Large Families, Care Of Children & World Population

[Calm]

Ditto! The large families I have seen have consisted of loving, happy children. I think that sometimes too much attention from parents, say for an only child, can also be detrimental to someone. It depends on the people.

And often in large families, the parents learn greater discipline and do not take on so many burdens outside the house so that they actually spend more time with the children and are better aware of what is going on with them from what I've seen.

Again it's about parenting style and choices, not size of the family.

[katherine the great]

All of the above is, to be very, very generous, unrelieved nonsense. This is the Ehrlichian fantasy that was debunked decades ago by serious economists and social philosophers. Much of the developed western world is facing, within a few decades, a cataclysmic economic collapse precipitated by the "birth dearth" that began in the early seventies and has produced utterly unsustainable demographic conditions relative to those working to provide benefits to the elderly, and the vast concourses of the elderly who depend on various tax funded social services for their support (families and the responsibilities of the young to take care of their elders in old age having been, for all intents, destroyed by the relentless hedonistic materialism of the post WWII age and the welfare state) and for whom those benefits will not be possible in the very near future. The numbers are clear, both for the United States but especially those countries who are not replacing themselves in a sustainable manner, the U.K., western Europe, Japan, and some other countries. Tiny groups of wealth producing workers cannot provide social services for ever expanding seas of elderly people without dire consequences, and vast seas of non-productive citizens supported by an ever shrinking base of the productive (many western European nations, and the U.K., have long been below replacement) is not viable. Not having children on a mass scale is nothing more or less than an assault on the future itself.

The end of ZPG is poverty, broad, deep, and inveterate, throughout the world. The only real answer people like you can provide to the stark world of want and economic blight a world of aging and infirm people supported by a tiny demographic of young wealth creators, is really something on the order of Logan's Run.

You obviously aren't familiar with Saturday's Warrior song: Zero Population. He was "tongue in cheek" quoting it.

[Calm]

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.

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.

In my experiences with large families, I've realized an ignor-ance of what some of the children are experiencing.

The parents are too busy to see it, or maybe they just don't want to.

Yet, often times it's the subtle neglect that goes without notice but is most harmful. (IE: Babies in orphanage were fed & changed, but rarely touched & died from lack of affection).

I have now gone again through all your posts in this thread and while seeing your claim that large families create situations where abuse and neglect is more likely to occur several times (see above), I have yet find any public recognition of the fact that the study you linked to did not actually support your claim, but rather was a study dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Unless you can substantiate in some fashion that every large family is includes 3 or more unplanned pregnancies then the study posted is irrelevant to your claim.

There may be other studies out there that support your claim, but this is not one of them.

Are you ever going to publicly concede this point?

[ERayR]

Ditto! The large families I have seen have consisted of loving, happy children. I think that sometimes too much attention from parents, say for an only child, can also be detrimental to someone. It depends on the people.

I agree but I would not say it reaches the level of abuse. Abuse is fast becoming a watered down catch all for anything that makes someone unhappy. Words have meaning and when we water them down we do not help the victims at all.

[Calm]

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.

So you must be against having older students mentor younger ones in our school systems as that's having kids teach kids and both are losing out because the older ones aren't ready to be teachers yet according to your logic.

OTOH, the actual evidence is that children grow in multiple ways when given some form of responsibility in helping younger ones:

http://gideonlearning.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/literary-skills-improve-through-reading-together/

"Kids raising kids"...I would agree that is a bad thing, but since when is older children helping with younger ones under the supervision of their parents "kids raising kids".

I guess I will have to tell my mother how abusive she was to us because she asked us older kids to babysit and help with homework on occasion the younger ones because she had the idea that this would help prepare us to be better parents in the long run on top of helping us learn to care for and about others. One of my younger sister's teachers asked specifically for me to be the one doing the extra tutoring she needed for speech and reading rather than my mother because the teacher said it would be more effective to have someone who was more of a peer coaching her than a parent, but I guess that teacher was wrong even if she was judged the best teacher in the entire school and an expert in teaching language skills.

[Questing Beast]

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

A command that I have joyfully fulfilled to the extreme. We have nine children.

...

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

Depending on where you live, and when, the size of families is limited by resources. In the U.S. of A. we have been privileged to raise large families. The land abounds with plenty and opportunity. The over-population elsewhere in the world is not affected even a skosh by the size of American families. Putting guilt trips on people in the United States, because of poverty in other places, is both ill-informed and narrow-minded, IMHO. That said, there are plenty of families in the U.S. of A. that are too large, because the parents either cannot care for them properly, or did not want that many children to begin with. Families should only have as many children in them as the parents can love and nurture....

[Loran Blood]

A command that I have joyfully fulfilled to the extreme. We have nine children.

Depending on where you live, and when, the size of families is limited by resources. In the U.S. of A. we have been privileged to raise large families. The land abounds with plenty and opportunity. The over-population elsewhere in the world is not affected even a skosh by the size of American families. Putting guilt trips on people in the United States, because of poverty in other places, is both ill-informed and narrow-minded, IMHO. That said, there are plenty of families in the U.S. of A. that are too large, because the parents either cannot care for them properly, or did not want that many children to begin with. Families should only have as many children in them as the parents can love and nurture....

Then, according to some around here, this is something you should be interested in, if you wish to be thought of as "socially conscisous."

[Loran Blood]

You obviously aren't familiar with Saturday's Warrior song: Zero Population. He was "tongue in cheek" quoting it.

No he wasn't, he was responding to the question Heatherann asked in her OP:

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

He never referenced her mention of the song, which she briefly passed over as a kind of free association, I think. He was responding to her OP question. I did, if fact, see Saturday's Warrior in San Diego. I have virtually no recollection of it at all.

[katherine the great]

No he wasn't, he was responding to the question Heatherann asked in her OP:

My goodness. His post was word for word quoting the lyrics from that song. He was either being funny or it was the biggest coincidence I've ever seen.

[Analytics]

All of the above is, to be very, very generous, unrelieved nonsense. This is the Ehrlichian fantasy that was debunked decades ago by serious economists and social philosophers. Much of the developed western world is facing, within a few decades, a cataclysmic economic collapse precipitated by the "birth dearth" that began in the early seventies and has produced utterly unsustainable demographic conditions relative to those working to provide benefits to the elderly, and the vast concourses of the elderly who depend on various tax funded social services for their support (families and the responsibilities of the young to take care of their elders in old age having been, for all intents, destroyed by the relentless hedonistic materialism of the post WWII age and the welfare state) and for whom those benefits will not be possible in the very near future. The numbers are clear, both for the United States but especially those countries who are not replacing themselves in a sustainable manner, the U.K., western Europe, Japan, and some other countries. Tiny groups of wealth producing workers cannot provide social services for ever expanding seas of elderly people without dire consequences, and vast seas of non-productive citizens supported by an ever shrinking base of the productive (many western European nations, and the U.K., have long been below replacement) is not viable. Not having children on a mass scale is nothing more or less than an assault on the future itself.

The end of ZPG is poverty, broad, deep, and inveterate, throughout the world. The only real answer people like you can provide to the stark world of want and economic blight a world of aging and infirm people supported by a tiny demographic of young wealth creators, is really something on the order of Logan's Run.

The irony in your post is rich.

What has really been going on is this: humanity faces a dilemma: on the one hand, we could continue to grow our population size exponentially. If we continued to grow exponentially, sooner or later we would get to the point that the human species is severely out of balance with the ecosystem, and massive, cataclysmic death would result. (If you dispute this point, please read it again, paying particular attention to the words in bold. If you still dispute it, watch this 8-part video:

)

On the other hand, we could choose to have fewer kids so that in aggregate the population reaches a steady state where as a species everybody has their basic physical needs met, and we live in equilibrium with the ecosystem. This option leads to a world where there are lots of retired people per worker, resulting in a lot of productivity by the working generation going to support the retired generations.

Both of those options result in pain. The question is, which pain is worse? It should be obvious that living in equilibrium with our natural world is less bad than growing exponentially until the resources are exhausted. For example, China will soon be facing some serious economic issues with their one-child-per-woman policy. There will be a lot of old people without larger subsequent generations to take care of them. That will be difficult. However, unfettered growth would lead to 2 billion Chinese in 2050, 4 billion in 2100, 8 billion in 2150, 16 billion in 2200, etc. Surely, that can't go on forever. So do we stop it by choice, or wait into something devastating stops it?

Yes, the prophesy in population bomb isn’t materializing. We should be celebrating this fact, not lamenting it.

[William James]

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?

This is an important issue. My view is that the issue of whether the world is or will become "overpopulated" depends in large part on how we manage our resources and our environment. As a lay person, I am of the opinion that the Earth could support many more billions of people than we have now, PROVIDED THAT WE PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH APPROPRIATE PLANNING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS. We learn in LDS theology that God did not only command Adam and Eve to multiply, but that they were also to take good care of the Earth. I am not someone who is terribly concerned that we must accelerate population growth in order to bring down as many anxious spirit children as possible, either generally, or in specific concern about the end of the world. In the end, I believe population will naturally regulate itself to an optimal level if we have the right policies, which include, among other things: (1) making sure that everyone has access to safe and affordable birth control; (2) not providing overly generous economic incentives for having large families; (3) considering it a public good to research and implement technologies which enable greater environmental sustainability and compatibility with larger human populations; and (4) heavily regulating environmental impacts of human activity to preserve, enhance, and optimize the utility of pristine areas, clean air and water, diverse species, forests, etc. I do not believe in mandatory abortions to control population, but there could conceivably be a point where society would be at least justified in creating some kind of sanction for a person's negligent or intentional failure to reasonably use birth control. That's all theoretical at this point.

[Calm]

not providing overly generous economic incentives for having large families

Am wondering if this is something you think is happening nowadays.

Cost of raising a child until they are 18 (and in my experience financial expenses do not stop at that age:

$226,920 (for the lower income families, for higher income it can go up to almost half a million...of course, that is by their choice), this means yearly a cost of about 7500, not sure if that is with or without the tax exemption.

***using my husband's new computer which does not show the address for me to cut and paste here, you can search the title:

Cost to Raise 2010 U.S. Newborn is $226,920 and then use one of the online calculators for the range of costs.

The typical two-parent family spent from $11,880 to $13,830 on each child, the study found. Households that make less spend less, USDA researchers said. A family earning less than $57,600 a year is likely to spend $163,440 in 2010 dollars to rear a child, while parents earning more than $99,730 may pay $377,040, according to the study.

I highly doubt considering the big gap between costs and incentives that such are any influence on family size these days...positive influence at least.

So just how much money is the government using as incentives for large families these days? I've read one claim that back around 1950 the government incentive was equivalent to $10,000 a year in comparison to what is given these days of $3,500.

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Tax Deductions.

Edited August 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

calmoriah:

Tax Deductions.

Yep tax deductions all $ 3,650.00 plus $1,000.00 in tax credits. A total of $4,650.00 per child. What was that annualized cost to raise a child, $7,500.00. Do the math.

[LeSellers]

Yep tax deductions all $ 3,650.00 plus $1,000.00 in tax credits. A total of $4,650.00 per child. What was that annualized cost to raise a child, $7,500.00. Do the math.

Indeed, do the math.

A tax "deduction" is not at all the same thing as a tax "credit". A credit is, dollar-for-dollar, something you can put in your pocket. A deduction is not. It is a reduction in the amount on which you pay taxes, variously from 0% (which nearly half of families "pay") to ~40% (depending on your tax bracket), or from 0¢ to ~40¢ or, for the current deduction $3,650, from $0 to ~$1,460. Added to the credit, the maximum value of a child, in the eyes of the government is $2,650.

The "cost to raise a child" is a ludicrous sum. It assume too many trivial expense, too many great ones, and far too many of both. It does not take into account, for instance, the fact that Child B often wears clothing Child A has outgrown, nor that there is less wasted food in a family of five than in a family of one child (per capita).

Lehi

[Kenngo1969]

... I think that sometimes too much attention from parents, say for an only child, can also be detrimental to someone ... (Emphasis mine).

Like, say, turning him or her into a narcissist?

[HeatherAnn]

You obviously aren't familiar with Saturday's Warrior song: Zero Population. He was "tongue in cheek" quoting it.

Yeah, I laughed when he quoted that song, but laughed even harder when others took it seriously.

[HeatherAnn]

The irony in your post is rich.

What has really been going on is this: humanity faces a dilemma: on the one hand, we could continue to grow our population size exponentially. If we continued to grow exponentially, sooner or later we would get to the point that the human species is severely out of balance with the ecosystem, and massive, cataclysmic death would result. (If you dispute this point, please read it again, paying particular attention to the words in bold. If you still dispute it, watch this 8-part video:

)

On the other hand, we could choose to have fewer kids so that in aggregate the population reaches a steady state where as a species everybody has their basic physical needs met, and we live in equilibrium with the ecosystem. This option leads to a world where there are lots of retired people per worker, resulting in a lot of productivity by the working generation going to support the retired generations.

Both of those options result in pain. The question is, which pain is worse? It should be obvious that living in equilibrium with our natural world is less bad than growing exponentially until the resources are exhausted. For example, China will soon be facing some serious economic issues with their one-child-per-woman policy. There will be a lot of old people without larger subsequent generations to take care of them. That will be difficult. However, unfettered growth would lead to 2 billion Chinese in 2050, 4 billion in 2100, 8 billion in 2150, 16 billion in 2200, etc. Surely, that can't go on forever. So do we stop it by choice, or wait into something devastating stops it?

Yes, the prophesy in population bomb isn’t materializing. We should be celebrating this fact, not lamenting it.

Thanks you for sharing this & your well- balanced perspective.

[HeatherAnn]

This is an important issue. My view is that the issue of whether the world is or will become "overpopulated" depends in large part on how we manage our resources and our environment. As a lay person, I am of the opinion that the Earth could support many more billions of people than we have now, PROVIDED THAT WE PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH APPROPRIATE PLANNING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS. We learn in LDS theology that God did not only command Adam and Eve to multiply, but that they were also to take good care of the Earth. I am not someone who is terribly concerned that we must accelerate population growth in order to bring down as many anxious spirit children as possible, either generally, or in specific concern about the end of the world. In the end, I believe population will naturally regulate itself to an optimal level if we have the right policies, which include, among other things: (1) making sure that everyone has access to safe and affordable birth control; (2) not providing overly generous economic incentives for having large families; (3) considering it a public good to research and implement technologies which enable greater environmental sustainability and compatibility with larger human populations; and (4) heavily regulating environmental impacts of human activity to preserve, enhance, and optimize the utility of pristine areas, clean air and water, diverse species, forests, etc. I do not believe in mandatory abortions to control population, but there could conceivably be a point where society would be at least justified in creating some kind of sanction for a person's negligent or intentional failure to reasonably use birth control. That's all theoretical at this point.

Interesting points, William. Thanks for sharing different considerations.

About "providing overly generous economic incentives for having large families..."

Some recipients of welfare have increased their income by having more children, yet not all, especially with the welfare cap in some areas...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/welfare/stories/wf033097.htm

I really think parents (of all economic levels) need to be educated about what it takes to raise a child.

For a while, the church leadership really encouraged large families.

I've been amazed by some parents' references to their children... like, "After you have 3, it's just another number, but same chaos."

And I've seem adult siblings seem to have contests on how many children they can have in as little time.

Mothers' bodies take time to recover from having children. If she becomes pregnant too soon, her body is not at it's best for providing the nurturing of another human life.

Also ideally, babies benefit most from being nursed for a year. Yet if the mother becomes pregnant again within that year, she must stop nursing - neglecting the need of the previous child.

It seems obvious, but this article explains how children in large families have less of everything.

http://gomestic.com/family/children-of-large-families-have-less-of-everything/

[wenglund]

I have lived long enough to notice that concerns about over-population tend to coincide with hard economic times. And, while this makes some sense to me, I am not sure it is justified or wise. Why? Because the strneght and strengthening of an economy is, in part, tied to increased population.

However, what interests me most about this cyclical issue is how it has at times caused something of a reverse polarization. Some people who had been adamant about keeping the government away from a woman's right to make choices over her body when it comes to aborting children, may become eager to impose governmental control over a woman's choice over her body in having children. Fascinating.

Also, the survival of some governmental programs like social security are based on the expectation of continued increased population and expanding tax base, and these programs are experiencing significant challenges because of stagnant or decreased population, or at least stagnant or decreased paying population--which challenges have also placed an enormous strain on the economy. In short, some people who once advocated for an increased nanny state on the one hand, may on the other hand now be inadvertently undermining their nanny government by advocating for population control.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

I have lived long enough to notice that concerns about over-population tend to coincide with hard economic times. And, while this makes some sense to me, I am not sure it is justified or wise. Why? Because the strneght and strengthening of an economy is, in part, tied to increased population.

I heartily endorse The Birth Dearth, by Ben Wattenberg. My copy is well-worn.

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

The irony in your post is rich.

Why?

What has really been going on is this: humanity faces a dilemma: on the one hand, we could continue to grow our population size exponentially. If we continued to grow exponentially, sooner or later we would get to the point that the human species is severely out of balance with the ecosystem, and massive, cataclysmic death would result.

1. There is no scientific basis for the concept of "carrying capacity" as the environmental movement uses the term. In whatever manner and in whatever sense it exists, its quantitative and practical attributes are unknown.

2. The concept of the human species being "out of balance" with the ecosystem is, as well, is not a scientific but a philosophical conception. Its unintelligible in a scientific sense unless you can provide some rather precise quantifications of the conditions and dynamics involved in the human species actually reaching the point at which this conjectural condition would be applicable. Obviously, at some point, there would be, theoretically, simply too many people on earth for the planet to support. The problem is showing that this idea could ever actually be reached in the real world.

On the other hand, we could choose to have fewer kids so that in aggregate the population reaches a steady state where as a species everybody has their basic physical needs met, and we live in equilibrium with the ecosystem.

1. This has already long been happening within any and every country that follows a free market, rule of law based body of principles leading to general prosperity and economic growth. People naturally and, empirically speaking, apparently always choose to have less children when it becomes appropriate and viable to do so. There doesn't seem to be any historical exception that I'm aware of. The answer to too many children is affluence. I'm not holding this up as a gospel principle, but only pointing out that everyone, from most Mormons to people in Third World countries that begin experiencing real economic growth and improvement in living standards and life expectancy move away from very large families.

2. Again, the idea of "equilibrium with the ecosystem" is part of an ideology, and has no quantifiable scientific ground.

This option leads to a world where there are lots of retired people per worker, resulting in a lot of productivity by the working generation going to support the retired generations.

Now you're agreeing with me. Good!

There will be a lot of old people without larger subsequent generations to take care of them. That will be difficult. However, unfettered growth would lead to 2 billion Chinese in 2050, 4 billion in 2100, 8 billion in 2150, 16 billion in 2200, etc.

The effects of which neither you or anyone else has any idea regarding, and to the point, you are making the same fundamental mistake made first by Malthus and then by many later theorists (such as Ehrlich) in simply extrapolating and projecting present trends into the future mathematically without any ability to actually foresee future economic and technological conditions (or the bends and rocky roads of history).

Yes, the prophesy in population bomb isn’t materializing. We should be celebrating this fact, not lamenting it.

I am.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Loran Blood

[WalkerW]

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 haven't read the thread, only this OP. I find it ironic that you mention this song considering I just looked at it yesterday on YouTube. I had forgotten that this was the subject matter. I have opinions similar to science writer Matt Ridley in his book The Rational Optimist or George Mason economist Bryan Caplan: the more people, the more minds to mingle and innovate. As the population has dramatically increased over the past century, the living standards worldwide have increased. Increased population, in my view, is a good thing.

[WalkerW]

[Loran Blood]

I really think parents (of all economic levels) need to be educated about what it takes to raise a child.

Why, by whom, and according to what assumptions, theory, worldview?

For a while, the church leadership really encouraged large families.

Do you understand the concept of the "plan of salvation" as taught in LDS doctrine, and what the core, fundamental purposes of marriage, family, and parenting is?

I've been amazed by some parents' references to their children... like, "After you have 3, it's just another number, but same chaos."

And I've seem adult siblings seem to have contests on how many children they can have in as little time.

Mothers' bodies take time to recover from having children. If she becomes pregnant too soon, her body is not at it's best for providing the nurturing of another human life.

The vast majority of us already know, and have long known, all of this.

It seems obvious, but this article explains how children in large families have less of everything.

Sorry, but a number of us have more in mind for this life than being Bobo's in paradise. The typical yuppie or Gen-X two earner family with their one child upon whom is lavished all the comforts and privileges of modern, materialist affluence has proved a dismal and civilizationally disruptive model, overall. I am also not persuaded by clever rationalizations that attempt to hide the desire to have less children so that young, affluent, materialistic moderns can enjoy more of the good things in life for themselves while circumventing the sacrifices of child rearing under the guise of concern for what multiple children in larger families "get." (as if this is actually known qualitatively across a broad spectrum of the population).

Its high time this was abandoned for the truths of the gospel.