nepenthean wrote:...realizes the terminal inevitability of his/her existence.
We're all going to die one day.
Yes but not necessarily with such poetic existentialist commentary
Actually a lot of people I know (but not me) remember the moment they found out that everybody dies, and how shocking that moment was. I found that rather odd, I'd always thought everybody knew instinctively right from the start.
Don't get me wrong I would love to have or raise kids (adopted kids are an option, and I have had experience of raising someone elses kids for five years in a previous relationship and found it really enjoyable). I just can't morally justify having a tribe - one or two is more than enough for me. I love the idea of having a big family - I just cannot justify it ethically. It really is a case of old activist chant
If not now, when?
If not here, where?
If not me, who?
Maybe its more of a boy think to care about their genes surviving and dominating in the future. I just want to know that any kids I have will be happy, that I'll be able to support them and that they have a decent planet to live on and that my having kids won't remove someone elses chance to survive. Maybe its cos I'm an identical twin - our genes have twice the chance of surving... But I seriously think it is time to practise what we preach - I am surprised to hear about powerswitchers having such big families (cognative dissonance?)
- and hey I'm not advocating anything as intolerable as abstinance I'm just saying there are other options and that whilst it is taboo to discuss willingly limiting family size, children are a privilege and bringing one into existence is the biggest decision anyone makes, they are not a commodity that we can have because 'we' want them. It is far better to willingly reduce family size before conception and oh, hey ho, just have to stick to recreational rather than procreational sex - than for another human being to starve to death as a result of overcrowding on the planet. At the mo' we are buffered from the external results of our lifestyle choices, but at some point - the effects are going to be felt closer to home.
To elaborate a bit more on my personal situation, we did not plan a large family. I started out as definately only thinking of having two children, that was a "normal" family as I knew, did not think of anything else. After the first two, we decided after much thought to have a third. The fourth was not planned! But now they're all here, I am determined to make the best of it and live with as low a footprint as possible. Our "direct" carbon emissions are just below 2 tonnes per year each, and we're working to get that down further. For sure each of these great kids will end up as adults, they will have to make their own decisions about how they live their lives and potentially our "clan" will have a bigger resource drain than the offspring of a smaller family. But I hope some of the frugalness will have rubbed off, and they will be well equipped to handle PPO world by whatever way I can teach them.
I certainly feel quite comfortable in supporting population stabilisation, recognising that many folk are happy with 0-2 children. Large families like mine are now very unusual in developed countries (everyone thinks they're the first to say to me "you've got your hands full!"). I don't think we should coerce people to limit family size like in China/India. Education and development are the better way. In most of Europe, Japan, Russia (and US?) the birthrate is now well below replacement rate and birthrates are dropping in most parts of the developing world. Politicians in Germany and France are worried about the demographic timebomb and are trying to incentivise larger families. Population is more of a concern in developing countries, but there, their resource use per head is so much lower than ours, and we need to be careful about pointing the finger (cf current post-Kyoto talks). Again, I believe its just as much about lifestyle decisions as numbers of people.
I'm not trying to argue that we've done the "right thing" but I find it useful and interesting to discuss the issue, especially as I'm in the environmental movement and this question comes up all the time!
I reckon in the next few decades we will have more than enough climate refugees to fill our 'pensions gap' here in the UK without extorting us all to have a higher than replacement rate family. The fact is we are overpopulated now both in the UK and globally, so sooner or later we are going to have to cope with the uncomfortable process of reducing down - that may mean some peoples pensions aren't so cushty. Hey, when I retire there won't be a pension - so look on the bright side. As for coercing people into limiting their fecundity.... I don't think that's necessary, just limit child benefits and free maternity healthcare, and free education to the first two kids and people will get the message. I don't see why I should pay taxes for other people to make unsustainable lifechoices, and this is from someone who has had to make hard choices about fertility. It would be interesting to see the Tory response to this - as you mentioned accidents happen, but as a society, we only slag off teenage mothers for having unplanned pregnancies - the amount of middle aged women having 'accidents' is huge! Regardless of age if I can't afford to raise my kid, and am not in a relationship with appropriate stability for the kid I'll be damned if I expect other people to cough up for my mistake. Don't get me wrong - big families are great, and I think we need to go back to the community model where it takes a village to raise a child, and people let their kids out to play together and look out for each others kids, that way everyone gets the joy of having lots of kids running around - without stuffing the biosphere yet further.
Vortex wrote:
Large families - at a personal level - can be advantageous.
D'oh - no sh*t sherlock - that has to be the best one line example of the tragedy of the commons I have seen recently. But isn't that THE central issue - most of our problems (i.e. CC, PO) come from people making decisions which make sense at a personal level but which have crippling global consequences when we all do them. At some point, someone out there has to be the bigger person and make a decision which may be less advantageous to them personally and more advantageous globally - otherwise we're all stuffed.
I suspect that individuals & families will almost always protect themselves.
It's at the corporate & government level the big changes can be made.
A government minister can globally do the right thing and mandate reductions in national fossil fuel use ... whilst sneakily making sure that his/her family stays toasty warm. That's fine by me.
Sadly we have slimeball governments who do a crap job and then STILL loot us.
Vortex wrote:
Large families - at a personal level - can be advantageous.
D'oh - no sh*t sherlock - that has to be the best one line example of the tragedy of the commons I have seen recently. But isn't that THE central issue - most of our problems (i.e. CC, PO) come from people making decisions which make sense at a personal level but which have crippling global consequences when we all do them. At some point, someone out there has to be the bigger person and make a decision which may be less advantageous to them personally and more advantageous globally - otherwise we're all stuffed.
I suspect that individuals & families will almost always protect themselves.
It's at the corporate & government level the big changes can be made.
A government minister can globally do the right thing and mandate reductions in national fossil fuel use ... whilst sneakily making sure that his/her family stays toasty warm. That's fine by me.
Sadly we have slimeball governments who do a crap job and then STILL loot us.
Your point about large families is factually correct Vortex but, as MM says, it is a textbook example of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Aye, and just cos the government is doing something - would you want to stoop to their level?
As for anthropomorphosising genes, sorry for not being clear, that's not really what I was getting at. It's more that the different sexes seem to have different responses to fertility and offspring. For all of my male mates who have had kids recently, one of the first (almost guaranteed) male responses has been 'heheh at least I'm not firing blanks' and other self congratulatory remarks aimed at their own tackle - I just don't see that with women - we don't go around patting our ovaries on the back (if such a thing is possible) But in the bigger scheme of things, my Polish grandparents both suffered a great deal in WWII - this has resulted in my Grandad's obsession that we all have large families with lots of sons to carry on the family name, whereas my Grandmother cared more about the day to day care of such children in the here and now, as opposed to any great family legacy in posterity. Maybe its because we are a patrilineal society?
Vortex wrote:As powerswitchers are probably brighter than the average, I bet that their incomes are higher than average too ... hence some big families.
...and I'm the exception that proves these rules!
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Hmmm I'm not sure that observation still holds true. Of my mates from Oxbridge, most are still paying for their education, and as a cohort, we approach 30 most of us would love to be starting a family right now. However we are still paying for education, and with the housing ladder being pulled up like a drawbridge by BTLers and other speculators - it's a tough choice to have kids in a rented house with very little in the way of security of abode. Of the 30 or so I'm still in touch with, most are in the top earning echelons but only 2 have had children and that is because they married old money. The number of these friends in committed relationships who felt compelled to have abortions because of economic reasons is significantly higher (close to 20%). The old rules of the game don't work anymore, which is why Stumuz' comments about how he turned out alright and worked his way to the top irk somewhat. It's a totally different ballpark. Without significant support from generations above who have siphoned off the future wealth of my and coming generations, you can have all the education in the world and have a decent job but still not manage the basics of buying a house and supporting a family. Or you can do what I'm doing and get a boat and a cat....
Tony and Cherie: 4 kids
Eliott Morely (damn good environment minister, but...): 4 kids
Sharon Astyk (damn good self-sufficiency blog from the US east coast): 4 kids
Ethical Man (from Newsnight) 3 kids
Yeah I see what you mean...on the other hand though Britain's Largest Family (20 kids, 1 mum 1 dad) live on benefits in a council-house.
Vortex you are probably right! For us we would have not considered the third kid I think if we had been expecting to stay the rest of our lives in the house we were at the time, a 3 bed semi (which was effectively a 2 bed semi since I need a home office).
Miss Madam, totally agree with you, I don't believe families have a particular right to government subsidy, at least those on decent enough incomes. I'm still amazed at what we get in tax credits etc. And totally agree that we should get more into community living, extended families, away from the "independent, isolated nuclear family" model. We have my mother-in-law living near us and its great (really!).
Miss Madam wrote:...one of the first (almost guaranteed) male responses has been 'heheh at least I'm not firing blanks' and other self congratulatory remarks aimed at their own tackle - I just don't see that with women - we don't go around patting our ovaries on the back (if such a thing is possible)
Oh I don't know about that. I think you will find women get just as fixated with their ovaries and (in some cases) proud of them, following a long-awaited successful conception. Women are, I'm sure, more subtle about their self-congratulation. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with feeling proud/pleased with your ovaries/"tackle" (funny word that), if you have managed to get pregnant after a long period of trying, is there?
Miss Madam wrote:But in the bigger scheme of things, my Polish grandparents both suffered a great deal in WWII - this has resulted in my Grandad's obsession that we all have large families with lots of sons to carry on the family name, whereas my Grandmother cared more about the day to day care of such children in the here and now, as opposed to any great family legacy in posterity. Maybe its because we are a patrilineal society?
Doesn't your family story illustrate Vortex's point to some extent? Perhaps the traditional male role of protecting the family translates as placing the emphasis on security by force of numbers.
I'm just saying there are other options and that whilst it is taboo to discuss willingly limiting family size, children are a privilege and bringing one into existence is the biggest decision anyone makes, they are not a commodity that we can have because 'we' want them. It is far better to willingly reduce family size before conception and oh, hey ho, just have to stick to recreational rather than procreational sex - than for another human being to starve to death as a result of overcrowding on the planet. At the mo' we are buffered from the external results of our lifestyle choices, but at some point - the effects are going to be felt closer to home. 
