243 replies to this topic

[Kay Fury]

Kouran, I am aware of that and heavily in favor of population decline.

[ShowOverBooks]

Regardless of your age - you're single and already have three children, and want another?

Show some social and familial responsibility and give up this idea.

[Mandy]

ShowOverBooks, on 11 December 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Regardless of your age - you're single and already have three children, and want another?

Show some social and familial responsibility and give up this idea.

As a single mom I still have every ability to put my children through college - something my married, adopted parents didnt do for me.  I don't see how, if I'm able to do this and take care of my children, how having another would be irresponsible at ALL.  I'm not a drain on the social system.

[Opisthokont]

Nukelavee, on 11 December 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

I dunno, I don't think I've noticed having to find new people to replace those sidelined by breeding...

What I have noticed is, despite not having offspring and not being capable of fathering them, I really enjoy seeing my friends with their children.  And I really enjoy when those children see me as a friend of theirs, as well.

OK, maybe I was exaggerating a bit. And I certainly don't dislike kids, or avoid meeting friends who have become parents. But it is, in my experience, inevitable that when someone that you used to meet almost every day has kids, you are going to see much less of them.

[Kay Fury]

All people are a drain on the ecosystem though, and more people = more consumption of resources and natural habitat loss to support even uses of renewable resources. I know it's a bummer to bring environmental issues into this kind of conversation, but it is an important factor when making offspring to consider that not just you, but the planet must support them and THEIR children.

[MisterOJ]

Kay Fury, on 11 December 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

All people are a drain on the ecosystem though, and more people = more consumption of resources and natural habitat loss to support even uses of renewable resources. I know it's a bummer to bring environmental issues into this kind of conversation, but it is an important factor when making offspring to consider that not just you, but the planet must support them and THEIR children.

I used to think like this too.

Then, I took my first trip on an airplane. From up there, seeing how much of the earth is simply not populated at all, makes the whole overpopulation thing seem kinda silly.

[Nukelavee]

Np, Woo, I weighted my response a bit.

I mean, I don't spend much time around friends with newborns, I like to wait until the kids are old enough to be taught phrases that will embarrass the parents after my visit.

[Yana]

ShowOverBooks, on 11 December 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Regardless of your age - you're single and already have three children, and want another?

Show some social and familial responsibility and give up this idea.

I'm definitely on Kay's side of being in favor of adoption and general population decline. However, I truly believe that children should be wanted, loved and supported, and if those criteria are met, it really shouldn't matter how many siblings or parents you have. Single parents can sometimes do much better job than "perfect" families with mom, dad, and two kids.

[Sci-2]

It's not solely a space issue, it's also about consumption of resources and production of waste.

[BigFatCoward]

i am very lucky that my other half is 9 years younger than me, so no biological clock kicking in yet.  
i am quite upset that i won't have the same relationship with my children as i have with my mother.  she had me at 21, at best my first child will arrive when i'm 37.  i feel i may be a bit 'out of touch' when they hit their teens.

[Yana]

MisterOJ, on 11 December 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

I used to think like this too.

Then, I took my first trip on an airplane. From up there, seeing how much of the earth is simply not populated at all, makes the whole overpopulation thing seem kinda silly.

The Earth is not exclusively reserved for humans. There are other creatures living on it as well, creatures we also depend upon, and they need place to live as well.

[MisterOJ]

Yana, on 11 December 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

The Earth is not exclusively reserved for humans. There are other creatures living on it as well, creatures we also depend upon, and they need place to live as well.

Yeah, and it's pretty darn big. Big enough for everything.

[Inigima]

That does not actually seem to be the case. Space aside, there are limits to arable land, survivable habitats for animals and plants needed to make the ecosystem function, and sundry other concerns including pollution and climate change. These aren't necessarily reasons for a given person to have/not have kids, but to dismiss overpopulation as a nonsense idea is... myopic.

[Kouran]

I dont really see the issue with having kids later in life. My great grand parents on my dad's side were 38, and 39 when they had my grandfather who was the 2nd of 3 kids, my great uncle was born 3 years later in 1915. So if a 42 year old can give birth in 1915 rural Arkansas I dont see a problem in 2012.

[Kay Fury]

Mr.OJ- I've been on a plane, I live in a place that LOOKS unpopulated. But, it's farmland. Thousands upon thousands of acres of single species crop farming. This is BAD for the earth, even if the people living here are few. These corn farms use terrible chemicals. These corn farms are here to feed cattle, which are here to feed people. Land use of human population goes way beyond the amount of space you take up personally. Its the amount of space that is not left entirely alone. The plastics and fuels you use are oil taken from the earth. The cows you eat and wear and fuels you burn release co2 into the atmosphere spurring climate change. The farming that feeds you and your meat animals takes habitat from native species, often causing extinction. The effects of climate change caused by fuel use and farming (news flash, cattle emit as much greenhouse gas as cars) cause draught which raises the land use required to feed people and livestock. Even the oceans, where we don't live at all, have changed drastically because there are so many people. Changing ocean temperature makes storms less predictable, it makes certain marine species less viable, it changes ocean currents making travel and spawning harder. We overfish species into extinction and change the balance of predator and prey animals just as on land. There are too many people AND the people we have use too much of and from the earth.

[Inigima]

Kouran, on 11 December 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

I dont really see the issue with having kids later in life. My great grand parents on my dad's side were 38, and 39 when they had my grandfather who was the 2nd of 3 kids, my great uncle was born 3 years later in 1915. So if a 42 year old can give birth in 1915 rural Arkansas I dont see a problem in 2012.

The issues that exist are fewer than they were at one time, but they were (and, to a lesser extent, are) present with statistical frequency, and individual anecdotes about a particular trouble-free experience are not especially relevant in the face of statistical data.

[Yana]

This goes with Kay's post:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=hgmzV0E7ZoE

[Skunkbelly]

Kay Fury, on 11 December 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

And pregnancy isn't?

As Mandy said, comparatively speaking, no. From adoption.com, the average total cost of adoption in 2007-08 was $25,000-$30,000.  Most domestic adoptions were in the $10,000-$30,000 range.

A typical pregnancy, for a mother with health insurance, may cost a couple hundred, to $1,000. (mine cost  exactly one co-pay of $20 ... including all pre-natal testing, the care of an OB and a perinatologist, an even dozen ultrasounds, overnight stays in the hospital during pregnancy, and a spell in the NICU).

Furthermore, nobody comes to your house to determine your worthiness, does a background check, interviews your neighbors, and then gives you a license to get knocked up. They do all that and more when you apply to be an adoptive parent.

Finally, if you do get pregnant, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get a baby out of it in 9 or so months.  Some couples wait years to be placed with an adoption.

ETA: Back when we were trying (and trying and trying) to get pregnant, and I found out that I might not be able to carry a pregnancy,  we looked into adoption.  Adoption was such an overwhelming, expensive, and bewildering prospect that we decided to take our chances with my own wacked-out uterus and assisted reproduction.

Edited by Skunkbelly, 11 December 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[karaddin]

As someone who has just started a process that has probably already rendered me temporarily sterile and will soon leave me permanently so, I've kind of already triggered my clock. Despite never having desired kids for myself I didn't want to close off future possibilities with someone I may meet in my future I took the step of freezing some swimmers in advance just in case.

I'm now visiting my brother with his 14 month old who is adorably cute and incredibly draining...I love all my nephews and nieces, but part of me is thinking I shouldn't pay for the renewal of sperm storage when it comes up in 5 months lol...I just don't think I'm cut out for it and could handle the lack of sleep my brother currently has.

Not really sure if this is remotely relevant sorry Mandy, just rambling here!

[Opisthokont]

MisterOJ, on 11 December 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

Yeah, and it's pretty darn big. Big enough for everything.

Big enough to contain oil and gas for 20 billion people?

I think that overpopulation would be a problem, but barring some horrible catastrophe I don't think it will actually happen. Education, equal rights for women, and better standards of living in general seem to be factors that push down the reproduction rate dramatically, and though there are blips in the curves now and then they all seem to be going in the right direction in most places.