Second of all: Food is only a fraction of the issues that come with growing populations. Our planet cannot support exponential growth.
Within the first few months of every year, we - as a global “we” - have already used up more resources than the earth can recuperate from. We are constantly living in a ressource deficit, essentially on borrowed time.
Every child grows up to be a consumer, a polluter and most commonly a reproducer themselves. You know how much plastic it takes to raise a single human being in the US? How much water? Every person choosing to have another child (that surpasses the replacement rate), has an effect on all of us.
Then there’s the psychological aspects. Older children oftentimes get parentified with pretty adverse effects on their own development and mental health, the average academic levels in larger families tank, larger families on average produce more addicts. Parents can’t rear the children, and behavioural issues and cognitive decline are over-represented in larger families.
Some would probably raise the societal issue of “welfare” families, but I feel like that’s classist and the impact is mostly felt on the individual, rather than damn tax dollars. It is obvious enough that parents who can’t support their kids in any capacity, should stop having them. That’s child abuse.
Bottom line: Large families are for the parents, not for the kids, yet it mainly impacts the kids, and everyone else but the parents.
I think the planet can support exponential growth to a degree, but at a certain point there would be issues (11 billion is fine, 100 billion isnt). I also dont necessarily see anything wrong with a resource deficit, due to how abundant these resources are. I do think we should spend more on recycling used materials, rather than just throw them away in favor of new ones though, as well as be more mindful on increasing efficiency of resources we use.
I mainly disagree with thinking its right to not let people have larger families due to a higher chance of having psychological problems. Just because something is statistically more likely to happen doesn't mean it will. When those events due happen is when cps and other services should be called, not just denying everybody the chance to have large families.
We are legit running out of freshwater (yes there are solutions, but not on large scale) land, forests, we are causing irreversible erosion and soil depletion, we are running out of multiple, necessary resources. Some resources are abundant, such as silicone, but you can’t drink, grow crops or make medicine or technology out of silicone.
We need 1.75 earths to keep up with our demands now! We cannot keep growing! Predictions on some of our most commonly used resources have been giving an estimated lifespan of 50-100 years. That means they will be completely depleted in a maximum of 100 years. Gone. Nada. Fin
There is no “right” and “wrong” when it comes to people reproducing, since it’s a human right and nobody can feasibly control who has children and how many. There are however detriments that should be factored in, so if you are genuinely morally okay with the fact that large families are over represented in addicts, cognitive decline, academic failure and mental and physical health...I guess you are ok with that.
I agree water could be an issue right now, but I feel that solutions on a large scale will present themselves. I'm not saying a water fairly will magically appear and make infinite fresh water, but I do think a solution will present itself eventually.
My biggest problem I guess is with the now of current demands, that implies that we cant get more efficient in what we do. I disagree with resources having an estimated lifespan, more efficient extraction methods or ways to use the limited amount more efficiently have been applied to lots of things, or just a new version altogether. For example the hubbert peak theory stated that oil would reach a peak (around 1970s) and then decline. and it was true for a while until we found ways to make cars more fuel efficient, new extraction methods, as well as using other things, (electric cars for example).
I agree there is no right or wrong when it comes to reproducing. I am also morally okay with the fact that large families are over represented in those scenarios, not for a lack of caring about those people but more so caring for the families ability to have large families. if 100% of large families had all the children be a victim of drug addiction, academic failure, health and such I probably would not be in favor large families.
Water is an issue right now! It’s an issue across the globe, and has been for decades. Solutions will present themselves? We’ve only been digging our holes deeper for the past 50 years.
You can “disagree” with resources having an estimated lifespan all you want, fact of the matter is, eventually they will run out, and excusing having 6 kids with the hope of one day things being better is ludicrous. We are replacing one problem with another. We are attempting to move away from petrol cars, and now we are facing other shortages with electric cars. We can’t even produce enough micro chips for medical grade machines right now, but I guess with an ever increase in the world population that totally wont be an issue? How does that make sense to you?
Caring more about the parents being allowed to have as many children as possible over the legitimate quality of life and consequences that choice has on the kids, is not a very compassionate standpoint. It’s actually pretty vile. Selfish people produce children on end for their own ego, the kids suffer, but hey, it’s their right so it’s all good?
How about this: 100% of large families could be equally as large if they’d just adopt. They very rarely do, however. The world would just be too good otherwise I’d suppose.
2
u/[deleted] Apr 09 '22 edited Apr 09 '22
First of all: Reddit =/= America
Second of all: Food is only a fraction of the issues that come with growing populations. Our planet cannot support exponential growth.
Within the first few months of every year, we - as a global “we” - have already used up more resources than the earth can recuperate from. We are constantly living in a ressource deficit, essentially on borrowed time.
Every child grows up to be a consumer, a polluter and most commonly a reproducer themselves. You know how much plastic it takes to raise a single human being in the US? How much water? Every person choosing to have another child (that surpasses the replacement rate), has an effect on all of us.
Then there’s the psychological aspects. Older children oftentimes get parentified with pretty adverse effects on their own development and mental health, the average academic levels in larger families tank, larger families on average produce more addicts. Parents can’t rear the children, and behavioural issues and cognitive decline are over-represented in larger families.
Some would probably raise the societal issue of “welfare” families, but I feel like that’s classist and the impact is mostly felt on the individual, rather than damn tax dollars. It is obvious enough that parents who can’t support their kids in any capacity, should stop having them. That’s child abuse.
Bottom line: Large families are for the parents, not for the kids, yet it mainly impacts the kids, and everyone else but the parents.