While attaining my degree in wildlife ecology, Professors expressed that adoption was a great option?

Question

How do you feel about Professors and student teachers looking at the Earth's sustainiblity and human overpopulation problems, that adoption was a great option to overcome these issues?

One Professor even went as far as to say that it was irresponsible to have more than one biological child and if you want more children then you should adopt the rest. How does that make you feel?

Do you support this mindset or not?

The ecologist/biologist side of me and the mother/human side of me are at odds with each other, so i have no answers. I'm wondering if some of your pov's will help me.

Thanks.

Answer 1

I completely agree with your professors.  Adoption is a very ethical choice in my opinion.   Our population has already exceeded the earth's capacity to sustain us.  What gives anyone the right to bring in another mouth to feed?  When one child dies of hunger related issues every 5 seconds*?  

Also, I personally think it is acceptable for a couple to have no more than two children, replacing themselves.  Any more than that is a contribution to the problem.

That said, I don't think its fair to tell people they aren't allowed to have children.  But I do wish there was more awareness of overpopulation.  Perhaps then more people would choose to do the right thing.  

Very interesting question.  

Answer 2

The problem with "population control" starts small. It starts in countries that are over populated, where the government decides the number of children each couple are allowed to have. If that is allowed by the people.... as they give up or kill their female offspring, then the attitude of controlling the masses becomes much easier.

Where before it was natural that a couple decide if they are within their own means to have x amount of children, now we have been playing with the ideas of allowing governments to decide for us. It's not just in China anymore. One day it may be that we feel guilt ridden if we have more than one or two children, the next day it will be the law.

It isn't the business of what others do in other countries. It's never been our business, just as we shouldn't be telling them how to run their governments.

Here are some interesting things to note:

**March 11, 1969---Vice-President of Planned Parenthood-World Population Frederick Jaffe's "Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S." is printed containing a memo to Population Council president Bernard Berelson. It includes examples of proposed measures to reduce U.S. fertility, such as (a) encourage increased homosexuality, (b) fertility control agents in water supply, (c) encourage women to work, (d) abortion and sterilization on demand, and (e) make contraception truly available and accessible to all.

**March 7, 1972---The Rockefeller Commission on Population issues a report advocating population control, stating that further growth of the American population could cause economic problems, and that "in any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction to which they will be found." In other words, they will control population, but they're not going to tell us how!

Now should we be responsible to adopt unwanted children, or are we raising the bar of 'responsible' so high that mothers young and older think that children cost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the span  of 18 years, and if we don't measure up, either kill the unborn or give them to strangers to raise.

Thus the middle ground the ecologist part of you and the mother part of you should understand is that:

1- Overpopulation occurs, but it isn't our personal job to rescue anyone from it. As long as your family members are providing to their own offspring, and you act as a village to help them if ever they are in need... and them you....the rest of the world is not asking for your assistance, and you can be mother.

2- Humans are animals that have a delicate balance of power. When power is given to a foreign source to dictate how a human family lives and provides we suffer in one way or another.

Anyway this is a very interesting subject for me, thanks for the question!

Answer 3

It would be ideal to have one biological child and adopt as well. Unfortunately, the adoption process is difficult and very costly and not many families can afford to have that as an option. It is more convenient to have your own biological children (assuming you're able to) than to go through adoption.

Answer 4

I don't see any value in the arguments made by this Professor.

Suppose we were able to instantiate the one biological child per family world wide. In that case there are no children available for adoption, unless you want to make massive amounts of families childless.

So I guess the one biological child per family is meant to only apply to rich countries, that don't necessarily contribute all that much to the overpopulation problems.

In that case poor countries will defacto become the suppliers of children for rich countries.

That scenario is not going to help one inch, because it won't decrease the birth rate, in fact it will likely increase the birth rate. Women that nurse an infant are less likely to become pregnant than women that don't. So in many cases once the child is relinquished, the next pregnancy will announce itself, leading to an increase of the birth rate instead of a decrease.

Let's for argument's sake assume the intended effect could be achieved (which i don't believe), it would mean an increase in orders of magnitude of the numbers of international adoptions.

Nowadays some 40,000 children world wide are adopted internationally, while the annual world wide birth figure is around 130 million. So with current practices the effect on over population (assuming such effect exists) would be close to zero.

Having to maintain standards of ethics in placement the needed increase in international adoption would mean that the vast majority of the current population would need to be retrained to become social workers, adoption lawyers etc.

I haven't even started to address the ethical issues involved, because simply on logical grounds and practicality these ideas make no sense at all.

Answer 5

I wouldn't want to tell women they can't have their own biological children, but I will say it would be wonderful if more families would adopt, even 1 child.

Answer 6

Even professors have their personal interests/agendas/biases at heart.

How did "abortion" fit into his equation.

How did "education" fit into it as well.  

I don't support it at all and it sounds like he's trying to justify his little theory of going against nature.

I had a professor in college make a comment to me about a show he watched that was about girls in gangs. They were being fostered/mentored after getting out of them. My professor scoffed at one of the girls comments about how she should become a doctor because blood doesn't bother her and should could handle it.  He wrote it off like yeah, she will become a doctor.  Needless to say, I corrected him and said well she's right. My people in med school have an aversion to it, at least at first. I told him just because she fell into a gang that doesn't make her less capable intellectually of getting thru med school but more so, just getting into one. I also reminded him that it takes an amazing teacher to even get her to consider such a profession.    

Before I graduated he offered me a letter of recommendation and he was the Dean of the dept.    

Sorry this is off topic but it just reminded of how professors are still learning themselves, in our ever changing world.

Answer 7

I disagree with anyone preaching to anyone else about how many children to have and how to have them (adoption/biological).

Answer 8

I had a sociology professor last semester that in order to pass his class you had to write his ideas in your own words on the tests.  You couldn't be critical of what he thought or he would get angry.  I do not know if I learned any sociology.  I did learn that I don't like professors who try to tell me what to think and who aren't open to the idea that there are many different opinions out there.  

Anyway, I do not think the government should get involved in population control.  I do think people need to be a little less self centered when having children, as any person born IS contributing to the population crisis.  I think people like the Duggars are completely selfish by having a million kids.

One of the reasons we looked into adoption as a couple was because of the overpopulation of the earth.  My sister and her husband have five children, which has basically replaced her and her husband, me and my husband and one other person.  I think they should have stopped at two, but of course, I can't imagine my life without my three littlest nephews and nieces.  

Now, because I don't feel okay about adopting, I don't really know what we will be doing.  I think there are more problems with adopting than there are problems with overpopulation, so...we personally will probably have one child and maybe adopt a couple of teenagers, probably not in that order, since I do think birth order is important.  

Answer 9

I'm not convinced its irresponsible to have more then one biological child!!

But I would say that it might be a logical approach to things. Not necessarily from an ecologist/biologist point of view but from a human  side.

I fully intend to adopt whether or not I can have my own biological children. Purely because there are too many children out there who would benefit greatly from a good home.  

Answer 10

So you professor supports third world mothers being used as surrogate wombs for the "white" world.

I think its total bunk. I for one have never believed that we are doomed to a fate of overpopulation. In many countries there is an developing underpopulation crisis, where there are not enough children being born to support the aging adult population.  

Answer 11

I can understand where your professor is coming from. Though I don’t think I would consider having more then 1 biological child irresponsible. I do feel there is a certain number that can be too many kids. Like someone having 9+.  It was more understandable in the olden days having a large number of children of 14 kids you might have 3 or 4 that made it to adult hood and went on to have their own families  It would be nice if some people who want a big family would be willing to adopt a few kids.

Of course that said I also realize adoption is not for everyone and a child should not be adopted into a family that does not want him or her.  However there are probably people out there who would not have a problem with adopting but they don’t think about it they are under the false impression that adopting is solely for people who cant have natural children.

Lets also look at the fact that we are seeing more and more multiple births because of fertility treatments.

With our planet already overpopulated and people generally living longer. People really need to start thinking of the far future. Not just humans but all the creatures of the world that we share this planet with.  There may come a time where it will have to be mandatory that person can only have so many biological children such as China enforces. .  

Perhaps that’s why they want to colonize Mars and the Moon and eventually if possible go even further to other planets, other galaxies.

This is one reason  why if i ever have biological children i will have no more then 1 or 2 , any other children will be adopted. Even then i wouldn't want more than 6.

Answer 12

I hate it when college professors use the classroom to enspouse their own political agenda.  

I had a basic sociology class like that once.  Tests were easy.  Just pick whatever answer villified white men, organized religion and the American military and government.  Got an A in the class but it would have been nice to learn some actual sociology.  

But, I'm guessing that this isn't the answer you're looking for.  

I have to say that whenever a professor is using the classroom as an outlet like this, I automatically take whatever they have to say with a grain of salt.  

Answer 13

Well I guess it helps the population problem in a couple of ways. First the obvious less births. Then you can add in all the first parents that commit suicide.