ClumsyMonkey.net

I'm having a really hard time seeing this "overpopulation" point of view. Who are you to say how many kids a family can or cannot have if they can support them. We sit here, complaining about how overpopulated the world is becoming and how many starving children and lack of resources there are as a result and yet we do very little if anything to feed those in need. Not only that but we, the west consume far more than the rest of the world. This family probably pours all it's money into basic needs, while we waste our money on things that do little to help anyone else. Overpopulation isnt the biggest problem at the moment. Our greed is.

I know my arguement isnt exactly clear but hopefully someone sees my point.

Joe Cooler wrote:I'm having a really hard time seeing this "overpopulation" point of view. Who are you to say how many kids a family can or cannot have if they can support them. We sit here, complaining about how overpopulated the world is becoming and how many starving children and lack of resources there are as a result and yet we do very little if anything to feed those in need. Not only that but we, the west consume far more than the rest of the world. This family probably pours all it's money into basic needs, while we waste our money on things that do little to help anyone else. Overpopulation isnt the biggest problem at the moment. Our greed is.

I know my arguement isnt exactly clear but hopefully someone sees my point.

I kind of do. I know we shouldn't say how many kids a family can have... But the poverty is only going to get worse as our resources become more and more depleted. I think what people are trying to say is that for a family living in North America, it's kind of over the edge and unneeded to have that many children. Think about it this way, if all 16 of them have 2 kids of there own, that's 32 more people coming out of that one family as opposed to 4 if there parents had only initially had two. We should only really be having enough children to replace both ourselves and our spouse (i.e. 2 or 3 kids). I mean I know it's great that they're putting all there money into clothing and food for there children, but some of that money could be going to people who really actually need it.

Sure but who are we to condem them when we spend huge sums of money on frivolous things. Half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day for goodness sakes. None of us can sit here and say this family should "hold off on the kids" when we just dropped $15 dollars on a cd, or movie tickets and popcorn. I'm guessing that those of us who have only 2 kids will spend most of it on them and ourselves rather than spending only what is needed, and giving the rest to those who have none.

I think people are just trying to say that this isn't a healthy act for a soceity to get into the habit of doing. Already our planet is over-populated, and encouraging such excesses of children seems foolish. I don't care about people that love to have big families but a family of that size is a social deviance no matter how you look at it. Again i'm not trying to condemn them, just syaing that it shouldn't be something to encourage.

Also this cannot be ideal for for the children growing up in the family. It might not be devasting, but couldn't all that extra energy justbe put intomaking sure your first 5 kids turn out great? Or making sure that they all go to college?

I agree with your comment on frivilous spending though and each and everyone of us is probably guilty of it. It seems to be a fixture of western society.

I just think if you want to have a family that big, and you want to bring joy into that many childrens lives, then there are thosands and thosands of children that already desperatly need homes. Unless, I guess, the reason you're having that many children is because of the whole contraception thing, i won't get into that whole issue, not yet at least, but i guess that's a good enough reasonce.

Anyways, long story short, it's cool to see they're do a good job so far as parents, but i would hate to see this become more popular just because people have the right t o do so.



I would also like to add that i don't agree with the argument that because only North America does not have over-population problems within it's borders does not mean that it's ok to have that big of families. First of all the idea of over-population is a relative term. And we need to view the world as a whole, we are all part of the same planet, therefore, we all add to over-population.

Joe Cooler wrote:Sure but who are we to condem them when we spend huge sums of money on frivolous things. Half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day for goodness sakes. None of us can sit here and say this family should "hold off on the kids" when we just dropped $15 dollars on a cd, or movie tickets and popcorn. I'm guessing that those of us who have only 2 kids will spend most of it on them and ourselves rather than spending only what is needed, and giving the rest to those who have none.

good argument. i agree.

that being said...it would still suck to have so many siblings in such a range of ages that you wouldnt get to know the oldest if you were the youngest and vice-versa. my mom's cousin has 14 kids, and they have never been in the same room all together at the same time ever.

Yeah, but that is what makes North America great. WE can determine what we should be doing in procreation. I mean, you think we should only be replacing ourselves. Other people think they are giving every soul a chance at life. Just your point of view.

True, but at what point to we stop if it is endangering the entire worlds health. Of course i guess we've already been doing so for thosands of years with out thinking much of it, or denying it.


Why not devote that faith and compassion to saving some of the souls already in existance and suffering

Joe Cooler wrote:Sure but who are we to condem them when we spend huge sums of money on frivolous things. Half the world lives on less than 2 dollars a day for goodness sakes. None of us can sit here and say this family should "hold off on the kids" when we just dropped $15 dollars on a cd, or movie tickets and popcorn. I'm guessing that those of us who have only 2 kids will spend most of it on them and ourselves rather than spending only what is needed, and giving the rest to those who have none.

Sure it's hipocritical of most of us to complain, but that doesn't make having sixteen kids right. That's like saying we shouldn't advocate for any type of improvement unless we ourselves are perfect. We should be at least as quick to point out our own flaws as the flaws of others, but that doesn't mean we cant be critical if it's for the right reasons.

By the way, i'm not saying it's a flaw to have sixteen kids.. that's debatable, but there's no reason we can't recognize problems with it.



Also: The contraception thing more than likely isn't the case. Natural family planning, when done properly is reasonably effective. It doesn't guarantee anything obviously, but i really doubt it would result in sixteen kids.

From the religious tone, and the way the mother spoke i assumed contraception at least played a moderatly big role, she made it sound as if she just kept getting pregnant, and she wasn't going to deny any of her unborn children life

they might just...really...like....sex.

exactly!

they are nypho's that don't believe in contraception.

Congrats to the guy though, man that many years and he's still incredibly potent. Some guys can't even have one kid

Joe Cooler wrote:Overpopulation isnt the biggest problem at the moment. Our greed is.

Overpopulation is the biggest problem facing humanity from a survival standpoint.

There is only so much food, space, and resources that we can extract from the planet. We're adding a billion people to the population every ten years now, and that time frame is getting shorter and shorter all the time.

If you mean that North Americans being greedy is the worst of it, because if we were more generous with our resources we could provide for other areas of the world, I'd half-agree with you..

That is what I ment.

Has anyone developed any ideas of how we should deal with over-population? As Cass said, not many people dig the idea of family size restriction, and unless done well, you end up with the whole female chinese baby thing.

Education.

true but even when educated, as Cass pointed out, some people will continue to have large amounts of children.

The probability of having large families decreases drastically and in clear correlation with education. Decreasing general ignorance specifically in the area of global development would have a decided impact on the issue. There is no 100% fix, but I think this is the best possible thing that can be done.

yeah i actually agree with you i was just saying.

See this is another possible function of homosexuality in society (Socilogical Functionalism baby!). The socical deviance is naturally designed and in-born to control the possiblity of a species becoming over-populated

agreed... actually, the recent creation of the "homosexual identity" is having an interesting effect on capitalist economies, which is something i'd go into but this is probably the wrong thread :*)***