Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[anonemouse 1]

Would it be like throwing oil on a fire to question the accuracy of the claims of dwindling natural resources? I am not an expert in this field, but I have flown over many parts of the US that appear to be totally un-populated.

Let me try to explain:

Coal, gas, all those "fossil fuels" we all learned about in school are not being renewed. Once we use them, they're gone. Period. When we talk about dwindling natural resources, it doesn't just mean land available for people to live on. It means land for growing crops, land for oxygen-producing plants, land for growing timber for houses and heat, land for cattle and other animals, etc. And as a biology graduate student who has to learn about this stuff to get a degree, I can tell you that all land is not equal. One acre of scrub pine forest in Florida doesn't even come close to equaling an acre of rain forest in Brazil, in terms of diversity of animals, diversity of plants, or in terms of the opportunity to find new medicines.

Just because you can see something every day doesn't mean that it isn't disappearing. For example: We all know what African violets look like and many of us have tried to grow them or know people who have. That species is extinct in the wild. The only place you will ever see it is in cultivation.

And speaking of China (I know someone mentioned it, not sure who), if you lined up every person in that country and had them file past you in a single line, it would never end. They are multiplying that quickly. They could probably send their 12 year-olds over here and conquer us by sheer numbers.

[Wheetsin 714]

I don't necessarily think that people who are more educated are necessarily smarter, therefore have less children! Ok, so they have less children, not becuase they are smarter than us "idiotic" christians

This is the exact type of logical fallacy I was referring to. And exactly what I had anticipated someone would, at some point or another, assume was meant.

To the contrary, I think you'll find that most people here, at least those who have thus far been active in the thread, will agree with you.

I have a lot more education than my cousins with children. And don't think for a minute that education can only be measured in degrees.

This is because they made bad choices that I did not make. It is certainly not because I'm an atheist and they're Catholic (I love that irony!). It is because I demanded of myself that DH and I spend time as husband and wife before spending time as father and mother. It is because I insisted of myself that I have an established career and be self-sufficient, fiscally, before having children. 2nd most recently I chose to finish my graduate work before having children, and most recently I decided to have the lap-band, with one of my top 3 reasons for banding being to carry a child in a healthier state and with reduced risks of complications.

The conversation of education and children was not a religious conversation, prior to your assumptions.

[Wheetsin 714]

And speaking of China (I know someone mentioned it, not sure who), if you lined up every person in that country and had them file past you in a single line, it would never end. They are multiplying that quickly. They could probably send their 12 year-olds over here and conquer us by sheer numbers.

Although it's an extreme way to paint the picture, I heard an interesting factoid once during a debate on NPR. It was discussing the likelihood of an American success should we ever enter into war with China. They outlook was grim, in part because, as the speaker put it, "China has more people than America has bullets. More importantly, China is making more people faster than America can make more bullets."

Now obviously wars are quite more advanced than bullets, and the outnumbered forces have certainly had their share of voctory, but to prove the point he was making at that particular time (essentially that it could come down to a matter of being exceedingly outnumbered) it was an effecient device.

[missy4gordon 0]

Let me try to explain:

Coal, gas, all those "fossil fuels" we all learned about in school are not being renewed. Once we use them, they're gone. Period. When we talk about dwindling natural resources, it doesn't just mean land available for people to live on. It means land for growing crops, land for oxygen-producing plants, land for growing timber for houses and heat, land for cattle and other animals, etc.

Up here in no man's land, North Dakota, (what I affectionately refer to as the "a$$hole of the world") I can see for miles and miles, crop land, cattle grazing, and woodland. In fact, my dad is a farmer of wheat, soybeans, and sugar beets and has been getting a bumper crop many of the last few years.

I really have no point here, just wanted to chime in! It is snowing buckets outside and I'm bored.....

[Carlene 12]

Let me try to explain:

Coal, gas, all those "fossil fuels" we all learned about in school are not being renewed. Once we use them, they're gone. Period.

This is completely true. However, there are other reasons, besides an exploding population, that our natural resources are dwindling. We are a culture of instant, convenient, everything. We love our plastic, and our "disposable" electronics. We love gas-guzzling SUVs and lawns that resemble golf courses and take tons of Water to maintain.

Most of all, we love air conditioning. Every summer we consume more coal and natural gas than mother nature can replace in thousands of years. Even with zero population growth, the world's resources cannot sustain a drain such as this for very long. Our decendents will, sooner or later, be living in the dark unless we (or they) find alternative fuel sources.

Curbing the birth rate will not prevent an energy crisis....it will only postpone it.

[DerickM 1]

Oddly enough I did my senior project on Overpopulation...My teacher was a rabid born-agian christian (guess how well it went over) but I still passed with a C. :biggrin1:

[mousecrazy 2]

I wonder why the focus is on the statistically small number of couples who choose to have larger numbers of children, than on microwave dinners, air conditioning, fast food, mega malls, etc.? Shall I hazard a guess? It is convenient to focus on the one aspect we are not attached to.

If we want to truly delve into how to sustain a lifestyle people want, that's one thing. If you want to convince people to change a lifestyle they like, that's another. If you want them to abandon a lifestyle they love, and adopt a more austere lifestyle, they are going to have to have a cause they can get behind, and theoretical reasons like "we might run out of coal 2,000 years from now" is not going to get it. Being told to live a more austere lifestyle by those who have more $$ than sense,is ridiculous. I'm thinking of politicians who pass environmental protection laws that somehow never affect their private planes and limos or yachts. Or, even more ridiculous, the spokespeople of modern American culture, the celebrities, who become "activitists" for environmental causes, but continue their excessive lifestyles. I don't mind them having those things...just let me have affordable power and a vehicle I enjoy driving.

Have as many children as you want. I don't think it's going to affect the big picture unless suddenly a majority of couples decide that 4 or more children is the way to go.

[the best me 6]

Here's the deal though. I don't go around damning people to Hell. And if I did, I'd be called a judgemental hypocrite. I'm just pointing out the judgemental hypocrisy I see in someone, who, as a self-procalimed educated person, has become what she scorns. Just without the Religion. That's all. It's frustrating to see snooty attitudes about how dumb and stupid and uneducated and idiotic OTHER people are. This isn't the only thread like this I have read lately either. We are ALL fat (or were) so you'd think we'd have SOME common ground, right? Perhaps not. I wanna feel the love. Not feel ill at ease and ridiculed because of my personal religious beliefs. I don't think that's too much to ask on a public forum, where we "should" all be respected.

(emphasis mine)

I've taken some heat for this comment (among others) so I'd like to address it.

I never said anyone was going to Hell. Carlene brought that up, I replied that I don't go around damning people to Hell. Not my joke, but it was a funny comment by Carlene, she gets credit for it.

I, too, have a college education and am aware of the indoctrination of students on campuses all over the US (and other countries, too, I suppose) regarding the importance of open-mindedness and tolerance. It's a lesson I learned well, and I consider myself to be a pretty tolerant and open-minded Christian, and I tend to like and respect, at some level, most people I meet, despite any differences we might have.

So when you (Sunta) comment that you are an educated person and are ecologically conscientious, etc. I thought you might also be open-minded and tolerant. Which is why I called you on it. It seems terribly "judgementally hypocritic" to be educated and to openly scorn the beliefs of others, when you should know better. Unless, of course, you are NOT open-minded and tolerant, in which case, I owe you an apology for breaking the 9th Commandment (AGAIN ) and I'm sorry.

[mini_me 3]

Good call.

.....I told her one time that that was the wrong thing to do because Mary (my SIL) and I will start spending it as soon as she dies. You should have seen her face! I thought she was going to self-destruct right before my eyes!

carlene, there's something wrong with you...and i think i like it.

you're my new favorite poster.

[mini_me 3]

I had 3 boys, then a girl. If my daughter had been born first, she would have been an only child.

i had two boys first, then a princess...and i, too, would only have one if she had shown up first...so i am glad she waited, cuz i can't imagine life without my stinky boyz!! ((why do boys stink so much more than girls??))

[green 6]

I wonder why the focus is on the statistically small number of couples who choose to have larger numbers of children, than on microwave dinners, air conditioning, fast food, mega malls, etc.? Shall I hazard a guess? It is convenient to focus on the one aspect we are not attached to.

If we want to truly delve into how to sustain a lifestyle people want, that's one thing. If you want to convince people to change a lifestyle they like, that's another. If you want them to abandon a lifestyle they love, and adopt a more austere lifestyle, they are going to have to have a cause they can get behind, and theoretical reasons like "we might run out of coal 2,000 years from now" is not going to get it. Being told to live a more austere lifestyle by those who have more $$ than sense,is ridiculous. I'm thinking of politicians who pass environmental protection laws that somehow never affect their private planes and limos or yachts. Or, even more ridiculous, the spokespeople of modern American culture, the celebrities, who become "activitists" for environmental causes, but continue their excessive lifestyles. I don't mind them having those things...just let me have affordable power and a vehicle I enjoy driving.

Have as many children as you want. I don't think it's going to affect the big picture unless suddenly a majority of couples decide that 4 or more children is the way to go.

Though I do not often find myself on the same side of the fence as Mousecrazy I have quoted her comments in full because I believe that she has made a number of telling points. I am very concerned about the environment but I think that the North American lifestyle is doing much more damage to the environment at this point than the number of kids a minority of families are choosing to have. And certainly it is a minority of families within the westernised countries who are now electing to have large families; many more of us are opting to have two kids or fewer according to all available statistics.

Let's face it: Our current lifestyle is far from austere. We are eating up more than our share of the earth's resources per capita. This is because we are reliant on prepackaged goods, automobiles (we do not use mass transit), A/C in our homes and in our shopping malls. And in the winter our houses might be over-heated. We generate a lot of garbage. We own a lot more things and occupy a lot more personal living space than our ancestors did. All of this is terribly destructive of the environment.

And it is alienating to see self-righteous politicians and Hollywood types launch themselves into a politically correct issue, such as the environment, and yet continue to live in a way that is entirely contradictory. I think that we are all, at the grassroots level, so very, very burnt out at this point regardless of our political leanings.

I certainly don't think that our environmental problems can be solved or even helped by limiting the size of these families. I do, however, believe that the ugly news is that this problem can only be worked on by a significant change in our lifestyles and a complete revolution in governmental policies in order to carry this out. And this isn't gonna work at this time.

[mousecrazy 2]

LOL! Green, you are right...we are not often on the same side of the fence, so it's interesting to find ourselves there on one issue anyway!

I think in most things I write, I urge people to look at the big picture. Picking apart an issue is not the way to go, in my book. I do like the idea of self-reflection, and seeing if we can learn to live a simpler life...it has been a concept I find myself drawn to more and more. Instead of more clothes, less can be freeing...instead of more make-up, less. I still give into my consumerism tendencies, but I'm trying to simplify.

Controlling population growth is a very small matter in the big picture, it seems to me, and I wonder why it is so upsetting to some.

[Carlene 12]

has anyone noticed that the more education people have...the less they breed excessively?

Didn't hold true in my family, but then we never were what you'd call "conformists".

My great grandparents (not college educated) had 5 kids

Their children (not college educated) had 5, 3, 0, 0 kids

(No. 2 of these was my grandmother)

My grandmother (not college educated) had 3 kids

Of them, the oldest and the youngest (my mom) were college educated. They had 3 and 2 children, respectively. The sister who did not go to college had no children.

My mom's sister had 3 children. Of them, 2 graduated from college. They had 3 children each. The remaining child did not attend college, and he has 2 children.

My mom had 2 children. My brother did not finish college. He has 2 children. I graduated from college, and I have 4.

My 4 children include 3 who have a college education and one who does not. The one who didn't go to college has 3 children, and the college crowd has 2, 2, and 3. One of them, however, intended to have more children, but his wife was diagnosed with cervical Cancer at 26 and had to have a hysterectomy.

Looks like I'm more prolific than anyone else since my grandmother's generation. Or maybe I'm just sexier....LOL.

[Devana 0]

Yeah, sexier.

[~Jules~ 0]

Yea, Carlene, I vote for sexier.

lol