Do you think it's selfish to have more than 2 children?

NoQuarter

Interesting read I thought OP. Could fill a thesis easily so there's too much to dewell on to come to a conclusion either way.

An interesting thing to look at would be if there were any great humans throughout history that were 3rd,4th,5th children etc and consider the effect on the planet without them and apply that to the future.

Shivers26

I would be of the opinion that if the parents can afford to feed, clothe and educate their children then they should be free to have as many as they want.

It does annoy me when so called 'single parents' have child after child declaring that they don't know who the father is and expect the tax payer to pay for them.

What about the value of a family? Posters with several brothers and sisters, would you feel your childhood maybe lacking if you hadn't had your siblings?

I currently have 2 children, both born before I was married. Now we are being put under savage pressure to have a 'married baby' so to speak. Had to tell the mother in law in no uncertain terms recently that we just can't afford another child right now.

Overthrow

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

And if you gave everyone in the world 1 square metre of personal space you could fit the world’s population into a small Irish county. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is desirable. If you compressed the global population into one mega city the quality of life for everyone would be massively reduced and would lead to huge logistical and health problems. Quality of life would be reduced on a vast scale.

This is wrong. The focus should not be on population numbers, it should be about the efficiency in which the populations we do have are maintained. The average city dweller has a much higher quality of life than the average low population density dweller. Further, the means with which to provide the city dweller's quality of life are so much more efficient.

It takes much more energy to facilitate a widely spread population than it does a densely packed population. Transportation & logistics, schools, emergency services, retail, car dependency - everything becomes more efficient when you can service more people in the same space, rather than the same amount of people spread out over more space.

Cities are the culmination of human achievement, productivity and efficiency. Cities give way to new ideas, faster technological and societal advancement, are more culturally enriching and their very existence are evident of better integration and harmony amongst the people. The more dense the city is, the more true this is. Not only this, the average city dwellers have fewer children as well.

High population density is what all urban planning should be based around.

Biggins

More children = more eventual educated adults = could mean more minds to help solve world problems?

Just a mad lunatic notion!

Scortho

Its selfish if you cant afford to provide for them and give them a good upbringing.

I want to have more than 3. But only if I can afford to provide for them.

There is nothing wrong with having children so long as you're not running cap in hand to the government for your childrens every need!

later12

true-or-false wrote: »

You think that stopping welfare after one child is making children suffer??? A bit of a sensationalist comment I think.

Yeah, in that state welfare transfers would disproportionately improve the welfare of sole children over sibling children. It would be the child who ends up losing out.

Part of being a Republic means providing equality of opportunity insofar as is realizable. What you're suggesting is a total anathema to equality.

People without kids can still lose their jobs, get ill, divorce, die, whatever. I don't see how children come into that.

I don't see how childless parents come into it.

The point is that you might be well able to afford 4 children on a Monday evening, and lose your job, partner or business on Tuesday morning and you end up needing assistance to meet yours and the children's basic needs.

Providing a "one child limit" on child welfare or qualifying payments is a bit silly by then, don't you agree?

woodchuck

I think it can be selfish, but not from a 'growing population' point of view. If parents are outnumbered by their children then they're not necessarily getting all the attention/love that they might need. The more children you have, the more thinly you're spread between them. I think the focus should be on one or two children and to raise those children well.

I'm not sure why people would want a large family other than for selfish reasons. I think having a sibling can be a good thing, but if you have more than two is it because the two you have are the same gender and you want to try for a boy/girl? Is it because people prefer younger children and want more as soon as the others get a little older? (genuine questions btw; I have no idea why people would want a large family)

Musiconomist

NoQuarter wrote: »

Interesting read I thought OP. Could fill a thesis easily so there's too much to dewell on to come to a conclusion either way.

An interesting thing to look at would be if there were any great humans throughout history that were 3rd,4th,5th children etc and consider the effect on the planet without them and apply that to the future.

Michael Jackson for a start. Though I dont know if he would be considered great in everyone's eyes.

later12

woodchuck wrote: »

I think it can be selfish, but not from a 'growing population' point of view. If parents are outnumbered by their children then they're not necessarily getting all the attention/love that they might need. The more children you have, the more thinly you're spread between them. I think the focus should be on one or two children and to raise those children well.

I'm not sure why people would want a large family other than for selfish reasons. I think having a sibling can be a good thing, but if you have more than two is it because the two you have are the same gender and you want to try for a boy/girl? Is it because people prefer younger children and want more as soon as the others get a little older? (genuine questions btw; I have no idea why people would want a large family)

An army of workers with no legal requirement to pay minimum wage

Higher aggregate earned income by the offspring = a stronger social security net, the more children you have

Home grown hurling team

etc.

Musiconomist

Scortho wrote: »

Its selfish if you cant afford to provide for them and give them a good upbringing.

I want to have more than 3. But only if I can afford to provide for them.

There is nothing wrong with having children so long as you're not running cap in hand to the government for your childrens every need!

I think it's dangerous to make hard and fast decisions on things like this. I mean, some people will never be able to look after themselves due to injury, illness or disability. Should these people not be allowed to have children?

Also, isnt there a case then for a billionaire to have hundreds of children? Not sure what good that would do for the gene pool.

As for the welfare argument, I dont see an issue with that. That money is hopefully going towards raising that child. And I would rather live in a country where everyone is given a chance to succeed rather than one where children are indirectly stifled/punished because their parent/s made bad or unlucky choices.

old_aussie

Won't be long before excess breeding turns europe into the new islamic republic

cloptrop

Whats wrong with the government paying fir the kids sure dont they get to tax them for near 50 years .

Chucken

later12 wrote: »

I don't see how childless parents come into it.

The point is that you might be well able to afford 4 children on a Monday evening, and lose your job, partner or business on Tuesday morning and you end up needing assistance to meet yours and the children's basic needs.

This will never...ever happen to all the social welfare/ you've too many babies bashers. ever.

mikom

Load of navel gazing shite this thread.
I would like to see a poll with how many siblings the different poster have.

From past experience some of the most miserable hoors I have met have been "only-childs".

OldNotWIse

If you can afford them and are not going to rely on other people to help you out, or dump them on your own mum and dad who have already reared their kids and have painful creaky joints...then no...

Musiconomist

old_aussie wrote: »

Won't be long before excess breeding turns europe into the new islamic republic

Sure it wouldnt be today without a dash of xenophobia.

Helix

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

[there are too many people on this planet already and not enough resources

that's not remotely true. there's more than enough resources for quadruple the number of people on the planet were it to be evenly distributed

Duiske

old_aussie wrote: »

Won't be long before excess breeding turns europe into the new islamic republic

Is there a thread topic you won't use to engage in your anti-Islam rants ?

amtw

woodchuck wrote: »

I think it can be selfish, but not from a 'growing population' point of view. If parents are outnumbered by their children then they're not necessarily getting all the attention/love that they might need. The more children you have, the more thinly you're spread between them. I think the focus should be on one or two children and to raise those children well.

I disagree with this completly. I know lots of people from large famillies who grew up feeling loved, cared for and did not lack attention from their parents. I would know at least as many people from single child famillies who don't get the love and support from their parents. Each family dynamic is different, some people can cope with lots of children some people can't even manage one.

Part of being a Republic means providing equality of opportunity insofar as is realizable. What you're suggesting is a total anathema to equality.

Yes, that's my point. Currently there's an advantage towards having children (an inequality as you'd have it put), whereas I think there should be an advantage towards having only one or two children. It's an inequality in the sense that financially one person would be better off than another, but both people would have had "equality of opportunity" in that they do have some control over how many children they have. You can't always control whether you have kids or not, but it's hardly the same as discriminating against someone because of something they're born with, like race. That's how an incentive works, it gives one person a chance to gain. If another person doesn't take that chance, of course they're going to be at a disadvantage to the person who did.

The point is that you might be well able to afford 4 children on a Monday evening, and lose your job, partner or business on Tuesday morning and you end up needing assistance to meet yours and the children's basic needs.

Yes, and that should be accounted for when the parent is receiving their welfare, but child allowances are being given to every person in the state with a child, not just ones with a very specific situation like the one you just stated.

Providing a "one child limit" on child welfare or qualifying payments is a bit silly by then, don't you agree?

No. In fact having thought on it I'd like to amend my suggestion to no child payments at all, and that if someone meets unfortunate circumstance then their children would be included in their means test. I had previously said one child because I thought it would encourage 1-2 child families, but in retrospect I think there isn't really an incentive needed for that at all.

bluecode

No it's not selfish, it's crazy. I have two and can barely cope with them! Having said that it might be a good idea to have a spare. Both of them seem determined to kill themselves getting up to stupid stunts.

BraziliaNZ

For those saying Ireland is underpopulated. There are virtually no untouched landscapes in Ireland, it's just one big farm. Even in the UK there are far more natural forests and trees. Far too much human impact on the Irish landscape imo.

kleefarr

Neodymium wrote: »

"The Most Important Video You Will Ever See"

Watch it, you will never think the same again.



No it is not, it is the most logical number of children to have to prevent overpopulation.

Truly eye opening. Many thanks for posting that.

mikom

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

For those saying Ireland is underpopulated. There are virtually no untouched landscapes in Ireland, it's just one big farm. Even in the UK there are far more natural forests and trees. Far too much human impact on the Irish landscape imo.

Ask the UK how the Irish failed to see the value of trees after they suffered the famine/genocide and afterwards saw land as a means to growing crops/raise stock not practice arboriculture on.

BraziliaNZ

mikom wrote: »

Ask the UK how the Irish failed to see the value of trees after they suffered the famine/genocide and afterwards saw land as a means to growing crops/raise stock not practice arboriculture on.

Apparently there were no trees here a long time before the famine, due to human consumption

mikom

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Apparently there were no trees here a long time before the famine, due to human consumption

And the famine/genocide did nothing to help that.
Romance goes out the window when your belly is empty.

BraziliaNZ

mikom wrote: »

And the famine/genocide did nothing to help that.
Romance goes out the window when your belly is empty.

Well we're not hungry anymore. So maybe we could try not to be 100% focused on expansion, growth, bigger population etc etc. That's all politicians want, is that really progress?

mikom

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well we're not hungry anymore. So maybe we could try not to be 100% focused on expansion, growth, bigger population etc etc. That's all politicians want, is that really progress?

Old saying:

The best day to plant a tree was yesterday.

BraziliaNZ

mikom wrote: »

Old saying:

The best day to plant a tree was yesterday.

Probably. I don't care anyway, I doubt I'll ever have kids, so I have no ones future to worry about!

Gbear

It'll be interesting to see how countries with a negative population growth rate and ageing populations cope over the next 50 years with social security.

We can only raise the retirement age so much.

We waste so much food, water and electricity and there's nearly limitless potential for power generation from renewables (hence the name) and nuclear energy and in terms of raw materials, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of what we've used thus far is still there - it hasn't all transmuted into air.

We have easily enough "stuff" to supply a much higher population than we currently have. The problem is that Africa and much of Asia don't have the farming techniques or the ability to resit disease and natural disasters that the west have. It's not as if we're at capacity and that's why half the planet is starving.

In short, no, for a western country, not only is it not selfish to have lots of kids but you're actually hindering the economy by not creating enough children to meet the replacement rate (although I think we actually do in Ireland).