The average American family today has between two and three children. When asked, most people would agree that this is the ideal size for a family. However, every once in a while you'll see a couple of overwhelmed parents walking down the street with seven or eight children in tow. These days, having a big family is stigmatized parents who have lots of kids tend to be looked looked down upon, and are sometimes accused of being irresponsible. There is even a term for people who are afraid of big families: fecundophobia. However, only fifty years ago big families were fairly common in the U.S. So, what's changed?
Shifting Gender Roles
Whereas fifty years ago women were primarily seen as homemakers, that is far from the case today. Instead of pumping out babies one after another, modern women are able to attend college, follow career paths, and successfully pursue goals that just a few generations ago would have been considered unrealistic. This shift away from traditional gender roles has naturally resulted in smaller family sizes, as women are putting off having kids in order to advance their careers.
Less Religion
Americans also just aren't as religious as they used to be. Although there are certainly exceptions, people with large families tend to be quite religious. It makes sense, considering that numerous religions have rules against contraceptives, an essential aspect of family-planning. The Catholic faith, for example, believes that any type of birth control is wrong and that the number of children you have should be left up to God to decide. Of course it's not just Catholicism there are many religious doctrines which hold similar views.
If actually followed, anti-contraception rules create an impossible choice for women: either forgo having sex altogether, or risk becoming full-time nannies for much of their adult lives. Even if God is opposed to birth control (which seems apocryphal), surely He would forgive someone who wanted a smaller, more manageable family. In any case, many people view religious institutions as overstepping their bounds by trying to influence such personal family decisions. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of today's parents choose to employ contraceptive methods in order to control the size of their family.
Does Faith Make Better Parents?
Some religious people will argue that since each child is a gift from God, the more children they have, the more blessed their family is. However, turning your household into a baby factory doesn't necessarily make your family more holy. If you need an example to prove it, look no further than the Duggar family. The Duggars, who are devout Baptists, starred in the TLC reality series 19 Kids and Counting. The popular show featured parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their nineteen children, but was cancelled last year after it was revealed that years earlier their eldest son, Josh, had molested five girls, including some of his own sisters. In this case, a highly-sheltered religious upbringing brought with it tragic and disturbing consequences. At what point do the strong family values typically associated with faith become worthless without adequate parental oversight and engagement? It stands to reason that the more children a couple decides to have, the harder it is to stay involved and have a positive influence on each one's life.
Changing Attitudes
Smaller families are now standard, and overall levels of faith seem to be on the decline in the U.S. That doesn't mean there is anything inherently wrong with big religious families, but it does illustrate an interesting shift in attitudes over time. Modern parents want control over the size of their family, and most have decided that two or three kids is an ideal number. Finally, while there are still plenty of churchgoers in the U.S., fewer and fewer people are allowing religious doctrine to control what goes on in their bedrooms.
Are Big Families Normal?
Despite their prevalence just a few generations ago, big families in America today are stigmatized. Is there good reason for this, or not? We'd like to hear your thoughts on these issues. Are big families perfectly normal, or is having lots of kids irresponsible? How deeply should religious institutions be involved in personal family decisions?
48 comments
-
roger hittle
I come from a family of five childten and one adopted for six. My mother was number 9 of 11 my father was number 3 of five. My mother has a siater with 11 kids my father brother has 12 kids my mother side of the family is very Catholic. My father's side is not. So my family falls in the middle of the issue. My wife and I only had two children because our second child had an illness we were told that if we had more children then it would be a 50/50 chance more of the children would be born with the same illness. Large families can be a comfort in bad times but also a burden when financial issues come about. But the sizes of a family should be left to the parents and church or state or the stuck up people down the street should shut up
-
Kathryn
In NY a family with one child pays the same in school taxes as a neighbor who has 6 children. Six children use far more educational resources than one, but of course it's easier to afford more children when others are helping to foot the bill. A large family also creates more waste. Check out how many trash receptacles are outside their house during garbage pick up day.
Many religious doctrines were formed centuries ago when there was more land and water and fewer people to consume it. Humans have a longevity now that was not attainable before modern medicine. We are also no longer an agricultural economy so family/farmhands are not needed.
If you love children, then leave something for the children of the future besides polluted air and landfills. The earth is a finite resource. Making more people than it can sustain is purely irresponsible.
-
Rev. Hoagie
Really? You're stooping to the old trick of pointing out the glaring exception of the Duggar family to showcase your point for smaller families? You're sliming an entire family because one of it's members went bad? How many "only" children are pedophiles, rapists or murderers? Did you bother to check that out? Or do you only spotlight things that go with your narrative like a good little leftist?
There were many historical reasons for large families some being: 1. A high child mortality rate meat you needed to have more while you could. 2. They helped run the family unlike todays kids who care about zero. 3. They took care of their parents should they become injured or ill. Now the job of the Nanny State. 4. They took care of their parents when they got old . Also now the job of the Nanny State. 5. Male children were needed to protect society in times of war. 6. Female children were needed to continue the blood line.
Then you toss out this nugget: "risk becoming full-time nannies for much of their adult lives.". So that's what you think of the generous loving institution of Motherhood? To you they're little more than "full-time nannies". You are a typical selfish, self absorbed, narcissistic millennial interested in you own comfort an little else to spare even for your own progeny.
Motherhood and bearing children are the most important ability of a woman. It is how humanity continues forward in case you don't realize that. Men can't do it, only women can. And while it is fine for some women to want a career if every woman wants to work outside the home society and ultimately humanity will end. And even if there comes a time children are "born" without a woman someone is still needed to be a Mother. And if you don't understand what it means to be a Mother I pity you.
-
Brother John
I wonder how many women would agree with you that their "most important ability" is to bear children. Assuming you're a man, Hoagie, is impregnating women your most important ability? And how would you understand what it means to be a Mother? Hey…… you aren't one of those transgender psycho-sexual identity disorder people you've been ranting about, are you?
-
Carol Amina
Smiles. Careful Brother John your speaking for many on this subject.
-
Dreamsinger
Hail @Brother John!
In response to @Hoagie, the problem with large families ending up with kids like Josh Duggar is that there comes a point where the parents can't keep track of everyone's activities. So they traditionally delegate responsibility to the oldest sibling, who recruits a younger sibling as the helper/handler.
Out of sight, out of mind. And then one day a young sibling speaks up, only to be told to stop lying about the perfect oldest sibling. So yes, we will "stoop to the old trick" because families are built from the ground up.
-
-
Randy Hough
We are all family. 1. The high survival rate of infants has lead to overpopulation and child poverty. 2. By "Help run the family" I hope you don't mean breeding free labor. There are reasons for child labor laws. Teen-unemployment is about double that for adults. 3. We are all family. The aged and or infirm should be cared for by the family: all of us 4. See #3 5. Violence breeds violence. Wars are evil. Women are able to murder other people's children too. 6. Bloodline? Like to inherit the castle?
-
Kathryn
As an only child I can tell you I have never murdered or harmed a fellow being, but your letter tests my philosophy. I thought trying to help others and make the world a better place for future generations was an important 'ability' and an excellent way to "move humanity forward". Silly me. You do not understand what it means to think beyond your narrow view of women. I pity you.
-
Dreamsinger
Hoagie, your reasons fall into "that was then, this is now."
- There's 7.4 billion people living in 2016. We didn't reach 1 billion until the 1860s. In that 150 years, we've had two world wars; numerous regional wars; a pandemic or two; irradiated the land, air, and sea; and dumped stuff like Agent Orange, white phosphorus, and Corex all over our planet.
We're still here. A high mortality rate isn't a big concern. But if it does, even Tribbles couldn't breed fast enough to avoid extinction.
It's hard to care about your parents if your parents treat you like kitsch.
ACA can't hold a candle to Medicare in "death panels".
Because the Nanny State pays the hospice and nursing homes more if they kill the elderly Medicare patients, before they hit the long-term care status.
The police simply shoot you for defending your family. If anyone asks what happens, nobody questions the cops' story that you came at them while high on meth.
Women are not chattel or cattle.
And I hate to say this, but in order to have a baby, you need sperm. If you have a problem with a woman having access to prevent being a burden to society with a baby they can't care for...
...then keep it in your pants, because you don't deserve to have access to condoms.
-
opalwolf
Dreamsinger, good points, but I will disagree with you on the paragraph after # 6. After years of college in the 1970's in the veterinarian program, one of my human biology classes - yes human for the vet program, the lesson was on human reproduction and the talk of men becoming obsolete as far as reproduction goes. We were still in the fairly early days of artificial insemination, Louise Brown was around 10 years old at the time and Dolly the sheep - cloning - had not even been discussed yet, we found out that basically human beings are nothing but gamete machines and all you need is 2 sets of information - todays DNA. You can take an egg form one female and another one from another female and infuse one into the other and you will end up with a female child. You can also electronically stimulate a human egg enough that it will eventually start to develop, you will end up with a sterile female child in that case. This was known to medical science over 40 years ago. Now we also can add cloning to the mix-which, if you believe in that whole Adam and Eve thing, we know today God would only need 1 cell and not an entire rib to clone another person and that Eve was actually a Steve, as he was the identical DNA copy of Adam, the donor. Or else Eve was the first transgender, biologically functioning person in the history of the world and they would have had to have a human female reproductive system from a cadaver to transplant into Eve for that to work - which has been successfully been done to some women on the planet since 2014, who have given birth. But that kind of surgery and scientific and medical knowledge did not exist back then. So men are technically no longer a necessity for the human species to survive. There are right now 4 other ways to continue to populate the planet without men.
-
Mrs. Lucifer
Oh, for fuck's sake...The issue with the Duggars is their insufferable SANCTIMONY, you fucking idiot. They LOVE to point out everyone else's morality but when their diddling little animal gets caught shoving his finger up his sisters' vaginas and the parents do NOTHING about this because they don't want to lose their TV show, it becomes a PROBLEM. It doesn't matter that Ma Duggar's vulva falls to the ground and that sex with her is like chucking a hot dog down a hallway 'cause there ain't no traction left on the tread. It doesn't matter that the selfish Duggars crotch drop more semen demons than STDs on a whore. It doesn't matter that Ma Duggar thrives on CHILD LABOR because she needs the older kids to take care of her crotch fruit. It doesn't matter that the children's lives center around her capacious vulva. It doesn't matter that Michelle and Jim Bob are goobers with a minimum education and that Jim Bob found a way to make a living with his penis instead of doing what most people do and getting an education. What matters is the HYPOCRISY, whether they have one child or 50. Got it, Fuckwit? Also, people who choose not to hump and open their flaps to crotch fruit are not "narcissistic". How do you know that they aren't pursuing an education where they are CANCER researchers? What if they bring beauty to the world by composing operas? There is more to life than following the dictates of your vagina, like an ape. Maybe you hump and breed out of a SELFISH need to be an exhibitionist. Gross. Do humanity a favor and please close your legs. We need less sanctimonious assholes.
-
opalwolf
wow, loved your descriptive terms you used for Mattress-back Michelle. I must remember some of them for my posting in the anti-Duggar sites on Facebook.
-
-
-
Pastor Pete
Personally I believe that with the major problem we have on Earth is overpopulation, having a large amount of children is irresponsible. At the rate we are going we have around 200 years until the extinction of the human race, do the maths.
-
Tom
There is another way to look at this, Pete. It is necessary for a nation to have at least a 2.0 birth rate in order to sustain its own society. Two births for every death. While I agree with you that overpopulation is a problem, cultural sustainability is even worse. The USA is below 2.0 right now. So are most european countries, and Japan leads the pack in non-sustainability to the point that over 50% of their population will soon be over 50 years old. Fewer and fewer people are being born to enter the work place. So our choice is the human race dies out from overpopulation or it does out because we are not having enough babies to sustain ourselves. Take your pick.
-
Don Marvin
Actually Tom, the birthrate for population maintenance is 2.3 not 2.0. The .3 makes up for the women who can't have or chose not to have children. You're right, The U.S. and most of Western Europe has been below 2.3 for some time. Japan is actually down to 1.7. Germany's acceptance of >1 million refugees wasn't entirely altruistic; they need people to fill the jobs that can't be filled by the indigenous population and to sustain their social security programs for retirees. Japan's xenophobia is hurting them and the problem is getting worse. China's 30 year old, one-child-per-family policy has created serious demographic problems for China; now they're encouraging Chinese couples to have two children. China will drop below the 2.3 figure in a few years. On the other end of the spectrum, Some African countries have birthrates of 6 or more.
The most liberal estimate I've read for total earth sustainability is a population of 3 billion; the most conservative is 1 billion; we'll be at 9 billion in less than 30 years. Every problem we have on this planet is created or greatly exacerbate by the burgeoning human population; there are simply too many people. Couples who decide to have more than two children are selfish and/or clueless about the crisis we're facing. The religionists will tell you that "god will provide" which, of course, is nonsense. If, in fact, he/she did provide, millions of people wouldn't starve to death each year.
-
John Hall
The birth rate of 2.3 children is NOT required to sustain a society, but it is required for economic growth. We need to change our thinking that economic growth is necessary. Society will continue with a declining population. Save the planet, get a tubal ligation or vasectomy.
-
Dreamsinger
John, can you please verify something for me?
Aside from "spilling seed" (masturbation), and excluding the part of "men laying with men" because there's no stated issue with "women laying with women", what forms of birth control are mentioned in the Bible?
I don't recall castration/vasectomy, tubal ligation/hysterectomy, condoms or chemical contraconceptive (which the Ancient Romans and Greeks preferred, to the point of making the necessary herbs go extinct) mentioned or listed anywhere in Old or New Testament.
Considering eunichs were required to be surgically sterilized in order to prevent the harems and concubines of kings, pharaohs and other rulers of the era from confusing the royal bloodlines, it seems odd that a God who requires men to have birth control would refuse the same Free Will to women.
Or am I missing something? Thanks, sir.
-
-
-
-
William Waugh
My town recently had a billboard proclaiming that all our problems are the result of overbreeding in the working class.
-
bender
i agree that the root cause of many of our problems today - global warming, water scarcity - is overpopulation. one of the first things i want to tackle when i'm president is to find a way to incentivize people to get sterilized to prevent unwanted pregnancies and control population growth. sodomy is eco-friendly and abortion is green.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjsikRTIX28
-
Dreamsinger
Sodomy is defined as "any sexual act or position other than the traditional missionary (man on top, facing woman)."
Not for nothing, but I think that's a huge positive reason to celebrate March 14th every year.
-
-
-
Kathryn
The human race dies out because Japan, the US and a few other western nations opt out of over-breeding? Don't you consider Asians, Africans, or Latin Americans part of the human race? Overpopulation is a severe issue in many third world nations. In China the air is not breathable. In South America they are destroying the rain forest at an alarming rate. In India and some African nations babies are born and die daily in poverty, hunger and disease. You're answer to this problem is for the United States, et al, to have large families? You're statistics sound erudite, but fall short in logic.
-
Tom
Asians, Africans, and Latinos are definitely part of the equation. In the US, African-Americans and Latinos are above the 2.0 level of minimum sustainability. Sadly though, the country as a whole is at 1.7. It is going to take a couple of generations for this to correct. While several areas of the world are well over populated, I am talking about the merest level of birth rate just to maintain any given society. It is not that we are opting out of over-population, it is that we are not having babies at a minimal rate to even sustain ourselves. This is very dangerous for a society and adjustments have to be made. In Japan, their problem is heightened due to the fact that they do not allow any immigration. The numbers work against them. France has recognized that the French are not producing enough babies and have until recent years turned a blind eye to massive immigration just to have additional people in the work force. Now, they are unhappy with the immigration situation because of who came. Too bad. The world is shifting and those of us in the "developed" world need to take note of it. Either we have babies, or we encourage immigration. The latter does not always allow you to be too selective. While immigration is not a bad thing in and of itself, after all, we are a nation of immigrants; when you are in a crunch situation, the flood gates tend to remain opener wider than you may like. Perhaps we need a redistribution of assets in food and services to go to those nations that are terribly overpopulated. This might alive the suffering there. But then, money comes into play. They cannot buy those resources and those who have them are not going to give them away. I stick to my original thought. Have as many children as you can support financially, emotionally and exucationally. No matter where in the world you are! But, if you cannot afford to do so, do not keep having children.
-
Kathryn
How about this? Have as many children as the earth can sustain.
Again, the natural resources of the planet are finite. When they're gone, they're gone. Recycling is a temporary fix. Recycled items eventually break down chemically, then what? Have you visited China? Have you witnessed the populace walking around in masks because of the foul air? Have you seen land so over farmed it no longer supports vegetation? Have you observed an aerial view of the acres and acres of trash floating in the oceans? Too many people consuming too much and leaving the refuse marinating in the air and water, will be our undoing.
It isn't about the economics Mr. Jaynes. It's about ecological responsibility. We may not be alive to see the horrible consequences of over breeding, but to be cavalier about them is reprehensible and to assume this is a financial issue is shortsighted.
-
Dreamsinger
Not feeling any sympathy here, Kathryn. In my hometown of Miami, our world-famous Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant has been leaking radioactive wastewater into the Biscayne Bay or at least the past several months. On top of it, all of the immigrants (retirees from the other 49 states) have shown excellent "ecological responsibility" by sucking up all the water out of our Biscayne Aquifer that we now have saltwater invasion as far inland as five miles. As a result, Turkey Point's been giving off radioactive saltwater plumes that are precipitating into our ground.
I didn't know that was happening, and I haven't lived in Miami since 1988. And I didn't know -- very few in Miami, or even the entire state of Florida, actually do -- because our news stations are being "economically responsible" by not reporting it. Seems it'd be bad for business if the tourists found out, god knows we have no economy left to speak of thanks to Jeb Bush and Rick Scott.
And before you go thinking "woe is me", there's two other major nuclear disasters going on as we speak. One is Indian Point Nuclear Station (which is on the shore of the Hudson River, 25 miles upstream from New York City) had a huge tritium waste spill that got into the ground. Some water wells in the region spiked over 20,000% over the safe limits. But after all, the CEO of Nestle says you don't have the right to drink water unless you pay him for it.
The other is the West Lake Landfill in St. Louis, MO. Or actually, the part of the landfill where nuclear waste and trash from Manhattan Project and the Cold War era is buried in with the newspapers and cans of tuna, a rapidly-decreasing distance away from a raging fire that's been burning for the past 5 years. There is a plan to keep the fires from making half the country go Katie-Ka-Boom, but it just got approved to start preparations to build it -- and it'll take a year to complete it, assuming that there's no major issues like not actually having a year left to get it done.
Bet you didn't hear about those either. Or that Hanford Nuclear Waste Storage Facility's about to breach the Columbia River over by Seattle, or that California was forced to order their crab harvesting seasons permanently closed after finding the seafood at 3000 times the safe radioactive limit due to Fukishima.
So I do apologize, but right now increasing family sizes is not a huge concern.
-
Kathryn
You're missing the issue and and yet ironically furthering my point. Clean water, indeed any water, is becoming a problem here. It will only get worse, as will air pollution, over-farmed land, etc. Increasing the population here or anywhere is not wise, and if you think that ocean and air pollution in other countries do not effect us, you are failing to see the global picture. The radioactive waste/landfill causing the havoc you commented on is just that... waste, created by too many people consuming too much. Same planet, same solution: less people, less misuse.
-
Dreamsinger
I'm sorry, Kathryn, but were you agreeing with me?
Just making sure I don't "miss the issue and yet ironically further your point" again, because you did an excellent job of adding that the effects of our "ecological responsibility" isn't limited to what we do in the North American continent, and therefore we have to start taking action here in the United States before blaming China for smog.
BTW, the smog in China is just the end result of our corporations and manufacturers sending your jobs to sweatshops to save a few bucks. They're only giving you what you've been telling them you want to buy, because the customer's always right. And you keep electing the people that answer to the corporations, time and time again, simply because you don't care how you get what you want, as long as you get it.
As a CEO myself, I am only pointing out that we answer to you, and that you are the job creators. So this is something you have to fix.
-
-
-
-
-
Glenn Byrnes
When it comes to parenting, quality is more important than quantity .
-
Dreamsinger
Can we please stop with calling anyone who disagrees with the modern trends of division, hatred, discrimination, and Otherness, anything"-phobe"? Seriously. I've been accused of being a "Christophobe" because of my stance on holding Christian warlocks (oathbreakers, hypocrites, Pharisees, whatever you want to call it) accountable for the harm their ignorance causes everyone else each day.
And now, because I'm worried about overpopulation and the fact that we can't feed the 7.4 BILLION people that we already have, I'm a "fecundophobe" for not supporting the Quiverfull movement? Seriously, God put humans in charge of this planet and the last thing He'd want for us to do is breed ourselves into war, mass starvation, and extinction, simply to make him happy.
Tell you what, folks. When you stop all the religious wars that profit men who serve two masters, when you stop taking away free natural resources for those same men who serve two masters that sell those natural resources back to us, when you make sure that the homeless are fed and helped back onto their feet instead of hunted down in alleyways, when you grow up and start acting like the responsible adults that your god originally demanded you to be...
...THEN I will qualify as a "fecundophobe". Until then, keep it in your pants!
-
Kathryn
I think we are on the same page, while not realizing it. I am in total agreement with you on all fronts, save one. I am not sending jobs to China, nor am I demanding cheaper goods at any cost. You need to drop the pronoun 'you' , TL, unless you are addressing your fellow CEOs. They are sending jobs to other countries to increase their true God: profit. I'm not saying that the average American isn't partially responsible also, but the burden of responsibility falls to our political and business leaders(really one blurred sameness). As for electing people answerable to 'those corporations', that mess lands in the laps of our Supreme Court, who passed Citizens' United which is an anethema to our democracy. It allows the less informed to be manipulated into voting against their own interests by the mega-corps that are really running things worldwide. It is the stuff of nightmares, n'est pas? Fun sparring w/you!
-
Dreamsinger
Thank you for clarifying. But unless you happen to live completely off grid, grow your own cotton for clothing, grow your own food, and never buy a book or electronic device, you are just as responsible for those corporations sending America's jobs to other countries.
In fact, your computer is made from parts that America manufactures in places like China, Korea, and Vietnam. Your vehicle contains parts that were manufactured in other countries, at America's contracted request.
Your news comes from a broadcast station owned by one of only 6 corporations. Fox News Channel isn't even an American-owned cable channel, the Saudis share that one with Rupert Murdoch who runs the New York Times from his HQ in England.
That's the short-short version, but you're welcome to take a look at what you use, where it's manufactured, and who owns those manufacturing facilities since I don't know you too well. But the government of the United States of America is a representative form of democratic republic, hence President Lincoln's reference to "a government for the people, of the people, by the people."
We don't elect leaders, Kathryn. We elect representatives of the American people. Which means that our representatives are, in fact, ourselves. So if we're going to change anything, then we need to start at the source -- the people of the United States. A government of the people is only as successful as the people that elect it.
-
Kathryn
Gee. Really? I think that makes you as much of the problem as everyone else unless you're 'off the grid'. What are you using for email? A stone and a chisel? C'mon Mr. CEO, drop the holier than thou attitude. Realize that these representatives are not 'us'. They are far removed from the average citizen and his/her daily cares. 'Representatives' have manipulated populations throughout history. You're dim view suggests we are self-destructing and should just end it all. I'm not there yet. I think getting corporations and religions out of our political climate are a good start for needed change.
-
Dreamsinger
So you're saying we import our elected representative officials? Gee, that was never mentioned in any of the social studies, American government, or political courses I enrolled in during the 1980's and 1990's.
I should've gone to Devry, instead of wasting my time at an actual State Regents accredited four-year university. My bad. ;)
All seriousness aside, you keep forgetting one rule: "the customer is always right". You tell us this every single day when you don't get something that you didn't pay for. That's why we let you violate our business operations and steal our inventory, because an adult throwing a temper tantrum is a lot more destructive than a 3-year-old amped up on Red Bull and Snickers candy bars.
Although to be fair, those 3-year-olds are getting pretty good at using a gun, so they seem to be catching up with the adults.
I use stuff that I know comes from jobs overseas. Just as I know you do too. I'm not being "holier-than-thou." I'm simply adding new information to someone who... https://youtu.be/MMzd40i8TfA
-
-
-
-
-
Restrepo
I don't understand everyone in here is so worried about "overpopulation". Not possible for people to go thirsty, the Earth is 70% water! There is obviously enough to go around
-
Dreamsinger
You're correct in that 70% of the Earth is covered in water. But only 0.37% of that entire amount is actually drinkable. (Source: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/murphymw/)
Making matters worse is that the groundwater is running low. Inland parts of California are sinking because of the bottled water corporations, but thanks for blaming it on the guys who grow the avocados for your guacamole dip. And it turns out that the oil companies are dumping fracking wastewater into freshwater reservoirs and lakes across the country.
But hey, what do I know? Can I get you a glass of that frack water? All that hatred must make you very thirsty.
-
Restrepo
37% of 70% is still a lot of water. We should really focus on getting most of it into bottles before the avocados get it all.
-
Dreamsinger
Not "37%", it's 0.37%. As in less than one percent.
Which comes out to 0.259% of the Earth's total surface area. (0.70 x 0.0037 = 0.00259)
One-quarter of one percent. Makes free tap water sound like a better idea than $3/bottle Nestle water, doesn't it?
-
-
-
-
Stella
The planet is finite. There are too many people on it and IMO particularly too many Americans who are the greediest and most wasteful people on the planet - again IMO. Yes - I'm American. I would support zero growth rate in the USA for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately much of the rest of the world wants to live at US standards that are unsustainable, but most people don't want to think about those repercussions much less address them so the problem gets passed on from generation to generation. I find it impossible to call that freak show of a family in the picture - "a family." Breeding is a contest for these individuals. I have to wonder how much welfare they collect. If she stays at home and he is the sole provider what does he do for a living and how many millions of dollars per year does he make to feed, clothe, educate, provide health care, etc. for these dozens of kids. Do they receive any individual attention? How is their emotional support? Birthing a child is not the same as parenting. Any idiot can get pregnant or make someone pregnant. Ask my neighbor who has 3 kids by 3 different men; is on welfare; home schools her kids; and is getting ready to marry again and start on #4. I think she should be sterilized. Pumping out babies has become a recreational activity that has little to do with family or parenting. Anti-abortion folk have glorified being a mother to the point that 12 years olds are giving birth. I don't know how any sane person can be happy about this. The lack of education; parenting skills; and money are just the beginning of bringing more children into the world that are immediately at a disadvantage and a burden to society. And these kids tend to repeat what their mothers have done. It is far past time to quit glorifying giving birth. There are millions of children that need adopting in this world and they continue to wait while 12 year olds give birth and have 24 year old grandmothers. It is sick. Finally, the "church" and I'll pick on the Catholics here, have no business counseling women on their families when the entire church is run by men who are allegedly celibate. The Catholic Church is irrelevant and has become a joke with their endless lying; pedophiles; hiding sick priests so they can continue abusing children - this includes the new Pope everyone is so gaga over - and so it goes. Apparently the Crusades weren't enough of a black eye. Non human animals do a far better job regulating their populations. We need more wild animals and fewer human beings. My 2 cents. And if anyone is wondering - no I don't have children. Made that decision early on and stuck with it. No regrets.
-
Dreamsinger
You mean the Duggar family? The dad's a major preacher in his megachurch, so money's never a problem.
(Just ask Joel Osteen. He was furious when someone broke into his back office donations safe, and stole the $600,000 in it from that Sunday's sermon. Nobody knows where it goes after it goes in the safe... but it looks like his megamansion is a good guess.)
Several years ago, while Josh was sexually assaulting his sisters in their sleep, the dad did a brief GOP campaign run. Part of his platform was that pedophiles should be executed.
Still no word from him about if that applies to his son. But until a year or two ago, going on welfare wasn't a concern. After Josh got outed, TLC pulled the plug on the gravy train, and people shunned the family, the Quiverfull family was out of ammo for options and up to 21 kids.
The world's response? "Go apply at McDonald's to flip burgers, like you've been telling us all these years. 21 kids is a lot of paychecks."
-
-
Wheeler France
Our planet is reaching the limit of what it can support. Here in America, we have the resources for more growth. Not all countries have that luxury. Globally I think the policy of zero population growth is a good idea. There's no way to police such a policy but we can start the process. It is an attitude, not an absolute.
-
Hopeful Thinker
Bigger is better. People should go back to the way things used to be done...children, religion and all! I was not raised Catholic, but I do think people should position themselves in life to have many children and not control their fertility. We needn't worry about space and water, etc. etc. things always have and will continue to work themselves out. Big familes, wholesome values, women who know how to tend a home and family, that's what we should strive to get back to. Natural, home births for these babies. Let's birth on ladies!!!?
I think one should have as many children as one can afford...financially, emotionally, educationally, and in every other way. If you can provide a good quality of life for a large number of children, go ahead and have them. If you are not sure that you have what it takes for even one child...abstain or use birth control. In other words, think before you bed.
How about taking some responsibility for our over populating this planet. We need to start consciously down sizing our families as we don't have enough food or water and we're polluting this planet so horribly.
And, the Catholic church needs to wake up and stop disallowing birth control. Birth Control does NOT kill anyone or any thing. It just prevents a conception from happening.
While I agree with most of your statement, I do believe the planet is over populated NOT because we choose to have many children, but because we choose to "play god" with those who are already on this planet. Even 50 years ago, we did not have the advancements in medicine as we do today, we did not have the heroic measures of saving life as we do today. Not that long ago if a child was born premature or physically deformed, the child was left to die...today...not a chance.
All 7.4 billion humans currently living today can fit inside the area of Bahrain.
With room.
And yet we cannot sustain our species, or the planet, because of at least several centuries (if not a few thousand years) of poor choices.
The Earth isn't the one that needs saving.
comments like your reveal how hypocritical you are. all the people on earth can fit into Pensacola, Florida, but you forget how much land and water and other resources are needed to feed, house and provide other needs like heat, water, for every person on earth and that is where we are running out of resources. water is a major concern today as we are seeing droughts, many kept hidden from the people becasue of controlled media, but major water sources are drying up worldwide and then we are poisoning our water at a huge rate and once done, it can never be cleaned up enough to make it safe, not only for drinking, but for wildlife, agriculture and if we are lucky-recreational purposes. then we can go on to housing, energy, food needs and not everyone can afford the prices in todays world for their necessities in order just to live. adding more humans into this mix is not an answer with good endings. people need to look at the whole picture of what having dozens of children is doing to the entire planet. if you want lots of children, why not adopt some instead.
I would gladly adopt; however as an adopted kid myself (born early 1977; entered Florida HRS in late 1978; adoption finalized in early 1982), I have less standing in the application process than a gay couple -- and I'm straight with no criminal or drug addiction history.
A real shame, too, because God knows there's a lot of kids being thrown out of Christian families for being different every hour of every day in every state in America.
You were saying about hypocritical comments, @opalwolf?
That would mean NONE, 99% of parents can not afford having any kids.
If you think you can afford to have a kid, you're not ready to have a kid. They're kids, not kitsch.