Large Families, Care Of Children & World Population

[HeatherAnn]

We've been taught to "multiply and replenish the earth."

Many of us assumed that meant to procreate, & I think it is part of it. Yet taking care of the earth can involve multipling & replenishing in other ways too.

Anyone remember the song, "Zero Population" in Saturday Warriors?

Concern about world population isn't new & I was taught that it was hype to scare people, a tool of the adversary.

Yet, the reality is... our population is almost at 7,000,000,000, projected to be 9,000,000,000 in 2045.

http://ngm.nationalg...n/kunzig-text/2

Some feel it already...

http://www.oddee.com/item_96926.aspx

& of course it's all relative...

My deepest concern is for children.

In large families I've become familiar with, I've noticed some type of neglect or abuse (verbal or physical).

This study reports, "Large family size significantly raises the risk of both types of maltreatment."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2135738

Growing up in a large family, I experienced some neglect & abuse.

What are your thoughts on family size, treatment of children & world population?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not worried, I feel that most of this is still propaganda. The big issue here is greed and governments and wacko agendas from leftist environmentalists.

I think this earth can produce way more food then it can. Look at what we do in the US. We destroy corn and turn in into an inferior fuel for our cars. There is absolutely no reason to do this other than Government subsidies and Government restriction on drilling. This is but one example.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[KevinG]

The JSTOR study only includes small and large families with unplanned births (both low income and control groups). In other words families with three or more unplanned births were more likely to abuse or neglect than families with two or less unplanned births. The results of this study cannot be generalized to include the results of planned briths on large families. I suspect the results on abuse and neglect levels would be significantly different for the positive in those cases.

Studies on large families and educational success showed a slightly negative effect with larger familes. A significant outlier (better than usual educational success) was noted among LDS families.

I theorize that if they did a regression analysis with levels of religious adherance Hispanic Catholics and Mennonites would come out very well in terms of loving parents and happy children.

Your personal experience with neglect and abuse in a large family explains some of your reservations about large families and even LDS culture and doctrine. In their study “The importance of Father Love; History andContemporary Evidence”, R(onald P Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, April 2001) the authors showed the single most influencial variable in children adopting their parents morals and values was the amount of affection they received as small children.

Edited August 25, 2011 by DaddyG

[ERayR]

We've been taught to "multiply and replenish the earth."

Many of us assumed that meant to procreate, & I think it is part of it. Yet taking care of the earth can involve multipling & replenishing in other ways too.

Anyone remember the song, "Zero Population" in Saturday Warriors?

Concern about world population isn't new & I was taught that it was hype to scare people, a tool of the adversary.

Yet, the reality is... our population is almost at 7,000,000,000, projected to be 9,000,000,000 in 2045.

http://ngm.nationalg...n/kunzig-text/2

Some feel it already...

http://www.oddee.com/item_96926.aspx

& of course it's all relative...

My deepest concern is for children.

In large families I've become familiar with, I've noticed some type of neglect or abuse (verbal or physical).

This study reports, "Large family size significantly raises the risk of both types of maltreatment."

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2135738

Growing up in a large family, I experienced some neglect & abuse.

What are your thoughts on family size, treatment of children & world population?

I can't help but feel some resentment to your automatic assumpption that large families are abused. It has been my observation that it is not family size that makes the difference. Your cited study had more to do with unplanned children than with large families.

Are you sure you really mean to post this link? It seems inappropriate to me. It seems to be a lead in for several porn sites. Deleted!

[Calm]

Growing up in a large family, I experienced some neglect & abuse.

What are your thoughts on family size, treatment of children & world population?

Neglect and abuse can occur in families with one child and more money and resources than they know what to do with (think of parents who hire nannies to completely take care of their child rather than just supplement their own involvement).

I know of a family that had 13 children, several with disabilities (they were adopted) and I saw no signs of neglect or abuse even if the home they lived in wouldn't have graced any magazine cover except maybe Popular Mechanics and the family had to get up early in the morning to deliver papers to make ends meet, even the children as soon as they were old enough (and very proud they were of the fact).

It's not so much about family size---though it is a good idea to match size to resources----but about the ability of the parents to adjust.

Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

It is worthwhile to note that strict adherance to the doctrines and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in particular D&C 121) would eliminate child abuse and neglect. Showing disobedience to the law is not a good way to evaluate the benefit of the law.

[Calm]

I am not worried, I feel that most of this is still propaganda. The big issue here is greed and governments and wacko agendas from leftist environmentalists.

I think this earth can produce way more food then it can. Look at what we do in the US. We destroy corn and turn in into an inferior fuel for our cars. There is absolutely no reason to do this other than Government subsidies and Government restriction on drilling. This is but one example.

How much food is thrown away to meet government safety requirements (I think there should be some in place, but they've gone overboard)? How much food is thrown away because consumers don't like less attractive, perhaps slightly damaged, but still perfectly edible and nutritious food? How much land is devoted to crops that do not provide decent nutrition (do we really need that much sugar in our food....often yes because overprocessing takes out flavour plus we've been taught to expect it), including harmful products such as tobacco and illegal drugs or even alcohol (comparing the nutritional value of the food product before and after processing, how much goodness is flushed down the pipes)? Or land that is used to produce more financially attractive but less nutrient dense crops instead of more efficient sources of protein and such? And why do we cover good farming land with buildings and asphalt when there are lands that might not be so attractive but are just as capable of housing people?

It is more about getting the available food to those who need it than not having enough food to go around right now. Famines from what I've seen are more often a result of political problems these days than climatic as there are a good number of charitable people out there willing to give all the help needed, but that help is then used not to aid those who need it, but to further the corrupt schemes of wicked and selfish men.

I will begin to be concerned about limits of food production when I begin to see that what we have is actually being used effectively...and there are still problems.

Edited August 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[katherine the great]

I think that as long as a couple can provide the basic necessities for their children that it really is no one else's business how they choose to "multiply and replenish the earth." When people continue to have children they can not afford and/or neglect or abuse the one's they have, then it becomes society's business.

[KevinG]

Upon a re-read of the title the thought occured to me. With a prospective Doctor, Veteranarian, Journalist, Lawyer, Forester, Horticulturalist and Princess in my family, I suspect a large family on our part will help serve the growing population of the earth quite well.

Not sure about the princess thing, but she's likely to find a more practical career when she gets older.

[cinepro]

What are your thoughts on family size, treatment of children & world population?

I know what you're saying, HeatherAnn. It seems every day the world is getting smaller (by far). Bursting at the seams, what can we do? Zero population is the answer. Without it the rest of us are doomed!

Who can survive? Not one of us will be alive. Who can be strong when every inch is gone?

Not only that.

Every day the food supply is shrinking away. With starvation at our door what can we do?

Licensing of children is the answer - without it, the rest of us are through!

Though this family makes me think there might be hope:

http://abcnews.go.com/watch/nightline/SH5584743/VD55107238/nightline-119-big-family

Edited August 26, 2011 by cinepro

[KevinG]

Licensing of children is the answer. Without it, the rest of us are through!

Liscensing will just create a large pubic bureaucracy. A more viable solution was offered in this modest proposal.

[Deborah]

My son and wife have seven kids, and they are not abused or neglected. Often in large families the older siblings can take care of younger sibs and it all works together in harmony. The older sibs by the way love the little ones.

[KevinG]

My son and wife have seven kids, and they are not abused or neglected. Often in large families the older siblings can take care of younger sibs and it all works together in harmony. The older sibs by the way love the little ones.

Ours cried when we told them due to Mommy's health and because we felt it was time we would not be having any more babies after the 7th child. They are normal and have their moments, but by and large they are loving and supportive of each other.

Again- I think a better distinction than large vs. small is wanted vs. unwanted.

[Maidservant]

By the way, marriage IS the licensing of children, in God's plan. Ha ha.

Anyway . . . to the OP

I took a class last semester, the point of which was the go into detail about the downside of capitalism all over the world . . . and solutions of how to get rid of it and/or deal with it as it is for a little more wisdom and compassion. You would think a text book for a class like this would favor a zero population theory or some shade of it, especially in terms of having enough food for everyone, but the book actually took some pains to debunk that as a solution myth basically on the basis and there simply was no correlation of the total population of the earth and the negative environmental, economic, and other types of social phenomena there are. In other words, you can't blame the mother who is having her 8th child for the factory who won't put filters in their smoke stacks. Also in other words, the earth has capacity, but capitalism denies that capacity . . . not the number of people per se.

On the other hand, when you educate women and give them agency and knowledge, then family size normally reduces "naturally". When you help people go into an economic system that doesn't benefit from large families (ie from agriculture to professional--neither better or worse, just different?), then family size normally reduces "naturally".

What you have "left" on all this are . . . Mormon women and other persons not Mormon who deliberately choose large families for philosophical (faith) and joy reasons. And these types of people are generally educated and financially stable, relatively speaking, and care for their children. Abuse and neglect does not come from large families. It comes from human beings (parents) who are willing to abuse and neglect, and this can happen at any number of children, you know that. On the other hand, there are lots of benefits to having a community of siblings (regardless of relationships to parents).

If you personally are against large families for whatever reason . . . . fine. But it simply is not received wisdom or academically viable any more to discuss lower population or lower family size as a "solution" for any ill on earth.

My personal opinion is that our world needs more minds and hearts to come to solve our problems (children) . . . the more, the better.

[CV75]

What are your thoughts on family size, treatment of children & world population?

The Lord has set up a system to maximize these blessings for everyone if each would respond to the Light of Christ that they are given, even in a fallen world.

[LeSellers]

When people continue to have children they can not afford and/or neglect or abuse the one's they have, then it becomes society's business.

Why?

Lehi

[Calm]

Why?

Lehi

Because children are not possessions for parents to do whatever they want with....

[KevinG]

The state stepping in is a very tricky business. Who is the final authority in how children should be raised? If I did a great job providing for my children and because of a layoff and economic disaster lose my savings, retirement and have to be on public assistance (my current situation - hopefully very temporary) does that then authorize the state to be more intrusive?

The foster system can and has been just as damaging to children as their own family.

The amount of influence the state has on a family should never be based on economics or family size.

[LeSellers]

Because children are not possessions for parents to do whatever they want with....

Who decides what constitutes sufficient reason for it to become "society's business"?

What will protect a family from arbitrary interference from "society"?

What's the difference between "society" and "busybodies"?

Lehi

Edited August 26, 2011 by LeSellers

[Calm]

The state stepping in is a very tricky business. Who is the final authority in how children should be raised? If I did a great job providing for my children and because of a layoff and economic disaster lose my savings, retirement and have to be on public assistance (my current situation - hopefully very temporary) does that then authorize the state to be more intrusive?

The foster system can and has been just as damaging to children as their own family.

The amount of influence the state has on a family should never be based on economics or family size.

Where the family is basically functioning healthy prior to a crisis, I think the only business of the state should be in asking how they can help., not telling the family how they are going to help them whether they want it or not.

Deciding what is healthy and what isn't is more problematic, it needs to be some sort of consensus rather than specialized group deciding, yet input from those familiar with the issues involved and what have been good solutions for those in trouble (as opposed to those in need, ie. the healthy but in crisis family) is also needed.

Edited August 26, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Who decides what constitutes sufficient reason for it to become "society's business"?

What will protect a family from arbitrary interference from "society"?

What's the difference between "society" and "busybodies"?

Lehi

Lehi you are correct. Who can forget the news clips of the Baptist buses pulling into the fundamentalist neighborhoods in texas and the authorities loading hundreds of children on and hauling them away. Slippery slope indeed.

[HeatherAnn]

Thanks for the replies.

Cinepro - I starting reading your reply all serious & then couldn't stop laughing & the serious reply is priceless!

That family with 18 children is interesting.

As mentioned, older children help with the younger children.

That's having kids raise kids... And both are losing out because the older one's aren't ready to be parents, & they aren't supposed to be until they are married with their own children.

An oldest of a family of 9 was frustrated because his parents never asked him if he wanted more kids, yet they demanded he tend them.

I realize abuse & neglect does not only happen in large families - but having a large family was a statistically significant influential factor.

I agree with Calmoriah, that children are not possessions, nor tropheys etc.

They are unique individuals with unique needs - safety, physically (diet, sports), emotionally, financially, educationally...

... and unique developmental needs... as Erickson explained... & if these needs go met, their development in related aspects is stunted.

http://www.usefulcha...evelopment.html

I do not see how even the most psychologically functional parent could tend to the needs of many children without the help of someone - like the older children or a nanny.

And why have children if you're going to push your responsibility of them off on someone else, or just let your children go without?

BTW - Sorry about that other (deleted now) link - I didn't realize it had a reference link to an inappropriate site. I had just googled "pictures of crowded places" & it had some interesting pictures of crowded places worldwide, so I posted it.

Oh... & Maidservant, you brought up a good point - about education... So important!

I've also read that as people are more educated, they tend to have less children.

Having children is a joy! Still, all things in wisdom (not to mention spirit mixed with good ol' common sense).

Edited August 26, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[LeSellers]

The foster system can and has been just as damaging to children as their own family.

Indeed. The rate of serious injury among foster children is very much greater than that in families, even in dysfunctional families.

The amount of influence the state has on a family should never be based on economics or family size.

Why not? We have the Veep's word on the matter: he doesn't second guess China's one-child law, complete with compelled abortion and sterilizations. It must work for them.

Lehi

[Deborah]

That's having kids raise kids... And both are losing out because the older one's aren't ready to be parents, & they aren't supposed to be until they are married with their own children.

Not necessarily, unless the parents abuse the situation. Otherwise it's just part of helping one another and being part of a family.

[HeatherAnn]

Why not? We have the Veep's word on the matter: he doesn't second guess China's one-child law, complete with compelled abortion and sterilizations. It must work for them.

Lehi

I can't imagine a child-limit being legally enforced in the US... nor many other countries.

I think the key to naturally having families of cared for children is education...

Planning ahead - based on:

-Health of Marriage

-Health (Physical & Psychological health) of both parents

-Finances

-Self-awareness in realizing what one can handle

-Considering what it takes to raise a child - from birth to college

-Parenting strategies - (My favorite is the "Love & Logic" method)