Large Families, Care Of Children & World Population

[webbles]

Yet if the mother becomes pregnant again within that year, she must stop nursing - neglecting the need of the previous child.

This is an inaccurate statement. Check out the term "Tandem Nursing". Women are capable of nursing a child at the same time of being pregnant and after. Yes, some children ween because of the change in milk and some women feel a lot of pain nursing while pregnant (thus, weening the child), but for the majority, it is possible and does happen. The only thing that the mother needs to be careful about is getting enough nutrients to feed both the children.

[WalkerW]

I also find that deteriorating families are more at the heart of the problem than large families.

[Calm]

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

And the best way I've seen to have this done is to have them help care for children as they grow up.

[Calm]

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

http://gomestic.com/...-of-everything/

Without as far as I can see any documentation (lots of "it is said" which is hardly evidence) I can see save reference to a study that isn't actually identified so anyone can check his conclusions.

"Less of everything" is not inherently a bad thing, it is just fine as long as it is also "enough of everything".

And you still continue to ignore being called on using one of your original sources incorrectly, not surprising as you have to in order to continue to maintain your position.

[ERayR]

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.

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

You were asked for examples of abuse coming from large families and this is what you come up with. The child is abused because (s)he isn't nursed for a year. Are you really serious? Come on a lot of mothers don't nurse at all and not just mothers of large families. Will you PLEASE tell us what abuse is inherent in and because of large families.

[Calm]

Will you PLEASE tell us what abuse is inherent in and because of large families.

Maybe one of these will get her attention:

[ERayR]

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.

This elitist attitude is a bit wearing. Whose parenting style are we going to clone.

[Calm]

This elitist attitude is a bit wearing. Whose parenting style are we going to clone.

The education of future parents was carried on quite effectively for eons through observation on one's own parents and through participation in the family, ie. helping to care for the younger children. The purpose of the family is not to serve a child in such a way that the child never learns to give anything back. That is the perfect way, imo, to create self-centered, selfish, nonemphathetic and even abusive individuals. Giving a child responsibility and teaching them to care for others (both in a physical and emotional way) is the best way to create nonabusive adults because they have learned coping behaviours and how to love those in need prior to being put in the stressful parenting role.

I have seen fewer adults that are more frightened of being parents and clueless about it than those raised as only children. And fear and confusion often lead to abuse.

Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

The education of future parents was carried on quite effectively for eons through observation on one's own parents and through participation in the family, ie. helping to care for the younger children. The purpose of the family is not to serve a child in such a way that the child never learns to give anything back. That is the perfect way, imo, to create self-centered, selfish, nonemphathetic and even abusive individuals. Giving a child responsibility and teaching them to care for others (both in a physical and emotional way) is the best way to create nonabusive adults because they have learned coping behaviours and how to love those in need prior to being put in the stressful parenting role.

I have seen fewer adults that are more frightened of being parents and clueless about it than those raised as only children.

You and I know that but those conditions are part and parcel of a larger family and Heatherann says that is an abusive environment but won't tell us how.

[Calm]

For full disclosure, I came from a family of five, with a gap of 7 years between the three oldest and the two youngest.

I thought we were higher middle income until about ten years ago when my mother informed me we did not take our own milk to Burger King out of choice (along with some other frugal AND beneficial methods of managing that allowed my parents--one income family--to raise five children, put them all through college and help each of them establish a high standard of living while maintaining and even improving their own quality of life as well as helping out extending family and friends in numerous ways and being generous to charities and others in need.)

Myself, we have two children, eight years apart so it was like raising two only children in a way (and this may have contributed to my daughter not being able to overcome her extreme shyness yet while I was able to at her age.)

Edited August 29, 2011 by calmoriah

[WalkerW]

It should also be pointed out that especially in underdeveloped, less market-oriented countries, children are vital to the family's economic stability, given the fact that many families are literally self-reliant. The introduction of markets and globalization is what allows families the luxury of limiting the amount of children they have without impacting their financial success much.

I look forward to reading economist Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think (Basic Books, 2011).

[ERayR]

As long as we are going full disclosure I am the oldest of nine. We were farmers. We like all of our neibors worked the harvests. I learned to mow, rake and stack hay before I was 12. At 12 I got my first job working for a neighbor across the valley. I could tell a lot of stories, and have indeed written some of my life experiences in short story form, of growing up as the oldest in a large family. Later in my life I found the love shared and lessons learned from growing up in that family to be quite valuable.

[Calm]

It should also be pointed out that especially in underdeveloped, less market-oriented countries, children are vital to the family's economic stability, given the fact that many families are literally self-reliant.

In these cases then it would actually be smaller families would be less financially stable generally, while larger families would have overall greater resources (one of the greatest resource often being in underdeveloped countries manpower).

[Calm]

As long as we are going full disclosure I am the oldest of nine. We were farmers. We like all of our neibors worked the harvests. I learned to mow, rake and stack hay before I was 12. At 12 I got my first job working for a neighbor across the valley. I could tell a lot of stories, and have indeed written some of my life experiences in short story form, of growing up as the oldest in a large family. Later in my life I found the love shared and lessons learned from growing up in that family to be quite valuable.

My parents came from a two children and three children family and I do not see my five child family as big considering the age range (the oldest being more or less independent in most things by the time the two younger ones came along) so there is nothing in my history that would suggest that I am supporting large families because I am defensive about my upbringing or of LDS culture in the past (my family being atypical in oh so many ways kind of gets in the way of that). I have some experience with large families having observed friends and extended family members, for example my husband's family has eight kids and we are the only one of the siblings with two (one has three, three have 4 and five, one six and two eightish...lost track when we moved to Canada). The eightish families have absolutely fantastic kids, very outgoing, very good in school (all are advanced for their age), and great cleaners (I have them come over to help out when my health pulls me under instead of getting my own kids to help because I have found that while my own kids work great for others, they get too distracted too easily on their own home turf....but then so do I so I can't complain, lol). Not only have I found the best cleaners are kids from large families, they are also the only ones willing to do that kind of work even though I pay good money compared to most jobs teens can get...five or more dollars an hour than their regular jobs).

[Analytics]

Why?

The irony is that it sounds like you are complaining about us not staying on overpopulation trends.

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.

There is a scientific basis for the way scientists use the term. Why not start there?

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.

I fundamentally disagree with the parameters you claim need to be met in order for a discussion to be considered intelligible and scientific. There is little reason to even try talking about this topic if you poison the well at the outset like this.

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).

Perhaps you should look up the word "if" in the dictionary. I'm not claiming that the number of people in China will double every 50 years indefinitely. Not only am I'm claiming it won't, I'm claiming it can't.

[WalkerW]

In these cases then it would actually be smaller families would be less financially stable generally, while larger families would have overall greater resources (one of the greatest resource often being in underdeveloped countries manpower).

Precisely my point.

[thesometimesaint]

There is nothing inherenatly wrong with large families, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with small families. Some of the best parents I've ever seen had large families, just as some of the worst. Same with the small families. I'm more interested in how well the family functions than in its actual numbers.

That being said it takes a little over 2 acres of land just to support one person. That includes agricultural and non agricultural lands. Slightly more in America slightly less in India. There is a large but finite amount of land on this earth, and with a increasing population something gonna give. Statistically 2 children per family is not enough to maintain a stable population, and 3 produces population growth. Population growth will have to stop at sometime. Either we do it voluntarily or mother nature does it for us.

[sethpayne]

Lehi you are right on. What about calling CPS if one thought they are teaching the wrong religion? What about not letting the children go to a movie or a dance? What about two families arranging a potential marriage of their children? Is it abuse for children to have to share a bedroom with 2 or 3 siblings of the same gender? Where do you draw the line or how far do you extend it. There are some things we can all agree are abuse but there are some who are strict parents. Where do you draw the line?

The Social Contract, in my view, is how we determine the position of the proverbial line.

Take a look at Locke, a man whose philosophy greatly influenced the Founders. He argues that we all enter into a mutual contract wherein we surrender some freedom -- the freedom to kill my neighbor for his car, for example -- in exchange for the protection of our lives, liberty, and property. The details are constantly in flux as we dialogue with each other through means of the media, elections, legislation, etc....

Ultimately the law determines the line.

I am with Lehi, however, in recognizing that the way some CPS cases are handled violates the right to life, liberty, and property. I fully agree that those accused of child abuse have a right to confront their accuser. I recognize, however, that this is a complicated issue.

[WalkerW]

As the population increases, exchange and specialization needs to as well. You can have a "population crisis" without increasing population if you cut off those two things.

[WalkerW]

Also, birth rates have been dropping worldwide since the 1960s (especially since the 1980s). Everyone just needs to calm down.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Everyone just needs to calm down.

Indeed. lol.

[mbh26]

I think the quality of human life could be improved if people were less ambitious in their reproductive stratgies, especially those from a lower socioeconomic situation. When I point out that it's the poorest people who have the most children, the excuse I always here is, "There is nothing else to do." I think that's a pretty lame excuse. I think what is really going on is just a biological desire that has evolved in the most evolutionary successful individuals to fill the earth with their DNA. How to pay for it is not even considered until much later if it is ever considered at all.

To say that under an ideal economic system the earth could support an unlimited number of people so therefore we should reproduce at a rate that matches a potential ideal system before we have been able to acheive such a system is irresponsible as well. And yet from the left, little complaint if any is made about the reproductive habits of those who are the most irresponsible about it. The focus is always on Mormons or other obscure religious groups who in fact do a pretty good job being self sufficient in supporting the babies they make.

The effect of religious indoctrination or government regulation on peoples reproductive habits will ultimately be negligible in comparison to the natural man's desire to procreate. The only thing that will really slow down population growth in the end is going to be death.

[Analytics]

I think the quality of human life could be improved if people were less ambitious in their reproductive stratgies, especially those from a lower socioeconomic situation. When I point out that it's the poorest people who have the most children, the excuse I always here is, "There is nothing else to do." I think that's a pretty lame excuse. I think what is really going on is just a biological desire that has evolved in the most evolutionary successful individuals to fill the earth with their DNA. How to pay for it is not even considered until much later if it is ever considered at all.

When talking about the natural man's desires, there are really two issues going on here: the desire to have kids, and the desire to have sex. I would guess that a lot of poor people would choose to have fewer kids if birth control was more widely available.

[wenglund]

Another point of fascination for me is, while concerns about over-population tend to increase or gain attention during hard economic times, interest in sex also seems to increase (as a means for off-setting the misery of bad financial conditions), which in turn leads to more births and increased population.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[seriously honestly]

I would guess that a lot of poor people would choose to have fewer kids if birth control was more widely available.

It is widely available, so I don't buy that excuse.