On Latter-day Saints and Family Size

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

His sole societal impact comes from his work as a political commentator. Notably, when sued, his employers admitted he’s a propaganda machine: “Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes.”

The right wing conservative news network he worked for fired him for his corrosive views. Let that sink in. He’s too toxic even for them. 

We are commanded to love our enemies. Anyone can love their friends and those that love them.

[rodheadlee]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Avoiding loneliness is a pretty terrible and selfish reason to have kids. 

LOL that's not what I said. It could be a result of not having kids.

Edited May 4, 2023 by rodheadlee

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, let’s not.

Yes, let's.  I started this thread.  I get to decide its parameters.  And we aren't supposed to politick here anyway.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You did this deliberately.

You never have anything substantive to say.  No evidence or argument or reasoning.  Just invective and taunts and accusations.

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

We are commanded to love our enemies. Anyone can love their friends and those that love them.

You can love someone and still recognize they are toxic. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I’m sure there are other people out there who have made similar statements. Quoting Carlson seems a deliberate choice, for whatever reason. 

Yes.  His comment included a reference to Mormons.  That was the basis for the "deliberate choice."

For pete's sake.  People on this board have quoted all sorts of "divisive" characters.

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As for the topic at hand, I certainly fulfilled my responsibility to multiply and replenish by having 6 kids. While I do not regret having my kids, I would not advise anyone to have a large family unless they are financially and emotionally prepared for what that means.

Well, yes.  But "financially and emotionally prepared" is a process, not an event.  And such preparedness is hardly ever something that a young couple has in large quantities.  It's a leap of faith.

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Having kids because one thinks it’s a commandment or responsibility tends to lead to people getting in over their heads. 

For Latter-day Saints, having kids is "a commandment or responsibility."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

“As we look into the eyes of a child, we see a fellow son or daughter of God who stood with us in the premortal life,” said Elder Neil L. Andersen of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “It is a crowning privilege of a husband and wife who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for these spirit children of God. We believe in families, and we believe in children.”

Elder Andersen used gospel doctrines and principles to teach about children and about the responsibility of parents during his October 2011 general conference address.
...

“When a child is born to a husband and wife, they are fulfilling part of our Heavenly Father’s plan to bring children to earth,” Elder Andersen said. “The Lord said, ‘This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.’ Before immortality, there must be mortality.”

The Family: A Proclamation to the World teaches that the family is ordained of God. “Families are central to our Heavenly Father’s plan here on earth and through the eternities,” Elder Andersen said. “After Adam and Eve were joined in marriage, the scripture reads, ‘And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.’ In our day prophets and apostles have declared, ‘The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.”

“This commandment has not been forgotten or set aside in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We express deep gratitude for the enormous faith shown by husbands and wives (especially our wives) in their willingness to have children.”
...

He also quoted President Spencer W. Kimball (1895-1985, twelfth President of the Church), telling how in an interview with a young man who was pondering about delaying having children so that he could become a doctor, he asked the piercing question, “Where is your faith?” To find the answer to President Kimball’s question, Elder Andersen said, we must turn to the holy scriptures.

“It was not in the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve bore their first child,” he said. “It was not in their Jerusalem home, with gold, silver, and precious things, that Lehi and Sariah, acting in faith, bore their sons Jacob and Joseph. It was in the wilderness.”

He said that Moses was a child born in faith at a time when children were being killed by Pharaoh. “There was no welcoming sign on the front door to announce his birth,” he said. And even the Lord Jesus Christ was born in humble circumstances. “In the most beloved story of a baby’s birth, there was no decorated nursery or designer crib—only a manger for the Savior of the world.

“In ‘the best of times [and] … the worst of times,’ the true Saints of God, acting in faith, have never forgotten, dismissed, or neglected ‘God’s commandment … to multiply and replenish the earth.’ We go forward in faith—realizing the decision of how many children to have and when to have them is between a husband and wife and the Lord. We should not judge one another on this matter.”

How many children to have, and when, is up to the couple.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, let's.  I started this thread.  I get to decide its parameters.  And we aren't supposed to politick here anyway.

So you are annoyed that politics show up in a thread you started when the central point of the original post you started it with was a quote from a divisive political commentator? This would make you a bad thread starter.

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You never have anything substantive to say.  No evidence or argument or reasoning.  Just invective and taunts and accusations.

I reasoned out why you started the thread and immediately deliberately shot it in the foot before it could get started. If you have an alternative reasoned explanation I would be glad to hear it. You can even include some invective and taunts in it too if you want. I am good either way.

[BlueDreams]

 

These are a few random thoughts while reading the thread

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Deseret News (Op Ed) : Tucker Carlson wants you to have ‘Mormon levels’ of kids. Is it good advice?

Putting aside Carlson's polemics and politics (and I ask that you all do the same), I like his advice on this point.  Get married.  Have a ton of kids.  Work hard.  "Live boldly."

The "Mormon levels of kids" is a funny line, though unfortunately less apt these days.

I Don't like his advice. Partially because the polemic and politics is hard to put aside. Partially because it seems like a reactive list of sayings ripped from an ironic t-shirt. Partially because some of it doesn't make sense and goes all over the place. What does living boldly have to do with having lots of kids?  What constitutes "wasting time?"  What does it mean to blur your vision or make time go faster? I don't get high so that doesn't really apply. And I don't think having a ton of kids is the start to living life fully. It's just one way to live.  It can be wonderful, it can also be pretty chaotic and horrible depending the family. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Happier than" being the key phrase.  Cumulatively, yes.  Overall, yes.  Marriage is a wonderful institution, and I highly recommend it.  It requires a lot of time and effort, and it's definitely worth it.

I think this is a fair point.  "Happiness" is a subjective concept.  These days so many of us are distracted from pursuing what's really important, whether the distractions arise from time-consuming pastimes, or inexperience, or social influences/pressures.  The longer I go, the more I feel the resonance of the truths of the Restored Gospel, which after all center on family.

I don't think happiness is necessarily subjective...but what makes one happy and where happiness fits in importance of life goals is. 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think he was being slightly ironic here.  "Too young" as alleged by folks encouraging delay.

I saw this mentioned a bit, but honestly I don't find the flippant irony all that funny. It's too serious of a topic for me. 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same as above.  "'Tons' of children" in contravention of misanthropic and authoritarian alarmists who speaking against having large families.

Same as above.  Plenty of honorable people have raised large families without all the trappings that are sacrificed in the process.  My father-in-law was one of thirteen children.  He and his siblings grew up in quite poor circumstances, but their parents loved them and taught them well.  All thirteen are married, all have only married once, and all have had children.  These folks are making the world a better place, but would not be here to be doing that if their parents had listened to wonks telling them about what they "can afford."

Some of the finest people I know have grown up in large families whose parents could not, by conventional wisdom, "afford" so many kids.

I likewise know/have people in my life who have great larger than average families. Or at least Tucker's version of "tons" of kids (he has 4 according to google). This doesn't outweigh my lived experience of having 2 generations of really messed up family dynamics in large families. My Gma was in part trapped in a really bad marriage because she had a ton of kids, no education passed a semester in college, and no adult work history cuz she started having kids right off the bat. My mom carries several emotional wounds from that, IMHO, and she went on to have 7 children from 3 different men. By my gen, my siblings are definitely a mixed bag when it comes to how they're doing. All of us older ones have had our set of issues and weights from family issues. Not that this is somehow only a big family problem. It can happen in small families too. Thing is, with a large family there's also a lot more people to potentially harm. I would never tell someone to not have a big family, but I would really really really really hope it was done intentionally and carefully weighing how they're (as individuals, partners, and family)  doing after each child.  

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  But "financially and emotionally prepared" is a process, not an event.  And such preparedness is hardly ever something that a young couple has in large quantities.  It's a leap of faith.

Not necessarily. Yes, having a child is a leap of faith. But you can have a base line level of preparation before getting married to increase the odds that you can handle that leap of faith. And it can make a world of difference when raising a family. For me, my baseline for marriage was working through some of my basic emotional baggage that could have made a marriage hard and finishing off my degrees. That meant I felt "prepared" around 26-27.  I've seen people maintain good marriages while working through their crap during it. But it's not exactly easy and some marriage fall apart from the weight of their lack of financial or emotional preparedness.  I would never insist someone not marry when the want to, but I do think there's wisdom in understanding that some level of maturity, healing, and stability can really help you thrive in a marriage. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

I read his use of those terms to be an indictment on society’s views on the subject and not legitimate council for everyone to do those literal things.

Like, “too young” as referring to how much of society thinks that getting married any time before your 30’s is getting married to young (I’m even hearing arguments from some celebrities now that people really don’t have any business being married until they’re 40).

I mentioned this to smac, but whether it was meant ironically or as an indictment I still really don't appreciate the wording. It's dismissive to the fact that there is some good wisdom in not marrying too young, not having more children than one can really take care of either emotionally or financially, etc. 

I think this line about too young is a bit of a strawman or at least an extreme example. Most people who marry in our society still marry for the first time before the age of 30. Even at the regional level, only DC has men marrying at 30. This ranges by about 6 years based on education, with phd's marrying on average around 32 and anyone around some college of below marrying around 26.  I don't know anyone looking to emulate celebrity's in their marriages. Most of them do not have great marriage/relationship track records...so I'm having a hard time figuring out who would be taking their words seriously. If 26-32 is the average marriage age, then it seems more likely to assume too young would be anything significantly younger than the average. 

 

Quote

The literal interpretation of his advice is not a responsible way to approach adulthood. But I am not interpreting his words literally.  I think the message behind the words—-that society doesn’t actually know where happiness and fulfillment is to be found and that doing the opposite of what “they” say has its merits—is good advice.

I doubt that personally. I don't think reactively promoting or following the opposite of what one sees as poor is good advice. It tends to lead to it's own variety of problematic extremes IMHO.

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

These are a few random thoughts while reading the thread

I Don't like his advice. Partially because the polemic and politics is hard to put aside. Partially because it seems like a reactive list of sayings ripped from an ironic t-shirt. Partially because some of it doesn't make sense and goes all over the place. What does living boldly have to do with having lots of kids?  What constitutes "wasting time?"  What does it mean to blur your vision or make time go faster? I don't get high so that doesn't really apply. And I don't think having a ton of kids is the start to living life fully. It's just one way to live.  It can be wonderful, it can also be pretty chaotic and horrible depending the family. 

I don't think happiness is necessarily subjective...but what makes one happy and where happiness fits in importance of life goals is. 

I saw this mentioned a bit, but honestly I don't find the flippant irony all that funny. It's too serious of a topic for me. 

I likewise know/have people in my life who have great larger than average families. Or at least Tucker's version of "tons" of kids (he has 4 according to google). This doesn't outweigh my lived experience of having 2 generations of really messed up family dynamics in large families. My Gma was in part trapped in a really bad marriage because she had a ton of kids, no education passed a semester in college, and no adult work history cuz she started having kids right off the bat. My mom carries several emotional wounds from that, IMHO, and she went on to have 7 children from 3 different men. By my gen, my siblings are definitely a mixed bag when it comes to how they're doing. All of us older ones have had our set of issues and weights from family issues. Not that this is somehow only a big family problem. It can happen in small families too. Thing is, with a large family there's also a lot more people to potentially harm. I would never tell someone to not have a big family, but I would really really really really hope it was done intentionally and carefully weighing how they're (as individuals, partners, and family)  doing after each child.  

 

Not necessarily. Yes, having a child is a leap of faith. But you can have a base line level of preparation before getting married to increase the odds that you can handle that leap of faith. And it can make a world of difference when raising a family. For me, my baseline for marriage was working through some of my basic emotional baggage that could have made a marriage hard and finishing off my degrees. That meant I felt "prepared" around 26-27.  I've seen people maintain good marriages while working through their crap during it. But it's not exactly easy and some marriage fall apart from the weight of their lack of financial or emotional preparedness.  I would never insist someone not marry when the want to, but I do think there's wisdom in understanding that some level of maturity, healing, and stability can really help you thrive in a marriage. 

 

With luv,

BD

Spot on!

How careless to tell young people to have tons a kids, even if you couldn't afford them. I know that with each of my five children (my oldest sister was not happy I kept having children, she's inactive and thought that's too many, lol) there is a lot of worrying over them, much easier when they were all young and in the home with my watchful eye. Now that they are all out of the home and not much in my control, I worry constantly. It never goes away, I'm worried about each of them and their individual problems, along with their spouses and children, or significant other. The parents once they have their children, have lifelong worrying and caring, it never gets easier.  

So Carlson that says such stupid things, probably doesn't worry, most likely his wife does. But of course I am not in his head and cannot know. But it's lifelong and this raising a family thing doesn't end when they turn 18. 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Tacenda

[Benjamin McGuire]

20 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sure are a lot of people in this thread who don't think this is some Handmaid's Tale level stuff happening globally.  China's curve is especially scary, especially with it's "we don't want girls and aren't scared of infanticide" cultural stuff.

This is such a misunderstanding, though, of China's problem. There is no question that China made poor decisions about the problem of population growth. The reality is that every society around the world, as it comes through industrialization tends to develop drastically reduced population growth. We call this the Demographic Transition. The challenge that China faced was different from the one faced by Europe and the United States in that they didn't need to go through the technological development that western nations had to go through, they just had to import the technology. And this meant that death rates dropped precipitously faster than they had in other nations, while birth rates did not drop quickly - and this meant that they were concerned about over-population. Because they didn't understand the nature of the demographic transition very well, their response to the exploding population was the one-child policy. The cultural stuff was a problem only because of another unexpected technological development - the ultrasound. It isn't infanticide that is a significant problem in China - that's a sort of overblown myth. To the extent that there is a significant gender imbalance, it occurs because they can use technology to determine the gender before birth and have abortions. This also wouldn't have been such a problem if the Chinese government had stuck with their plans to develop social-security like benefits for aging seniors (retirement programs in China are both limited in scope and regional in application). This encouraged some gender planning. But even this is to some extent overblown, especially with the shift to a 2-child and now a 3-child policy. The current imbalance is 104.6 boys to 100 girls. Significant, but not overwhelming. Fertility rates in China are some of the lowest (1.26) but when the impacts of the one child policy are taken into consideration, they aren't unexpectedly low. Other countries have problematic fertility rates including our own: Japan (1.34) or Russia (1.5) or the U.S. (1.64). The primary difference between the U.S. and Russia or China is that we are a net importer of immigrants (which helps us keep our population growing) rather than a net exporter like China at -.025%. Even Russia (if we don't consider the various issues with the Ukrainian conflict) is a net importer of immigrants (+ .062%). The U.S. has a current net increase in population through immigration of .275 %  - and immigration accounts for roughly 30% of the annual U.S. population growth. To break even in terms of population, you need a rough fertility rate of 2.1. The U.S. continues to see slow population growth, but only because of immigration (immigrants also have a higher fertility rate than the native population - but only for one or two generations). Without immigration, our population would be in significant decline.

Even with all of these statistics, the aging populations in the US and China are still dominant factors. In 2020, the US and China had roughly equivalent overall population growths (about 0.1%). China's downward slide is steeper than ours. They will start seeing a decline in the next few years as their huge aged population begins to sharply die out (as the image you provided shows). The U.S. will have the same issue on a much smaller scale as the baby boomers begin to pass in much greater numbers.

The point of all of this is that this isn't exactly Handmaid's Tale stuff. It is expected - and the next major population decline will be happening in India as education levels increase and industrialization spreads to the poorer agriculture centers. Those countries with fewer resources (and more internal and external conflict) take longer to hit the later stages of the demographic transition - but as they do, the global population will start to shift overall. What has come out of the statistics is that the predictions for late demographic transition (also now called the second demographic transition) hasn't been entirely consistent with reality. Divorce rates were expected to continue at very high levels - they have plummeted. Marriage was supposed to continue to decline across the board - but this hasn't happened with all demographic groups. Some groups have seen significant increases in marriage frequency - linked to other factors (like education). Marriage trends and fertility rates seem to indicate that there are in fact social changes that could be made to increase both - however, these changes pose political and economic problems that aren't often supported (especially by aging populations who have less vested interest in these issues). If we want to get back to stable populations, we need to pursue realistic approaches to create economic stability for younger people, to replace the economic disincentives that come with marriage today to economic incentives, and we need to have better support for young families.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If we want to get back to stable populations, we need to pursue realistic approaches to create economic stability for younger people, to replace the economic disincentives that come with marriage today to economic incentives, and we need to have better support for young families.

That would be one, in a handful of things we should be pursuing, absolutely.

[Analytics]

On 5/3/2023 at 9:01 AM, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I just googled "does having kids really make you happier," and the top result was a CNBC article that says:

Research shows that there is a “happiness bump” that parents experience right after a baby is born. But that tends to dissipate over the course of a year, Glass says.

After that point in time, the levels of happiness of parents and non-parents gradually diverge, with non-parents generally growing happier over time.

Speaking personally, I only have one child, and she loved being an only child. She had more space in the house, received a ton of attention from her parents, and we could afford to see a lot of the world with her. She loved road trips where she could stretch out in the back seat. Because I only had one kid, I could afford to pay for her college at a private school. This led to a degree in four years and her dream job. She now loves her life, and at the moment is indifferent about whether or not she'll have kids--she knows there are tradeoffs, and is confident she'll be happy either way. Personally I'd love grandkids, but it really isn't about me.

When I look at myself and my family and friends, I can find examples that illustrate just about anything I could want on this point. I know one family that is pretty big, but they are going through intense stress day in and day out, because in terms of both time and money, affording their big family is a stretch. I know another family that has more resources and is extremely happy. Some people are cut out to have big families. Others are not.

In American society, our tax system and economic system is designed so that there will be economic winners and economic losers. We all can't make $180,000 a year and be able to afford a home in the suburbs where a big family can thrive. Some of us will struggle to make $50,000 and might not be able to afford a 2-bedroom condo. 

Globally, the world is already overpopulated. While a shrinking population will put a ton of stress on economies, that is the price we should gladly pay to right-size the global population. Our goal ought to be to arrive at a stable global population that is in equilibrium with the environment. If somebody has the emotional, social, and financial resources to have a large family that's great! Knock yourself out. But that is something that most of us shouldn't do. 

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I mentioned this to smac, but whether it was meant ironically or as an indictment I still really don't appreciate the wording. It's dismissive to the fact that there is some good wisdom in not marrying too young, not having more children than one can really take care of either emotionally or financially, etc. 

I think this line about too young is a bit of a strawman or at least an extreme example. Most people who marry in our society still marry for the first time before the age of 30. Even at the regional level, only DC has men marrying at 30. This ranges by about 6 years based on education, with phd's marrying on average around 32 and anyone around some college of below marrying around 26.  I don't know anyone looking to emulate celebrity's in their marriages. Most of them do not have great marriage/relationship track records...so I'm having a hard time figuring out who would be taking their words seriously. If 26-32 is the average marriage age, then it seems more likely to assume too young would be anything significantly younger than the average. 

 

I doubt that personally. I don't think reactively promoting or following the opposite of what one sees as poor is good advice. It tends to lead to it's own variety of problematic extremes IMHO.

 

With luv,

BD

Some thoughts (in no particular order because I’m doing this quick on my phone in between other responsibilities)

1. I agree about not reactively responding to things. That is rarely a good move.

2.  The celebrity that I heard touting not marrying until 40 had been through three failed relationships and was using those as an example of why marrying young is a bad idea.

3.  I wasn’t intending on promoting just doing the opposite of society as a way to make life choices. But I do think that doing the opposite of what society advises has merit in certain circumstances.  Society, for example, says that it is smarter to live with someone before you get married.  Popular culture has a lousy track record of creating relationship stability.  I openly promote doing the opposite of that whenever I can. 😁

4. I haven’t listen to Tucker Carlson a day in my life. I hear things about him on occasion and have always steered clear because he seems like a huge idiot. I don’t personally know any conservatives who listen to him either, though I’m sure they must be out there or he wouldn’t have the platform that he does.  Because I have no real experience with him I was able to base my response solely on the few quotes that smac provided and not on his personality or other statements.  It’s entirely possible that I would have interpreted him differently (and responded differently) if my preconceived ideas about him were more biased against him than they currently are.

 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Globally, the world is already overpopulated. While a shrinking population will put a ton of stress on economies, that is the price we should gladly pay to right-size the global population. Our goal ought to be to arrive at a stable global population that is in equilibrium with the environment. If somebody has the emotional, social, and financial resources to have a large family that's great! Knock yourself out. But that is something that most of us shouldn't do. 

I disagree that the world is overpopulated.  Other than that, I appreciate your comments and perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I just googled "does having kids really make you happier," and the top result was a CNBC article that says:

Research shows that there is a “happiness bump” that parents experience right after a baby is born. But that tends to dissipate over the course of a year, Glass says.

After that point in time, the levels of happiness of parents and non-parents gradually diverge, with non-parents generally growing happier over time.

Speaking personally, I only have one child, and she loved being an only child. She had more space in the house, received a ton of attention from her parents, and we could afford to see a lot of the world with her. She loved road trips where she could stretch out in the back seat. Because I only had one kid, I could afford to pay for her college at a private school. This led to a degree in four years and her dream job. She now loves her life, and at the moment is indifferent about whether or not she'll have kids--she knows there are tradeoffs, and is confident she'll be happy either way. Personally I'd love grandkids, but it really isn't about me.

When I look at myself and my family and friends, I can find examples that illustrate just about anything I could want on this point. I know one family that is pretty big, but they are going through intense stress day in and day out, because in terms of both time and money, affording their big family is a stretch. I know another family that has more resources and is extremely happy. Some people are cut out to have big families. Others are not.

In American society, our tax system and economic system is designed so that there will be economic winners and economic losers. We all can't make $180,000 a year and be able to afford a home in the suburbs where a big family can thrive. Some of us will struggle to make $50,000 and might not be able to afford a 2-bedroom condo. 

Globally, the world is already overpopulated. While a shrinking population will put a ton of stress on economies, that is the price we should gladly pay to right-size the global population. Our goal ought to be to arrive at a stable global population that is in equilibrium with the environment. If somebody has the emotional, social, and financial resources to have a large family that's great! Knock yourself out. But that is something that most of us shouldn't do. 

 

I was an only child until my teens, when we got a foster child and then my parents adopted her.  While I can’t imagine my life without a sister now, being an only child definitely has its perks. It’s much easier in many ways on the parents as well.

In the end, I think Latter-day Saint doctrine concerning the existence of spirit children and their need to come to earth to gain a mortal body can’t easily be separated from our views on the importance of being willing to provide those mortal bodies to others (as we depended upon others to provide them for us).

Given our religious beliefs, our views on children will often contradict views on maintaining the global population.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

... that is the price we should gladly pay to right-size the global population. Our goal ought to be to arrive at ...

I'm just thinking how much genocide and murder and eugenics programs have been justified using such thoughts.  

Of course, @Analytics has no such thing in mind, we're all just talking about stuff we see happening around us, and opining about the desirability of the consequences.  And if Analytics is correct, then just watching natural trends play out, is indeed a far better price to pay, than just about any intentional effort from any government or culture I can think of.  (Of course, Chinese female abortion and infanticide is currently playing out, but I'm assuming nobody other than the Chinese involved in it are happy about such things.)  

But I don't think humans have the tools necessary to determine what the global population's "right size" actually is.  Or what to do about it even if we did.  In the 35 years I've been paying attention, I've gathered a dozen or more such grand pronouncements, and they're always arguable, and never permanent.  If it's ok with y'all, I'll be off resisting such notions with every fiber of my being, as hard as I need to, just on the general principle of the thing.

Edited May 4, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm just thinking how much genocide and murder and eugenics programs have been justified using such thoughts.  

Of course, @Analytics has no such thing in mind, we're all just talking about stuff we see happening around us, and opining about the desirability of the consequences.  And if Analytics is correct, then just watching natural trends play out, is indeed a far better price to pay, than just about any intentional effort from any government or culture I can think of.  (Of course, Chinese female abortion and infanticide is currently playing out, but I'm assuming nobody other than the Chinese involved in it are happy about such things.)  

But I don't think humans have the tools necessary to determine what the global population's "right size" actually is.  Or what to do about it even if we did.  In the 35 years I've been paying attention, I've gathered a dozen or more such grand pronouncements, and they're always arguable, and never permanent.  If it's ok with y'all, I'll be off resisting such notions with every fiber of my being, as hard as I need to, just on the general principle of the thing.

Anyone who makes decisions on whether to have children based primarily on the global or national impact of their decision is almost certainly doing it wrong no matter what size of family the situation seems to prescribe.

It should be more how many children can we realistically nurture and provide for and pick a number equal to or less than that amount.

[pogi]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In many countries the family is an enterprise that everyone takes part in. The young adults work or go to school (sometimes both) the elders watch and raise the littles. Frequently they all live on the same property. Much like the old west. 

I'm not sure why you downvoted me because this has nothing to do with his or my comments, and I certainly don't think that because many countries do this that it is a standard that we should uphold as good general advise to graduating students here in the US.  

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

If you wait until you think you can afford children, school is finished, and you are well into your careers you could find yourself unable to have children.

How common of a problem is this that people find themselves in?  People who want children generally start trying before they are past the childbearing age.  Couples who want children will generally start trying well before it is too late, whether their finances are perfectly in order (they rarely are) or not.     Those who don't want children, don't have them.  To me, this sounds like a boogey man/red herring? 

His advise was to "get married too young" and "have more children than you can afford".   The average age of marriage in the US is between 25 and 30.  The average number of children is between 1-3.  He seems to be suggesting that is too old and not enough kids.  Do you agree that this is good general advise for everyone?  Divorce rates are significantly higher when married under 25, FYI. 

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

That's what happened to us.

Then you find yourself in your 50s or 60s with no one to leave your knowledge and stuff to. I wish I had a son or daughter to share sailing with and grandchildren to leave our beloved Second Chance to.

I thought there were infertility issues with you guys and it wasn't an issue of postponing past the child bearing age?  I'm sorry that you have experienced infertility.  I have been there and done that.  Its hard.  But infertility is a different issue all together. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

. I haven’t listen to Tucker Carlson a day in my life. I hear things about him on occasion and have always steered clear because he seems like a huge idiot. I don’t personally know any conservatives who listen to him either, though I’m sure they must be out there or he wouldn’t have the platform that he does.

You can now say that you know at least one conservative who listens to him. I was never a subscriber to his cable program, but I’ve been a frequent viewer of selections from it on YouTube. I say that unashamedly. 
 

And no, contrary to what you’ve been led to believe (apparently through hearsay), he’s not an idiot. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Scott Lloyd

[CA Steve]

Carlson isn't an idiot, he is well versed in telling his audience exactly what they want to hear.

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You can now say that you know at least one conservative who listens to him. I was never a subscriber to his cable program, but I’ve been a frequent viewer of selections from it on YouTube. I say that unashamedly. 
 

And no, contrary to what you’ve been led to believe (apparently through hearsay), he’s not an idiot. 

My views on him being an idiot come from the little clips that I’ve seen of his. I’m definitely not a fan. He’s too contentious and extreme for me personally to find value in his overall message.

but he obviously resonates with many people because his platform is well supported. Or at least was before Fox News got rid of him.  I guess time will tell to see how that transition goes.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Carlson isn't an idiot, he is well versed in telling his audience exactly what they want to hear.

There is an audience available to support whatever a person wants to promote, if they are loud enough, extreme enough, and have financial backing.

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure why you downvoted me because this has nothing to do with his or my comments, and I certainly don't think that because many countries do this that it is a standard that we should uphold as good general advise to graduating students here in the US.  

How common of a problem is this that people find themselves in?  People who want children generally start trying before they are past the childbearing age.  Couples who want children will generally start trying well before it is too late, whether their finances are perfectly in order (they rarely are) or not.     Those who don't want children, don't have them.  To me, this sounds like a boogey man/red herring? 

His advise was to "get married too young" and "have more children than you can afford".   The average age of marriage in the US is between 25 and 30.  The average number of children is between 1-3.  He seems to be suggesting that is too old and not enough kids.  Do you agree that this is good general advise for everyone?  Divorce rates are significantly higher when married under 25, FYI. 

I thought there were infertility issues with you guys and it wasn't an issue of postponing past the child bearing age?  I'm sorry that you have experienced infertility.  I have been there and done that.  Its hard.  But infertility is a different issue all together. 

I voted you down because I disagreed with you. Nothing personal. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I voted you down because I disagreed with you. Nothing personal. 

Right, I am honestly trying to figure out what you disagree with and why.   Here is what you claim to disagree with:

On 5/3/2023 at 9:37 AM, pogi said:

I think that having "tons" of kids, "getting married too young", and "having more kids than you can afford" is all really terrible advise to give as general counsel. 

Why?  Based on what?  That sounds like a recipe for disaster if everyone started implementing that advise. 

The data you present doesn't back up this advise.  

I followed up in my last post with the questions below trying to find out what exactly you disagree with or why you might think he gave good sound counsel:

Quote

His advise was to "get married too young" and "have more children than you can afford".   The average age of marriage in the US is between 25 and 30.  The average number of children is between 1-3.  He seems to be suggesting that is too old and not enough kids.  Do you agree that this is good general advise for everyone?  Divorce rates are significantly higher when married under 25, FYI. 

I feel like a downvote deserves an explanation of what you disagree with and why, if you don't mind answering those questions. 

[The Nehor]

For those unfamiliar with Tucker Carlson this trailer for his special “The End of Men” which is about how masculinity is dying and how sperm counts are down:

Trigger Warning: Very odd and a little homoerotic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FTXEHBlx-U

 

If you want a more upbeat version here is a recut someone I know cooked up using that song Trump loves to dance to at his rallies:

Trigger Warning: You probably know what is coming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DgdD565-eU