Why people have so many children?

[rootX]

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Some parents have more than 3 children.

Why not?

Some people want 0 children; some want 1; some want 2; some want more. As with many things, a multiplicity of views seems best to me. No The Giver for me, thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.

Some people picture their future with a large family.

 

[Kerrie]

I don't understand why someone in the first world would want more than 1-2 children. Even now, some people prefer to have more than 3 children.

You have to consider a person's religious beliefs, as that can be a reason why people have large families. Also, a person's life experience might make them want more children (or none). I have three children because my mom, her father, and myself were all only children and I wanted to expand my family. Being an only child is not all that it is cracked up to be! I can imagine someone who has annoying siblings might decide to not have any children.

 

[lisab]

You have to consider a person's religious beliefs, as that can be a reason why people have large families. Also, a person's life experience might make them want more children (or none). I have three children because my mom, her father, and myself were all only children and I wanted to expand my family. Being an only child is not all that it is cracked up to be! I can imagine someone who has annoying siblings might decide to not have any children.

Ah, life experiences are definitely a big reason! I went the other way from you. Growing up, I had 7 brothers and 1 sister, so I chose to have one child. A nice, quiet, calm household .

 

[rootX]

Why not?

Personally, I don't understand how they deal with the big mess (3-6 small children all crying at once, imagine the headache), how they manage to dedicate appropriate amount of time to each child, and how they get time to take care of children while having other responsibilities like work. Also add paying the mortgages while one partner is off of work every other month.

I would prefer 2.

 

[rootX]

A nice, quiet, calm household .

My dream!

(I only had one sibling it was kind of ok, but once heard from a only one child friend that it is bit boring to be the only child in the house)

 

[Office_Shredder]

Personally, I don't understand how they deal with the big mess (3-6 small children all crying at once, imagine the headache), how they manage to dedicate appropriate amount of time to each child, and how they get time to take care of children while having other responsibilities like work. Also add paying the mortgages while one partner is off of work every other month.

I would prefer 2.

While one partner is off work every other month?

It used to be only one parent worked, and the other stayed home to raise the kids. What's wrong with that strategy?

 

[waht]

The less kids you have the less child support you got to pay.

 

[Kajahtava]

People are naïve and like to believe that having children comes down to what it's in their mind, rather than nappies, annoying 'no' phases, puberty, and then leaving your home in a fight, and finally either not speaking to you again, or putting you away in a home.

And consequently, in their naïvety, they also believe it, because they believe what they like to believe.

Also, the more you have, the more they'll practically pull each other apart.

Also, the more obvious answer is that we would have died if we hadn't some irrational need to breed, therefore evolution selected upon those irrational enough to breed.

I understand ever less why people want children in the third world by the way.

 

[Evo]

I grew up in the 60-70's and at that time there was a movement here called "Zero Population Growth". It really had an impact on me. For the first time I realized how much the population was destroying the earth.

I decided to have no children, but my second husband insisted on having children, but I refused to have more than the two that was environmentally sound.

No one "needs" children. More than two per couple is not considered ecologically sustainable.

 

[GeorginaS]

While one partner is off work every other month?

It used to be only one parent worked, and the other stayed home to raise the kids. What's wrong with that strategy?

The thing that tended to be wrong with that strategy was the economic disadvantage, and therefore power inequity disadvantage, one parent wound up having. In an ideal world, it's a great strategy for raising children. In reality, the cost is awfully high on the parent that stays home.

I understand that, not so very long ago, children didn't all make it to adulthood, so people needed to have more than one or two to ensure some reasonable rate of family survival.

As a kid from a two-child family -- which two children could not manage to get along through childhood and all through adulthood -- it strikes me now that it would be kind of nice to have at least one more sibling to count on. My sister died when she was 45 and that leaves me alone to contend with my aging parents. They go, and I'm pretty much entirely alone out here. One other sibling would have been handy.

 

[Kajahtava]

To slightly twist the topic by the way. I see a lot of people saying that abortion is unethical, but how ethical is it to create sentient life?

Especially if it's sentient life you have a certain control over in this society that some'd say borders in slavery.

 

[GeorginaS]

I grew up in the 60-70's and at that time there was a movement here called "Zero Population Growth". It really had an impact on me. For the first time I realized how much the population was destroying the earth.

I decided to have no children, but my second husband insisted on having children, but I refused to have more than the two that was environmentally sound.

No one "needs" children. More than two per couple is not considered ecologically sustainable.

Evo, I saw this author interviewed on The Daily Show last night. His research in his new book are pretty interesting and flip that whole over-populating the world notion on its head. Fascinating how entire social revolutions can happen so quickly and not in ways we'd anticipated. I remember hearing all the same stuff as you did about population growth when I was a kid.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0807085839/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[rootX]

While one partner is off work every other month?

It used to be only one parent worked, and the other stayed home to raise the kids. What's wrong with that strategy?

1) Everyone deserves a life outside their family. Staying home is just wrong because all you have in your life is your family to take care of when there is a big world beyond your family
2) It would only work if one partner is making sufficient money

 

[DaveC426913]

People are naïve and like to believe that having children comes down to what it's in their mind, rather than nappies, annoying 'no' phases, puberty, and then leaving your home in a fight, and finally either not speaking to you again, or putting you away in a home.

And consequently, in their naïvety, they also believe it, because they believe what they like to believe.

They are not naive (at least not generally). People have children knowing it will be challenging. Few people who have had children say they regret it.

No one "needs" children.

After food, water and shelter, there aren't a lot of things more imperative and more of a right than having offspring.

 

[Kajahtava]

They are not naive (at least not generally). People have children knowing it will be challenging. Few people who have had children say they regret it.

Not to others though, often enough to their own children.

It's called the outward façade of a functioning family. Mum was always just a bit more patient with me when people were visiting.

Besides, how many people that consciously stayed childless you think regretted it? Extra vacation in Spain together, no stress that your child isn't going to pass this year, no babysitters, the good life indeed.

 

[rootX]

I understand ever less why people want children in the third world by the way.

I started a thread about them about one year ago this time I excluded them and only considered the first world
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=294346

 

[lisab]

1) Everyone deserves a life outside their family. Staying home is just wrong because all you have in your life is your family to take care of when there is a big world beyond your family
2) It would only work if one partner is making sufficient money

Well an amazing thing happens when you have a child. It's like magic - you just want to spend time with your kid - talk, sing, play. Really, it's an incredible transformation.

In those formative years when my daughter was a small child, I found I had not the slightest interest in anything but my family. It wasn't wrong at all, your life is long and your kids are young for such a short time.

 

[Kajahtava]

Well an amazing thing happens when you have a child. It's like magic - you just want to spend time with your kid - talk, sing, play. Really, it's an incredible transformation.

Amazing isn't it? How your neurology is wired to make you love a person you don't even know simply because you have subconsciously determined that this individual is highly likely to share the most of your genetic code. Even worse, you subconsciously make yourself feel what is surely just pulling favours out of the principle of selfish genes is some-how a 'beautiful' thing, that you're willing to place one human being ahead of another simply because you've subconsciously determined that person shares more of those selfish genes of yours, magnificent, and highly depressing, not any less interesting.

 

[rootX]

Amazing isn't it? How your neurology is wired to make you love a person you don't even know simply because you have subconsciously determined that this individual is highly likely to share the most of your genetic code. Even worse, you subconsciously make yourself feel what is surely just pulling favours out of the principle of selfish genes is some-how a 'beautiful' thing, that you're willing to place one human being ahead of another simply because you've subconsciously determined that person shares more of those selfish genes of yours, magnificent, and highly depressing, not any less interesting.

You never had a child?

I can understand attachment for first few months/years.. but if it lasts longer than that, it is not only bad for children but also for the parents too IMO.

 

[Kajahtava]

You never had a child?

Nahh, don't still have them either.

And despite my sharp wits, intellectual depth and ripe command of the English grammar, I am actually in my very early twenties. But do flatter me more as I'm currently on the brink of suicide, you might even make me naïve enough to continue going, who knows?

I can understand attachment for first few months/years.. but if it lasts longer than that, it is not only bad for children but also for the parents too IMO.

So it's bad for the child if you lose attachment after a few months I am to understand from this post of yours?

Suddenly, I understand this past tense of 'to have' of yours...

 

[DaveC426913]

Besides, how many people that consciously stayed childless you think regretted it? Extra vacation in Spain together...

...a good life indeed.

Precisely. A good life is subjective.

Some people feel a good life is lived for themselves, some people feel a good life is lived for their children. We all know it is utterly subjective.


Which is why this whole thread is silly.

 

[Kajahtava]

Precisely. A good life is subjective.

Some people feel a good life is lived for themselves, some people feel a good life is lived for their children. We all know it is utterly subjective.


Which is why this whole thread is silly.

I beg to differ, I'm pretty sure that people who have children pull their hairs out practically at some point about them thinking it's a big mistake, though not always.

Though people that consciously decided to not have children never pull their hairs thinking 'OMG, I should've taken children after all.'

 

[Lisa!]

I wish we had a lorger family since it's really quiet and boring sometimes. I see my friends who have more sisters and brothers are usually busier and happier than the rest. Anyway although I like larg family and consider that sort of cute, I'm not going to have 1 myself since it's so difficult these days to have even 1 or 2 children...

 

[Huckleberry]

I beg to differ, I'm pretty sure that people who have children pull their hairs out practically at some point about them thinking it's a big mistake, though not always.

Though people that consciously decided to not have children never pull their hairs thinking 'OMG, I should've taken children after all.'

Having a child is a conscious choice, not merely a selfish or subconscious one. People make that choice knowing that there may be hardships that come with it. Instead of assuming that people who find raising a child stressful would be happier without their child, try asking someone in that situation if they would be happier without children. I'm sure you know someone. Then you may realize how unselfish the selfish gene can be, and how selfish conscious choices too often are.

I know a few thirty-something women who had decided earlier in their life to not have children and now are pulling their hair out about finding the right guy to have them with. Listening to them talk about boyfriends and babies about drives me nuts. Some women even broach the subject on a first date. That shouldn't surprise me, but it does. Point is, decisions don't always last a lifetime. They change as circumstances change. Maybe you'll notice it more as you get older and the people you know become somewhat different than you remember them being.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I always wonder why people have ANY children. After seeing what my friend goes through with just one child, I couldn't handle it. First of all, they're disgusting. As far as I'm concerned, poop is the most vile thing on Earth and when you have a kid, your life revolves around poop.
And I really don't see the point of having a kid. It's a burden with not much reward. What's the reward? Having a cute baby to hold? Kittens are cuter than babies and no burden at all.

I also think having a bunch of kids is a little arrogant. What makes your DNA so great that you think it needs to be replicated? Yeah, you're so wonderful that we need more of you.

Today, having more children shows a sign of sucess and walethiness.

In reality it's the opposite of that. It's the poor families producing most of the children.

 

[Kerrie]

I also think having a bunch of kids is a little arrogant. What makes your DNA so great that you think it needs to be replicated? Yeah, you're so wonderful that we need more of you.

In reality it's the opposite of that. It's the poor families producing most of the children.

There are plenty of people who adopt large amounts of children because they feel compassion for those children who have been abandoned, maybe compassion is in their DNA

 

[GeorginaS]

Having a child is a conscious choice, not merely a selfish or subconscious one.

Having children is also very, very frequently an unintended consequence.

 

[MotoH]

For everyone that doesn't have children to reduce the population, I will have 3.

I am thinking of starting a farm and having my stock work there for free. 1,000 acres of corn harvested by children. Now that is they way I want to live.

 

[Borg]

For everyone that doesn't have children to reduce the population, I will have 3.

I am thinking of starting a farm and having my stock work there for free. 1,000 acres of corn harvested by children. Now that is they way I want to live.

For some reason, my first thought was "Please God, kill me now". [URL]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy250/HughOfBorg/SuicideSmiley.gif[/URL]

 

[MotoH]

For some reason, my first thought was "Please God, kill me now". [PLAIN]http://i796.photobucket.com/albums/yy250/HughOfBorg/SuicideSmiley.gif[/QUOTE]

You have just earned 10 more children, and 15 more acres.

 

[Borg]

You have just earned 10 more children, and 15 more acres.

You are too weird.

 

[rootX]

For everyone that doesn't have children to reduce the population, I will have 3.

I am thinking of starting a farm and having my stock work there for free. 1,000 acres of corn harvested by children. Now that is they way I want to live.

What will happen to the land when you die and those 3 kids who would have to decide themselves how to distribute the output?

 

[MotoH]

What will happen to the land when you die and those 3 kids who would have to decide themselves how to distribute the output?

Nonononono. The Ratio is 1:3. For every 1 couple/person who decides to not have kids, I will have three kids. Therefor I will hopefully have enough kids so they won't be over worked plowing and harvesting my 1,015 acres of land.