Times have changed. Like I said, back when women were dying left and right during childbirth, just about anything incapacitating=fatal, and even in somewhat modern times when more field hands=bigger harvest, having tons of kids was a good idea. Not now when over a billion people don’t get fresh water and elsewhere in the world sprinklers are happily providing for all those beautifully manicured lawns and gardens. It’s not just because its in America, that just happens to be the example we’ve got. China’s at least tried something with their one kid policy, and in many countries one kid households are becoming the trend. The world is overpopulated and getting worse every time Mrs. “God told me to be fruitful and multiply” here and others like her squeeze out another one.
This old chestnut about overpopulation is getting kind of stale.
The problem is not a family of 10 in the third world, the problem is a family of 3 in the first world.
The first world family of three produces far more garbage, consumes far more resources, and has a much larger negative impact on the environment. Count up their cars and electrical appliances. The solution to the ‘people bomb’ lies not in diminishing the sizes of larger families (third world or otherwise) but in reducing disproportional consumption of goods and resources in the first world.
Since these people have taken all these kids on a road trip (in a borrowed RV) to see the Grand Canyon and Disneyworld, and several other roadside attractions, much like any other family. I don’t see how you can say they couldn’t afford to send them to college or camp if they wanted. Besides, since when did affording college become the measure of ‘deserving’ to have children. What about all the nuclear families who can’t afford camp or college?
The idea that they can’t give them as ‘much’ is pure consumerism and reflects that having things is somehow the important thing. I couldn’t disagree more.
The argument that they are being unduly indoctrinated into the parents faith is just plain foolish. Everyone is raised with their parents beliefs, religious and otherwise, very few adopt them all on reaching adulthood. Those that do obviously found them of value. If you object to fundamental Christianity, that’s fine, but that’s not what this discussion was about, and the size of their family isn’t really your issue anymore.
The objections to the buddy system are even more foolish. By what right do you judge how they run their family? If they were beating or abusing these kids okay, otherwise butt out. Perhaps you do know best what right for everyone else, but it seems unlikely to me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but is this not a family of 20 in the first world?
Disgusting. It’s financially and socially irresponsible. What happens if the handouts stop one day when the press dies down? Are they just going to pop out another kid and expect more donations? What are the parents going to rely on to support their children? I’m going to guess the government.
Did you read the thread? They don’t depend on donations. Jim Bob owns his own company, which generates enough to make him self-suffiencent (and, were his family small, he’d be quite wealthy, money-wise).
Are you kidding me? Is this an ENDORSEMENT of China’s one-child policy?
Define your terms, and provide a cite for this claim. This is Great Debates. A gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied, understand?
The world is not overpopulated.
Perhaps not now, but surely you’ll agree that 1) as a closed system, the Earth can only provide finite resources, 2) the human population is increasing globally and 3) by extension, this must mean there will not be enough resources to support everyone at some point in time.
So you’re saying that all other things being equal, if current trends continue, overpopulation may become a problem at some point in the indeterminate future. Just like, for example, a young tree, growing at a constant rate, will eventually reach the moon.
Not at all a foregone conclusion.
No, that’s just stupid. It’s not a logical, or even possible, outcome of continued tree growth. But, too many organisms all trying to survive on the same set of resources is a very real issue; it’s been well-documented in animal populations. We’re no different. Since you seem to know better, however, please point out to me which of my three statements above is incorrect.
Humans are not flies. Nor do I see anything in that article which serves to refute my argument.
Wow, you are good. I thought for sure that detail would slip right by you.
Think carefully.
It is not disgusting because birth is disgusting, or because they are Christians, or because of whatever other bullshit strawmen people are throwing up in this thread. It is wrong because it is selfish and hugely wasteful of finite resources. As **elbows ** points out, Americans use an enormous amount of resources per capita–by some estimates, the typical American uses 39 times as many resources as the average Indian. (that’s a pdf; the statistic is in note 14)
As for overpopulation, the human population has entered a period of exponential growth. Unlike the houseflies, most of us do survive infancy, and so exponential growth is a reality, not just a theoretical possibility. People who spew out dozens of kids are assholes for the same reason that people who buy his-and-hers Hummers to commute to and from work are assholes–it’s a selfish waste of precious and finite resources.
Bricker, that colum is hardly relevant.
Flies are still subject to natural population-adjustment mechanisms such as disease, scarcity of food, predation, severe weather and so on.
Humans aren’t - our lifespans and reproductive success are safeguarded by modern medicine, high-yield farming, the extinction of nearly all the animals that might otherwise eat us, and temperature-controlled environments.
Obviously, at some point we’re going to run out of food, or at least reach a point at which the world’s agricultural resources can no longer adequately feed the entire population; at that point, the entire planet will start looking like Ethiopia c. 1989.
I suppose you could call that a natural population control, but in the meantime we’ll probably have either hunted every other species to extinction or destroyed their habitats to bring every available square inch of land under cultivation. If you’re okay with that, fine, but personally I won’t really want to be around when it happens.
Nope, not seeing it. Would you be good enough to point it out to me?
I’m sorry, after reading this entire thread, I just cannot see the analogy between human beings and Hummers.
My wife with the third child in a family of five. I’m sure glad she was allowed to have been born. I’ve known a number of large families. For the most part, they did fine – like any other family.
Since very, very few poeple actually have such large families, they have negligible effect on the population at large. So I say if they want to have that many children, go ahead. It doesn’t bother me at all. Better we allow a very few parents to have lots of children than we start restricting who can have children or the number of children people can have. That would be, in my opinion, a restriction on a very fundamental freedom.
Ed
Again, nobody is suggesting that it ought to be illegal. We’re just saying it’s selfish and worthy of oppobrium.
Wow, what an immense display of cultural arrogance I see in this thread! “My way is the only way! Any other way is worthy of my scorn!”
That’s all I can say about it.
Where do you people get all this straw from?
Frankly, that’s what I get out of it too. When you say that what other people do is “selfish”, is that not saying that what you do is the only correct way to do things? In this area, more than in most, “selfishness” is a totally subjective concept.
Ed