wasteful in terms of resources. On the whole, anyway. Food is scarce in certain parts of the world, yet a significant proportion of the western world is obese or has issues to do with food. The starting part would be looking at what we do need and what we don't need, although this is something that needs to be done on a much grander scale.

 

I'm not saying let's forget about chocolate, for example. :p It's a luxury and we should still be entitled to luxuries. We're only going to live on this planet once, so we should enjoy it, but we should be taking more care of ourselves. So, what I'm saying is that we should be looking at the quantity of food and resources that we are using. That's a start.

 

I don't really think stopping families from having more than one child is going to solve anything. Siblings are quite important, in many respects. They can help the social development of individuals and it promotes lots of other skills, such as being able to communicate with each other, being able to work with each other, and so on. I'm sure that there is something out there, some piece of research that would say that having siblings encourages you or others to share, as opposed to if you were an only-child. Sharing. Isn't that kind of the whole point of why we are here as humans, to help each other out and to share our resources, experiences and ideas?

[Daft]

I made no assumptions at all. This is taught in any advanced geography class. It ain't complex at all. Anything over 3 billion is unsustainable. 1.5-2 billion being the ideal as far as quality of life goes. It has always been a game of numbers. That's what geography is all about. There have been several studies and they all reached the same conclusion. Anything over 3 billion is unsustainable. And ever since the 1980s, we've been getting progressively worse and worse.

 

Bullshit. It's unsustainable within the curent ecological discourse. (I can't believe and 'advanced' geography class would be so short sighted as to make any claim beyond that. Not sure why you'd cite geography as the appropriate subject, I'd have though the field of development and sustainability might be a better choice.)

 

It is a very complex matter. At no point is it simple. That you think that makes me believe you don't have a big enough grasp of the matter.

[MoogleViper]

I'd like to have lots of children, but I don't want to contribute to overpopulation.

 

Solution?

 

I'll kill them when they become adults.

 

It should be common sense by now that you shouldn't have more than 1 kid

 

A world entirely populated by only children.

 

*shudders*

[Agent Gibbs]

I suspect you're refering to the amount of land required to sustain human life at current levels?

 

i touched upon some of this in my sustainability modules at university as part of my civil engineering degree - the very basic premise being that each human requires a give square meterage to sustain a comfortable life, however this is based on current technological levels and current rates of consumption.

 

Expanding on daft's thought process (as i'm assuming/guessing) that if we use more sustainable means and live lest wasteful lives then the amount of landmass required to sustain a single human will decrease

 

even then this is very simplistic as it doesn't take into account terrain etc in the sahara you might need 1km² per person, but in the midlands you might need consideably less

 

 

is this roughly the school of thought driving this discussion, as yes based on this theory there is an ideal population that is sustainable, which i bow to your figures of around 3 billion, and this may be right, but again its based on our current oil consumption, overindulgent, unspace saving society

 

 

ideally if we built up instead of out, used sustainable energies, produced genetic meat products and ended animal consumptions etc then we could reach a more sustainable population.

 

my brain is a little addled its been a while since i looked into global sustainability issues like this, but all sorts of words are flying round my brian that i think are related to this

[Magnus]

I'd like to have lots of children, but I don't want to contribute to overpopulation.

 

Solution?

 

I'll kill them when they become adults.

Maybe you should consider adoption instead. Oxigen said you can adopt as many kids as you want!

 

If I'm going to have kids, I'd like to have two, just to have one spare in case something happens to the first one.

[Rummy]

Maybe we're not having too many children, we're just saving too many old people /conspiracykeanu

 

Like many others, I think I disagree with your OP. Overpopulation can be a problem, and maybe is one, but I think it's only a problem because we're shitty wasteful people with an eye to immortality and an overinflated sense of self-worth and self-importance.

 

It should be common sense by now that you shouldn't have more than 1 kid (of your own, feel free to adopt as many as you want).

 

This is hugely silly. If you'd said 2 or 3, then maybe, but 1 kid per couple? That's going to essentially dwindle us out into nothingness if it was perfectly achieved. Next up, who would be up for adoption if everyone was just having 1 kid(yes, I'm assuming they'd keep it). Or are you allowed one own-birth child and as many adoptions as you like(so people can have 1 kid and get rid of it and have no more)? Regardless of this, the first point stands.

 

 

(P.S what about the gays)

 

(P.P.S what if you just like fucking because tbh it's awesome but contraception is shit in your part of the world or your beliefs are a bit crap when it comes to that etc)

 

(P.P.P.S I think the latter kinda took care of the former at least)

Edited August 13, 2013 by Rummy

[Mr-Paul]

Oh, don't get me wrong I'm not trying to act high and mighty here, I'm just like you and I'll probably end up having 3 or 4 kids, knowing myself... I just thought this was a discussion worth having.

 

 

 

I made no assumptions at all. This is taught in any advanced geography class. It ain't complex at all. Anything over 3 billion is unsustainable. 1.5-2 billion being the ideal as far as quality of life goes. It has always been a game of numbers. That's what geography is all about. There have been several studies and they all reached the same conclusion. Anything over 3 billion is unsustainable. And ever since the 1980s, we've been getting progressively worse and worse.

 

 

 

What the hell?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_population

 

----

 

Because relevant:

 

 

 

 

For different reasons. Even people who can afford to raise their kids should be stigmatized. You gotta appreciate the irony, though... the ultimate western delusion... people on wellfare get stigmatised for "living off others", which is exactly what the entire civilized world does to the rest. It's too good. :P

 

 

 

Alternative forms of energy can't sustain a growing population, that's the problem. It's not that we'll run of out energy, it's that it can't be generated fast enough to sustain such numbers.

 

The economy is in a slump right now. That's a very hopeful statement, and I hope you're right, but I don't think we'll ever get back to prosperity without strict regulation. The economy has been in the shitter since the 80s completely fucked everything up. These boom bust cycle models benefit absolutely nobody except the rich. Welcome to neo-feudalism. =(

 

If you read that Wikipedia article, it says many disagree with the idea of optimum population. While I agree that you probably can can come up with an optimum figure, I think there are too many unpredictable factors to really say there should only be a certain amount of people. I guess it is like the population cycles of small mammals such as rabbits, whose numbers fluctuate, but on a much grander, long term scale. One day our population may decrease again, for it to grow again in the future. But again I say, how can we predict how we may adapt in the future? You say new energy sources won't sustain us - how can you know this if they haven't been discovered yet?

 

I haven't watched the Youtube video but will have a look later.

 

In terms of the economy, I hate the boom-bust culture too, and absolutely agree that more strict regulation is needed for growth and prosperity, but I don't believe we should regulate whether people are allowed to have children or not.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Mr-Paul

[EEVILMURRAY]

The moment we start getting our asses to Mahs, we can hopefully sort things out for the better.

 

I'd like to have lots of children, but I don't want to contribute to overpopulation.

 

Solution?

 

I'll kill them when they become adults.

 

 

 

A world entirely populated by only children.

 

*shudders*

I loved Logan's Run. I keep planning on writing a remake script but only have a few ideas.

[Rummy]

world population in 1950 was 2,555,982,611

world population in 2000 was 6,082,966,429

world population in 2011 was 7,021,836,029

(can't find more up to date figures that aren't on wikipedia)

 

I must annoyingly raise the obvious question of the methodology in determining those numbers. How do we reach such figures?

[MoogleViper]

Maybe we're not having too many children, we're just saving too many old people /conspiracykeanu

 

Careful, we're all approaching 30.

 

I must annoyingly raise the obvious question of the methodology in determining those numbers. How do we reach such figures?

 

Lots of sex.

[Agent Gibbs]

I must annoyingly raise the obvious question of the methodology in determining those numbers. How do we reach such figures?

 

i have absolutely no idea census data? estimations, birth rate info? all of the above?