Why aren't large families stigmatized socially?

[Rummy]

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

 

But then it is flawed on a respondent only basis! We might have TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE AND NOT EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT!?!?!?

 

 

Really though, at the end of the day, I say it comes down more to how you raise/behave with children than how many you have.

[arab_freak]

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 agree. In terms of resources I believe we've got more than enough to go around, to the point where we could actually encourage people to have more children. We only have the impression of scarcity because of the way neoliberal economies distribute our resources (this is coming from a socialist perspective).

 

Also, if you're going to try and persuade someone not to have more children, talk to them about how much of a financial headache it would be. "The world's resources" isn't something a parent would find tangible.

[Guy]

I've been thinking about this for the last few hours and I think the reason is the larger families band together and beat up the smaller families who try to stigmatise them.

[Mr_Odwin]

In China where there's been a one child policy for a few years the people refer to the rising generation as Little Emperors, because everyone knows that they're all gonna be maladjusted weirdos.

 

Source: Read this on Wikipedia ages ago, my version of it may differ significantly from what is actually written there.

 

It's all about

 

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

 

Clearly you've not looked into how much child benefit actually is.

£134.80 for two kids every four weeks does not a rich man make.

 

(Child tax credit, on the other hand, is a slightly more lucrative business.)

[Diageo]

I don't see a problem with only-children.*

 

*Says the only child.

[bryanee]

Spoilers for that Dan Brown Book Inferno.

 

 

That book was all about this and how to deal with it. Some dude came up with a none life threatening virus that made a third of the worlds population sterile and it would pass on to the future generations to keep the worlds population in check. You think in the book they'll stop the virus from being released but nope.

 

Problem solved.

 

 

 

 

I don't really have anything of worth to add.

[Murr]

 

Clearly you've not looked into how much child benefit actually is.

£134.80 for two kids every four weeks does not a rich man make.

 

(Child tax credit, on the other hand, is a slightly more lucrative business.)

 

 

Agreed I don't have children so don't know, It was more so a joke as in, people spit kids out for money so they dont have to work...

 

 

:p

[Charlie]

Agreed I don't have children so don't know, It was more so a joke as in, people spit kids out for money so they dont have to work...

 

 

:p

 

Kid on the left looks like the's abotu to beat someone up.

[nightwolf]

Right...*finishes lunch*.

 

This is a very tricky subject, which has obviously been mentioned by a few of you, something I'm on the fence with either way. I don't believe that we have an overpopulation in the entire world, but do have overpopulation in cities. For example Hong Kong, perhaps that should be the main focus. Not how many children you have, but whether its ideal to raise a child in a certain environment.

 

Is it a good thing to raise a child or many in such as a busy place like Hong Kong? Is it better to raise them in a quiet town with not many people? I don't know, but is perhaps a better debate.

 

 

As a person with no children and no desire to have children (which is a stigma I truly believe I'll have to live with the rest of my life, as is evident from many women I know of who are now well into adulthood and elderly who get these questions.) I have never understood the concept of having children in the first place.

 

I'm grateful my parents had me and my older sister and did not have just one child, because I don't think in my entire existence that I am ever going to be able to have one child, never mind many and as a child didn't want to be lonely. I'd rather people wouldn't comment and tell me if they feel different and how my view might change, due to physiological issues and the way I was brought up, keep the opinion to yourself, in that regard.

 

However, as much as I do not understand having children and why people would do so. I do not see the issue with having 2 or 3 children, why not? It is not my right to stop someone having children, just as much of a person's choice not to have children. If it brings them happiness and they are not hurting anyone, including the child and love them unconditionally, then perfect. Do as you will!

 

I do however, have issue with people having more than that, in the sense of having 7 or more children, as a rough figure for the sake of argument.

 

In my mind that is too many, its a lot of little people to handle and looks to be a huge strain. I congratulate and admire (as obviously not every large family follows the 'rule') any one of you that has that many children and is able to fully support them all without much help at all, but from a quick look into large families it seems the vast majority need help, bigger housing and tend to have a large family before doing something about this and this saddens me greatly.

 

Why would you live in a small house and decide to have 7+ children, or live in an area you know isn't suitable to have that big of a family?

 

I get that accidents happen and sometimes a person will fall pregnant without wanting to, but 7 + times? When do you get to the point and go 'ok perhaps this area is overcrowded or my place isn't big enough, we need to move/do something before we do this'.

 

I perhaps have gone onto a big of a tangent, but overcrowding and large families seem to go hand in hand, not as a rule, but as an observation and it boggles my damn mind.

 

Perhaps before starting a large family, one should take into account many things, area, your home, your financial situation and if you can provide the right care for so many little ones (babysitting etc). Kids aren't cheap and they don't just up and leave when they hit 18.

 

 

TL;DR Do I think over-population exists? In areas. Do I believe people should have more than a few kids? No. But people's lives are their own and if they can support a huge group of children/a large family, then who am I to stop them.

[MoogleViper]

As a person with no children and no desire to have children (which is a stigma I truly believe I'll have to live with the rest of my life, as is evident from many women I know of who are now well into adulthood and elderly who get these questions.)

 

I don't think this will be the case. Look at how childless people were viewed 30 years ago. I'm certain that attitudes are (perhaps slowly) changing.

 

Also think about the people who ask those questions the most. I'll be willing to bet that it's older generations who hold those opinions more than younger.

[bryanee]

I'm never having kids. I have two nieces and as much as I love them they made me realise that looking after a kid 24/7 is not a thing I ever want to do.

[nightwolf]

I don't think this will be the case. Look at how childless people were viewed 30 years ago. I'm certain that attitudes are (perhaps slowly) changing.

 

Also think about the people who ask those questions the most. I'll be willing to bet that it's older generations who hold those opinions more than younger.

 

I don't know, I mean I cannot rightfully predict the future, I'm going off the now, I get a lot of stigma when I tell people I am refusing to have children.

 

However, there are a lot of people who are supportive, my parents, for instance are very supportive of my choice to live a different life (my step-mum never had her own kids and she was fine with never having her own or even me and my sister until she met my dad and loved all three of us!).

 

It depends, it is slowly changing, but whether it becomes a more common thing in the next 60 years, I don't know, I hope so, but I have so little faith in that fact.

[jayseven]

You say new energy sources won't sustain us - how can you know this if they haven't been discovered yet?

 

...

 

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..

 

Just to highlight the contradiction in your argument here. By positing that there could be a new energy source to be discovered that would sustain us, you are essentially gambling - which is something the boom-bust culture that you criticise is guilty of, no?

 

Perhaps the point, in this instance, is that we as a society are kind of almost expecting these white-coated scientists to discover the energy source we need at some point. Is it not better to suppose it isn't going to happen, and instead instigate a long-term conservation plan?

 

I think that's O_W's initial point. At the current rate of exponential expansion we do risk several things. I do agree that overpopulation is the major issue we face as a species going forwards. Currently climate change and recession are the main short- and long-term items that everyone is aware of, and while I'm not suggesting that china has it right when its denizens opt to throw babies in gutters, instead it makes more sense to accept the population incease has an impact on these other factors. Questioning why people have babies is a fantastic and very grand subject that demands we look at a lot of socio-economical factors, as well as cultural and inhereted practices. Life in itself is special and great and unique, right? If that's an argument for not producing multiple units of life then it's also an argument for producing as many human beings as possible - which doesn't happen because couples (or otherwise) factor in other elements to their own life choices -- money, space, time, etc. If these are limiations to their maximal number of children already then why is it so harsh to suggest these limitations are refocused with the entire species in mind?

 

This is a severely complex issue and I have no idea where I stand on it.

[Iun]

In the developed world I don't see much of a problem having 3-5 children - provided that you have the means yourself to take care of them. I had a friend when I was 18 who was the eldest of 8: her mother lived in a council house with 8 children by 6 different men. The mother was younger than 40 at the time, had never had a full time job. The friend began the same cycle - three children, three different guys, council flat... that was at the time I lost touch with her.

 

If you're capable of bringing them up decently, with a chance to better themselves, then sure, have 100. But don't put the strain on the rest of us.

 

The developing world and China in particular is a bigger and more complex mess: here in China, having a girl is considered bad luck, and they are more likely to abort females (although it's illegal to identify the sex of the child before birth) than males. The result is that there's an imbalance of something like 1.25 males to every 1 female. Additionally, male children are supposed to be responsible for the care of their parents. Therefore there are families who will try and have as many babies as possibly until they "get" a boy. Which is one reason for the "One Child" policy, which is a good idea in teory, but the wealthy are able to circumvent it. They are also able to circumvent school admissions via bribery and get their children into the best free schools in the cities. Essentially it keeps the poor stupid and poor by denying them equal access to education.

 

That said, sometimes the policy is enforced ruthlessly: 7-month old foetuses are aborted and then either left to die or killed in hospitals on the order of government officials.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Came across this map, thought it rather interesting.

From http://twistedsifter.com/2013/08/maps-that-will-help-you-make-sense-of-the-world/