Is it an eco-crime to have a large family?

Question

Apparantly having more than two kids is irresponsible. Check out this article

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1752235.ece

What are the thoughts on this issue?

Answer 1

obviously thought up by someone with no children and nothing better to do with their time

Answer 2

what an interesting question!  In certain countries around the world it was considered a good thing to have a large family.  The reason was to pass on the family name and to enlarge the riches of the family.  If you had many children you were considered well-off, because they were supposed to take care of you in your old age as you took care of them in their childhood.  Another reason for large families was because we had agrarian societies, basically farming families that needed many people to run the farm equipment.  As society changed, the population still were increasing and people were moving into cities trying to find more opportunity.  Many young people found it was tiresome to live on farms where they had no more opportunities.  If you were not the oldest child you would not inherit the farm so what was the point in working it?  So that as things progressed more people poured into the cities, and because of modern equipment there was need for less workers on the farm.  Because of all these constant changes the world's population grew.  It is almost outgrown the resources that the world has left, so there has been an effort in several countries that has either a large population or a population that it cannot feed on its own causing them to move around the world.  Surely you've heard of migrant workers?  Whether it is considered an eco-crime or a taboo it depends on where you live and the customs of those people.  I do not consider a large family a problem but with limited resources the family should consider that before they have more children as to whether they can afford those children.  I don't care where you live or who you are, we all want our children to get a good education!

For many forward thinking people, there is going to be a day and age when man reaches out for the stars and populates the universe.  If we are able to overcome our environment, there will be a need for many more people.  I think that is how people need to consider it.  There are many people who do not believe we will ever leave this planet.  However with modern technology and many of the brilliant minds that are at work right now I believe that we will spread out.

Answer 3

One of my neighbors has seven children.  They are homeschooled, polite, thoughtful, hardworking.

They raise most of their own food.  They wear cloth diapers, hand-me-down clothes.  They own ZERO video games, and almost no plastic toys.

They have bikes, and participate in 4H, boyscouts, and fur trapper roundevious.  They spin yarn from their own animals, and sell their handicrafts.  

Their oldest son works for us on our farm.  He has done so since he was 12 years old, and I fell very ill while my husband was out of town for a month.  At 12 years old, he took care of over 100 of my animals.  He's now 14.  How many 12 year olds could shoulder that responsibility for over 30 days, in the middle of winter with temperatures never getting over negative 20 degrees for the highs?

Another long time family friend of my mothers has two children.  She is constantly providing lawyers for them, for the constant scrapes they keep getting into with the law.  They use drugs...one in rehab at the moment, the other not in rehab.

They only buy brand new, designer lable clothes.  Between the boys, they have owned, and wrecked at least 30 cars (we've lost count).  One boy is 21, the other is 25.  They both still live at home, and expect mommy to pay all the bills, including providing them with new cars, and paying the insurance on them.   They refuse to even mow their mothers lawn, feeling such work is completely beneith them.  

They take vacations to places like California, Las Vegas, and Reno, via airplane at their mothers expence (if she doesn't pay, they refuse to talk to her).

They crank the heaters in the house up to the 80's, so they can run about the house in shorts.

The boy from the family of 7 children made a deal (all on his own) last year with my husband...he was only 13 at the time.  He will work for us for free.  In return, my husband is going to purchase a used pick-up truck for him, and help him with any repairs it needs, and teach him all sorts of mechanical knowledge things.  The boy works for other nearby farmers, and is saving money for insurance.  He will be driving by the age of 15 (legal in my state) with a truck he worked for, and insurance he provided himself.  He plans to be able to work for others farther afield, and do more work with his pick-up truck.  All of this planned out by the time he was 13 years old.

He taught his 9 year old sister, and 8 year old brother (the next oldest children) how to move our irregation pipe last summer.  He didn't want us inconvienenced while he was at boyscout camp for two weeks.  The pipes are 20 feet long, aluminum, and not lightweight.  My horse can step on them, and not crush them.

Immagine if the world were filled with children with this kind of work ethic, knowledge of nature, and sence of social responsibility? (!!!!!)

I know without a doubt what two children are going to have a dramatically negative effect on the ecology of the world, vs. the seven children.

I don't think it matters as much how many children one has, but rather how those children are raised (cloth diapers, sence of responsibility, ect).  Some people raise future responsible adults.  Other people raise future perpetual spoiled children (who will NEVER grow up).

One person who is a perpetual adult child will cause more enviromental damage than ten who are responsible adults and good stewards of the earth.

~Garnet

Homesteading/Farming over 20 years

It does not really matter

Answer 4

This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have read to date.  Not only is it NOT a crime, but you will find that societies that succeed historically are the ones that have large families.  One of the indications of a dying culture is the birth rate falling below the rate of death.

You will see many articles along this vein that will point to starving people around the world, yet they have fewer people per square mile than nearly all developed countries.  The famines and the starvation's are due to bad governments and politics, not due to lack of food and medicine.  The Oil for Food program administered by the UN is just one example of Governmental corruption causing food shortages.

I have heard for years about the "population bomb."  It does not exist!  We were supposed to have world wide food riots back in the 70's because the population was too much for old planet Earth.  We have nearly twice that many people now, and the U.S. still grows more food that people will buy, and we are too fat to boot.

Just another scare tactic brought to you by the socialist environmentalist who's real goal is not to save the environment, but to control your lives.

Answer 5

If you set an example, actually I believe it is GREAT. You can educate them to a better person and they can influence more people to be eco-friendly.

Check it out this video...

http://yourformulasheet.com/Global%20War...

Answer 6

it is irresponsible to increase the population. there should be a ration. if someone wants to buy my kid credit and have 2 they are welcome.

using an emotive word like 'eco-crime' shows up your position - how many brats do you have?

Answer 7

Having smaller families does not equal a better future.  The key is education.

I suspect two kids not taught the "eco-wise" ways will have far greater impact on this planet than a larger family who is aware of their eco footprint and takes appropriate measures to minimise their impacts.

Four minds looking for solutions is better than 2 minds who didn't realise there was a problem in the 1st place....

Answer 8

The time is soon coming when the likes of al gore, obama and a few others will consider breathing a crime.

Answer 9

In China it is a state crime to have more than one.

Answer 10

As is apparent in countries with a low birthrate, the overall standard of living is considerably higher than in countries with a high birthrate.  Japan is a prime example of a nation where the low birthrate assures almost every child born, not only optimal medical care, but the best educational opportunities that money can buy.  It is quite common for children to start music and/or dance lessons at three, or be taken to expensive restaurants where they learn social manners.   They go to expensive private schools wherre they get the best education money can buy.  If tutoring is necessary, the kids get it.  Travel to foreign countries is also common.  This head start of course assures them better jobs at higher salaries.  With more than two kids, it would be impossible for middle class parents to provide them with all these benefits.  Likewise in Scandinavian countries and Germany where the birthrate is low, the standard of living is considerably higher.  China is another example of a country where reducing the birthrate has significantly altered the face of the nation.  If they had had 5 or 6 schildren, they would not have been able to afford to send all of them to university creating a class of resentful siblings.  

I would therefore say that having a household full of kids is not only an eco-crime, it's a crime against the kids themselves who really deserve better than what they get in big families unless the parents are very wealthy.  True they might get love, but love does not get one into college or pay the bills.

Edit: True there are children from large families who are well-mannered thoughtful and hardworking, and kids from small families who are demanding, spoiled brats who'll never amount to anything.  But since most people no longer live on farms,  but in cities, the strain on the environment of too many people will eventually lead to an overall decline in the standard of living for all, not to mention war for resources.

Furthermore, big families does not necessarily mean good kids.  There are just as many people with a brood of kids who not only let their kids run amuck, they rely on taxpayers to support their lifestyle

Answer 11

Yes more kids = more people using up the world's resources, more people using cars, more polluting and more needing housing and more people flying (taking holidays).  All bad for the evironment!

Answer 12

this question one can neither ask nor answer as a generality

Holland was already over crowded 50 years ago

it is the size of Mexico city with 12 million people

That is why so many immigrated to America

so if you live in big place with lots of resources to feed a large family and have space for their subsequent developing families

Big family is OK

In Holland it is NOT

MY SISTER WAS ACCOSTED IN THE STREET AS BEING A BREEDING COW BECAUSE SHE HAD 5 KIDS

In Ouxaca in Mexico they have families of 20 kids ,and are deforesting the mountains to raise enough corn to feed them all

the steep mountain plots are only productive for 3 years than succumb to soil fatigue,then dry up, the rain erodes the soil away

this causes land slides ,rivers dry up the climate changes

and wide spread Environmental damage results

So smaller families is a better idea

collectively on a global scale

there is this answer,the 13th one down

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

check the links

one has to take cases individually

the general rule of thumb is

only have as many kids as you can afford

or have food for

and have space for.

that is Natures rule