Large Families, Care Of Children & World Population

[ERayR]

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.

It is not kids raising kids. It is families being families. Learning to care for each other and learning how to be parents. Its not as if the parents assigned them a couple of kids and then abandoned them.

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

Having a large family was not a significan influential factor. It was the number of unwanted children and that has nothing to do with family size.

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

Again family size has nothing to do with meeting these needs.

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?

Not to be snarky but please do not judge the abilities of others by your own limitations. I am intimately aquanted whith the mother of 12 children. Not one of them feels they went without direction or love. A hug when it was needed or a swat on the butt when it was needed. They learned to share treats and chores. And not one of them feels unloved. And she is a psychologically functioning grandmother and great grandmother.

In case you think she is a rarity let me assure you that she is not at least not in my wide range of aquaintances.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 interested pictures 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 ERayR

[Kenngo1969]

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.

I agree with everything you just said except the "lawyer" part. I think you should encourage the aspiring lawyer to go into medicine, veterinary medicine, journalism, forestry, horticulture ... or royalty! (Whoa, I just noticed the new "tribal" emoticon; I think that's so kewel that I've just got to work it into a post somehow! )

[ldsfaqs]

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...

Yes, we are taught to multiply and replenish, and do so prayerfully......

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 think you are conflating two different issues. Neglect and abuse occurs in small families, likely more than large family's because large family's generally are prepared for it.

Thus, just because you experienced abuse and neglect in a large family, that doesn't translate into large family's being bad.

It's the PARENTS..... whether they are good or bad. Some parents can't even handle one kid. They don't have the skills.

Large or small, makes no difference. It all depends on the skill set of the parents. I see parents all the time, no matter the number of kids, and I just shake my head. They don't know basic firmness and training skills with children, and thus they wonder why they have a difficult time with their children, the ones that are active anyway, which is generally most.

Anyway, you are wrongly conflating two different issues. Parenting skills are the issue, not the size of the family.

[katherine the great]

Why?

Lehi

Because if my neighbor is beating or starving his child I WILL report him to social services or intervene in anyway possible. I care for children--not for irresponsible and uncaring adults. If that makes me a busybody in your eyes I don't care.

Edited August 26, 2011 by katherine the great

[KevinG]

The study cited in the OP concluded that abuse and neglect were more prevelant in families with 3 or more unplanned pregnancies than they were in families with 2 or less unplanned pregnancies.

The results cannot be generalized to large families with planned pregnancies.

I suspect there were other contributing factors among persons who could not figure out what was going on by their third unplanned pregnancy.

[KevinG]

Because if my neighbor is beating or starving his child I WILL report him to social services or intervene in anyway possible. I care for children--not for irresponsible and uncaring adults. If that makes me a busybody in your eyes I don't care.

That is clear criminal behavior on the part of a parent. I suspect Lehi or I wouldn't argue with your actions in such a case. However- the state has not proven their ability to protect children any more effectively than families in most cases. In fact states struggle to qualify and provide good foster care for abused children.

The only lasting answer is giving families the skills to care for themselves independently.

Edited August 26, 2011 by DaddyG

[Mudcat]

As long as you raise them up right, you can have as many kids as you want. Families should have a communal nature to a point.

I imagine it was easier when the society was more based upon agriculture. At that point more kids also meant more help, more production and so forth.

IMO, society in general (in the USA) has increasingly deprived the need for kids to actually be responsible for anything. We are supposed to teach them how to be adults and part of this is reponsibility.

HeatherAnn, my advice would be that if you feel inclined to pack lunch for a 12 year old on a school day, then don't have any more than two.

If you think you can stomach teaching a 7 year old how to separate lights from darks and fold clothes to boot.. well, have as many as God blesses you with.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Mudcat

[KevinG]

If you think you can stomach teaching a 7 year old how to separate lights from darks and fold clothes to boot.. well, have as many as God blesses you with.

OK now you are just peddling a fantasy. Kids doing their laundry. Like that would ever happen.

Well maybe a 7 year old but by the time they were 14 that skill set would be lost.

[katherine the great]

That is clear criminal behavior on the part of a parent. I suspect Lehi or I wouldn't argue with your actions in such a case.

Lehi doesn't believe in any compulsory social programs period. I've grudgingly come to respect Lehi as a person but I still disagree with his politics.

[Kemara]

I think this earth can produce way more food then it can.

Easily. The earths capacity for food production is massive, more so than most people would believe. The earth could produce a significant excess to the needs of every single inhabitant on the planet, and you know what, it could be done easily while utilizing less resources (water, land) than is currently used. I am not talking about everyone being on a diet of rice and cabbage, we could have all the current foods, they could be far more nutritious (not that this is a big ask considering how devoid most food is of nutritional value), they could be grown with less expense and without toxins. Easily.

[KevinG]

Lehi doesn't believe in any compulsory social programs period. I've grudgingly come to respect Lehi as a person but I still disagree with his politics.

Shhhhh don't use the P word. They will shut us down!

Having been on both sides of the private sector/government line my opinions have tempered somewhat over the last few years. I have a greater respect for what public service employees do, but somewhat paradoxically I am more wary of trying to substitute family and community with government.

I'm guessing if we weren't talking hypotheticals we'd probably react to abuse situations very similarly. Although the last time I called the police on someone dealing drugs out of their home with small children present I was told they couldn't do anything without a warrant. We moved to a new address far away from the dealer who threatened us with a gun for calling the cops. Three years later after the children were found to be sexually abused by the dealers business partners the other neighbors finally convinced the police to do something about it.

The law is no substitute for righteous individual behavior. Too little power and they are impotent. Too much power and they can be oppressive.

OK I'm climbing down from the soapbox now.

[katherine the great]

Shhhhh don't use the P word. They will shut us down!

The law is no substitute for righteous individual behavior. Too little power and they are impotent. Too much power and they can be oppressive.

OK I'm climbing down from the soapbox now.

Okay. I don't agree with many of Lehi's objections to "societal interference" in people's lives. (How's that?). I'm pretty practical in recognizing that people's propensity to "do the wrong thing" is frequent enough in our society to warrant intervention--especially when helpless children need to be protected against abusive, often drug addicted adults. Oh, and I completely agree with you about righteous behvior. Wouldn't the world be a little bit of paradise?

[BCSpace]

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

From a personal perspective, I think large families are the best. I grew up in one. I have one. I hear others including my own children state they would prefer a smaller family and I think how sad that is; it's like someone is missing when I contemplate it. I think we have a better time together and more support than smaller families.

From an economic perspective, families that are good families, not dysfunctional beyond the norm, and endowed with strong moral values (such as LDS), are not a drain on society. They tend to produce productive tax paying citizens beyond the average imho. So much the better when they are large to help counteract the products of dysfunctional or failed families.

[BCSpace]

Because if my neighbor is beating or starving his child I WILL report him to social services or intervene in anyway possible. I care for children--not for irresponsible and uncaring adults. If that makes me a busybody in your eyes I don't care.

One of my 4-5 year old kids got muddy from head to toe so I had him out in the yard and was hosing him off. He was not being cooperative, not listeing to reason, and was screaming and crying so I had to hold him still while doing it. The neighbor lady saw it and threatened to report me to social services. I responded by saying I would defend against such an unreasonable action with firearms and I would know where such a report came from. Nary a peep from that quarter forever more.

So yes, I have firsthand experience with unjustified threats involving social services and I'm quite sure it punishes many innocent parents because many people don't really know what abuse is.

[Calm]

The only lasting answer is giving families the skills to care for themselves independently.

Yes.

[katherine the great]

One of my 4-5 year old kids got muddy from head to toe so I had him out in the yard and was hosing him off. He was not being cooperative, not listeing to reason, and was screaming and crying so I had to hold him still while doing it. The neighbor lady saw it and threatened to report me to social services. I responded by saying I would defend against such an unreasonable action with firearms and I would know where such a report came from. Nary a peep from that quarter forever more.

So yes, I have firsthand experience with unjustified threats involving social services and I'm quite sure it punishes many innocent parents because many people don't really know what abuse is.

Oh yes. That was definitely me.

[BCSpace]

Oh yes. That was definitely me.

Could've been I suppose. However my intent was simply to illustrate the problem.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not trying to turn this into a political thread or a discourse on the merits, or lack thereof, of Social Security. I'm just using this as an example. When Social Security was first instituted, the ratio of payors to beneficiaries was something like 13:1. Now it's more like 3:1 and still falling. A big reason why we're losing our social safety net is because nobody wants to have any kids. (Even if one disagrees with government programs the illustration still serves: the more children one has, the more resources one is likely to be able to call upon in one's advancing years. Frankly, the prospect of no one being there for me as I age scares the living snot out of me! )

Edited August 26, 2011 by Kenngo1969

[BCSpace]

I'm just using this as an example. When Social Security was first instituted, the ratio of payors to beneficiaries was something like 13:1. Now it's more like 3:1 and still falling. A big reason why we're losing our social safety net is because nobody wants to have any kids.

Yes. And similarly, China's one child policy appears to have resulted in a population with not enough females. On the flip side, local overpopulation has strained the availability of local resources in places like Africa and Bangladesh. But you can't escape politics if you want to accurately understand these issues even in light of LDS doctrine.

[Kenngo1969]

Yes. And similarly, China's one child policy appears to have resulted in a population with not enough females. On the flip side, local overpopulation has strained the availability of local resources in places like Africa and Bangladesh. But you can't escape politics if you want to accurately understand these issues even in light of LDS doctrine.

It's not my thread, but I explicitly stated I didn't want to turn it political. If you do that, I'm not responsible.

[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?

Because if my neighbor is beating or starving his child I WILL report him to social services or intervene in anyway possible. I care for children--not for irresponsible and uncaring adults. If that makes me a busybody in your eyes I don't care.

That's a fine answer to a totally different question than the one I asked. BTW, why do you need the state to intervene? If you really have the courage of your convictions, stop it yourself.

I asked why "[w]hen people continue to have children they can not [sic] afford ... it becomes society's [sic] business." It's the topic we're discussion (see the OP).

As the father of seven (fourteen when you count the children-in-law—and I always do) and grandfather of twenty-seven (and counting, thank the Lord), and one who believes the best calling in the Church is Nursery Leader, I believe it fair to say that there is no one on this planet who loves children more than I do. I do not condone, wink at, or tolerate child abuse in any form.

My point is this, and this only: it's no one's business, and certainly not the state's, how many children any married couple has. I'd extend that to how many children anyone has, as long as the state does not reward immorality by paying for the child's or his mother’s food, clothing, schooling, birth, or anything else. Of course, as soon as a parent accepts government "help", he puts himself in the position of being a ward of the state, and therefore, he becomes subject to its rules and strictures. So it is a small number, I suppose, who can truly exercise this liberty. (Just another reason for eschewing gctf-welfare schools—and probably marriage "licenses", since they make the state the third, and most powerful member of your newly formed family.)

Lehi

Edited August 26, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

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.

Of course it does. Adam was given dominion over the earth, and told to tend the garden, to take care of it.

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

...

What are your thoughts on ... world population?

Yes, it is relative. And it's all hype.

I'm not going to do the math here again, but it is quite possible (not "feasible", not "a great idea": "possible") to take all seven or nine billion people on the earth and put them in families of five; each family would have almost a half acre of land if they were all in the state of Texas. Give us California, Missouri, and Iowa, and we'd all have food. There would be roads, there would be sewers, electricity, running water (which most people do not have today). And, more importantly, from the "Save the Earth" crowd's perspective, there would be over 90% of the land surface of the earth left for "nature" (as if we're not part of it).

This whole "concern" is claptrap. Malthus and Ehrlich have been proven wrong time and time again.

Lehi

[CV75]

I asked why "[w]hen people continue to have children they can not [sic] afford ... it becomes society's [sic] business." It's the topic we're discussion (see the OP).

Society’s proper intervention is in rescuing children that are reasonably assessed as being in danger for any reason (in this case, the negative effects of poverty and its associated problems). “Society” of course starts with the family, then extended family, neighbors, neighborhoods, communities, and up the ladder of complexity and government structures. Pure religion and undefiled and the Church have a wonderful and practical answer to rescuing children from poverty, with the added blessing of individual inspiration balancing our responsibility to err on the side of caution while protecting freedom.

[subgenius]

.....

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

1. family size? to be determined by the family.

2. treatment of children? to be determined by the family, and regulated by their proximity to a community.

3. world population? this seems to be an abstract concept especially since it can never be known and is never static. However, like foxes and rabbits, it is regulated by the world itself. It is not the quantity of people that will have the impact, but rather the quality of people.

[LeSellers]

Society’s proper intervention is in rescuing children that are reasonably assessed as being in danger for any reason (in this case, the negative effects of poverty and its associated problems).

So I return to an earlier question: Who determines what is "reasonable"?

“Society” of course starts with the family, then extended family, neighbors, neighborhoods, communities, and up the ladder of complexity and government structures.

So, where does the family fit in here? After all, the first recourse seems always to be "call social services".

our responsibility [is] to err on the side of caution while protecting freedom.

Who pays for it when "society" does err and freedom is trampled on the way to the buses? (Hint: it's not "society".)

Lehi

Edited August 26, 2011 by LeSellers