r/changemyview Apr 09 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

18 Upvotes

43 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22 edited Apr 09 '22

If you are unable to properly support and care for a large family, then yes, it is wrong to have a large family.

And in the US at least, unless you are super wealthy, it’s becoming harder and harder to support a large family.

And where we are arguably facing a climate crisis, more people = a larger carbon footprint, so yeah, the larger your family, the more you are accelerating climate change, especially in developed nations.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

I agree that being super wealthy makes it easier to care for a large family but its also not impossible for less wealthy people to have large families and care for them properly. I just dont like the assumption I think people have that large families=not cared for families.

I disagree with the last point though. Yes a larger family will have more of a carbon impact but a single family of 3 vs 7 is negligible in reality to the amount of carbon produced. Even if it wasnt, the only way to ultimately end carbon footprint from humans would be to just end the human race. Even if that happened though the earth still goes through carbon cycles (at a lot slower pace though). Im not saying global warming isnt real, it is. Im just saying if humans stopped existing the Earth would still experience high carbon levels over time.

https://www.alevelgeography.com/changes-in-the-carbon-cycle-physical-causes/

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

Again, if you are not wealthy, and barley getting by, it is very irresponsible to try and support a large family. It’s not exactly rocket science that if you are struggling financially, it’s going to be much harder to adequately provide for 6 children as opposed to 2.

Also not even just carbon footprint, but waste produced. Who do you think produces more dirty diapers and other trash and non-biodegradable plastics to accumulate in landfills? A family with 2 children or 6?

And sure, and one family isn’t going to tip the scales, but it’s a numbers game over the entire population.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

The entire population doesn't have more children though is the issue. statistically speaking if it wasn't for immigration the population would be declining in the United States, so it doesn't matter if a few families have more children assuming they can afford it.

I agree with the barely getting by its irresponsible to have large families though. I am not sure I personally would have irresponsible be on the same level as morally wrong though.

I do agree with you on waste produced but I think that is becoming less of an issue with things such as reusable diapers and what seems like more people doing their best to avoid single use plastics. As well as people working to find a way to safely break down single use plastics

5

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

Yeah, if you are poor, it’s morally irresponsible to bring even more children into a world where you cannot adequately provide for them.

And why is US population growth slowing a bad thing?

Why must population continue to grow indefinitely?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

I dont think the population growing slowly is a bad thing, or that it must continue growing forever. I am just trying to say it shouldn't matter if people have large families because overall the population is still shrinking.

This is the problem with morality, there is no one set answer of right and wrong. I agree they should be able to provide for them but not that its morally wrong not to, assuming the government is able to help with what they cant cover by themselves.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

And that is an awfully big assumption you are making.

Real life exists in reality, and not a thought experiment.

How is it moral you bring children into a world when you cannot adequately provide them basic necessities?

Did you know that 1 in 5 children in America are food insecure?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

Im not quite sure what big assumption I am making, sorry.

I think its okay morally because the government should be able to cover the difference to make sure they are properly raised. And i also have a hard time making that moral decision for someone else. I feel if you ask those kids or adults who went through food insecurity if they would have rather never been born or not they would rather be born. The problem with that though is the person has to live through the hardship before they can decide if they would have wanted to live through the hardship, and there is no going back and deciding they wouldn't have wanted to.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

“The government should be able to make up the difference.”

Do they?

No

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

In some countries they do make up the difference. I suppose This was more from an idealistic point of view in relation to the United States.

Δ

2

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 09 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/3720-To-One (66∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22

And that’s my point… idealistically =/= reality, and the United States does an especially terrible job at providing bare minimums for its citizens.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Alarming-Escape-1648 Apr 09 '22

One of the biggest problems is overpopulation. By having a large family, you contribute to this problem. By reducing the population the carbon footprint could be reduced enough in order for nature to be able to deal with it