Are big families selfish?

Hi Deb, thanks for such a thoughtful post. Sounds to me like you are bringing your children up with a far greater understanding than mine (and I have two) of their effect on the world around them and your post has made me think about ways I can do this better, thank you. Seems to me we all have to think about this whether we have 7 kids or none.

Great post! No I really don't think having a large family is selfish at all. I just don't see there is a proper, proven connection between how having a large family impacts that much on the environment. One of my dearest friends has 5 children, and is herself one of 6, and they are the most environmentally conscious people I know. They never fly for one thing! I'm sure it could be proven the other way too - that it is single people with no responsibilities who are guzzling up resources, not thinking about how the planet is being used up. I know when I became a parent I was much more forward thinking about what would be left of this planet for my grand and great grand children. I just think the research can be made to show whatever the latest thinking is.

It should be down to each person as to whether they would like a large family or not. I didn't make a choice to have only one child, circumstances made that choice for me. For me it's all about choice and as long as people don't whinge about what they have/haven't got, that's fine by me!

Good post. It seems to me that whatever your choice is you'll draw flack from some quarters.
I don't think it's selfish to have a big family - I could argue that not providing a child with siblings is selfish.
There are always an occasional few families already on benefits who keep having more children. This is not the case here or in general.
You've got it right - you choose to have a big family then you cut your cloth to suit. That's all. Well said, by the way.

It seems to me there's no point in berating people for individual choices. Words like "selfish" are highly emotive and only likely to get people's backs up. Almost all of us are selfish, in the sense that we make our decisions based on what we want, rather than what we think is good for the rest of the society.

But the truth is that the world is over-populated - world population is predicted to grow from 6 billion today to 9 billion in 2050. And those of us living in the west consume far more resources than those living in the developed world: we eat more food (and in particular more meat, which is resource-intensive to produce), we buy new clothes frequently, we travel using vehicles that emit greenhouse gases; we have a vast array of electric goods (fridges, washing machines, tumble dryers, televisions) and electronic ones (computers, mobile phones). And however thrifty a parent is now at bringing up children, those children will probably grow up to consume even more resources, simply by virtue of the fact that they need clothes, food, housing and transport. So just as it is wise to cut down on the amount of meat we eat, or the amount of air travel we undertake, or the number of consumer goods we buy, it's also wise to limit the size of our families.

That should have been "developing" world, of course, not "developed".

@Kim Thomas But what worries me is how, if this was ever brought in, or god forbid made law like the Chinese government and their one child policy, would it ever be monitored? What would happen to people who didn't? I would rather see a tax on all the things you mention above and a complete re-think of resources, than ever restrict people as to how many people they can have, which is the logical conclusion of this argument.

Some people have no children. some have 1 child, some people have 7 - surely it all balances out in the end?

@Alison Percival. Your last paragraph is correct - in the UK, people are only reproducing at a rate that keeps the population constant (the population is increasing mainly because of immigration), so in a sense it does balance out.

I didn't anywhere say, however, that there should be a law restricting the number of children people should have. I said that if you wanted to restrict the impact on the environment, it was important to stop the population growing at such a fast rate. How that is achieved is probably up to the governments of the world to decide. Of course, people are always reluctant to accept state restrictions on what they can and can't do - people imagine it's their "right" to eat meat seven days a week or to take business flights 20 times a year or to have the latest model of iPhone. Meanwhile, the global warming problem gets worse and worse as we all exercise our "rights". I'm glad I'm not the person in charge of sorting it all out.

As humans we all have the potential to be selfish. Chris Packham never wanted children himself. I could argue that he is selfishly with holding providing toward the future generations of producers and workers. I won't because it is his choice not to have children, just as it's anyone's choice to have one child, two or ten.

The question "Is it selfish...?" can be applied to any of us. It is the lifestyle which people adopt and encourage in others. A larger family can be more resourceful than a smaller family or single person. And maybe they aren't. It depends on the people and what steps they themselves take.

However, there is a common theme that people are keen to state what "should be done" but it must bear no impact on their own way of living. For example, in my post a couple of weeks ago on "Large families and the population debate" http://bit.ly/iFGt2b, I have questioned how the "reasonable number of children" could be reached, and how it might be implemented. I gave alternative suggestions instead on how everyone could change their lifestyles rather than calling for a limit on children per family. Suggestions included one television per household, or one car per household, or stopping energy consuming festivals, events or concerts. Unsurprisingly, responses have been quick to defend their cars or a need for their social lives. This makes me think that perhaps going back to basics and re-educating ourselves on every little thing we could do and being willing to make small sacrifices ourselves, rather than shouting about controlling the freedom of people's choice to have children (or not) and calling for a policy such as China's.

And just an aside, resources change all the time. Oil was never a resource until machines were invented. Until then it was something that made water undrinkable. Resources are always changing and the world is always moving and improving and new discoveries are always being made. Once resources consisted simply of plants and animals. If they'd have remained that way humans would have been extinct a long, long time ago.

Thanks for tackling such an emotive topic Debbie, it certainly seems to be one that many people have very strong opinions on. I think ultimately it is the choice of each individual family how many children they decide to have, and whether or not it is affordable for them to have a larger family. What I do have strong feelings over is people who choose to have large families in the UK, who choose not to work to support them, and have no desire to do so at any stage of their lives. In my opinion our government has been too generous for too long, and now with recent budget cuts, working families are paying a high price for this. I feel as responsible adults we should plan families according to our means, and not rely on the taxpayer to provide funding, housing etc.

Leigh
Ready for Ten Team