The Absurd Taboo in Discussing Family Size

[dynasaw]

With the arrival of their fourth child the Beckhams have been called "a bad role model" and envronmentally
irresponsible.

Critics of the Beckhams cite: " "We need to have a far greater public debate about population, whether it focuses on improving family planning or reducing global inequality – and looking again at how we address the strain on our natural resources. The absence of an open and honest discussion about this issue means most people don't give much thought to the scale of global population growth in recent years. In 1930, just one or two generations ago, the world's population stood at around two billion. Today it is around seven billion, and by 2050 it is projected to rise by a third to 9 billion.

"We live as if we have three planets instead of just one. It is interesting that public figures, environmental groups and NGOs in general have tended to steer away from population to the extent that it's become a taboo issue." Rather than seeking to restrict family size as in the cast of China, the Greens in U.K. emphasize " "Policies that focus on increasing access to birth control for all who want it, reducing poverty and inequality, improving food security and tackling environmental degradation are where we should be focusing our attention."

This is an issue that doesn't seem to strike us in the U.S. American culture seems to glorify having babies, thanks to the right wing, and the subject (even more so than in the U.K.) still pretty much taboo.

ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/17/population-control-beckham-family

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. q) At current birth rates, how long will it take the US population to go up 50%

a) never.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Nope; about 56 years

medium variant, US Census projection

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/detail/componen.a (key here: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/detail/np-d3.txt)

July 1st, 2067, 453,815,251 - about 50% larger than the estimate had been for 2011 (estimates were made in 2000; note that they reckoned 302 million for 2011, and in fact it's turned out as 307 million, indicating the population is growing faster than that medium variant).

[Posteritatis]

32. Those include immigration. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. So does real life

Although, since the total fertility rate is above 2.1, the 'never' would be wrong even if Lou Dobbs waved his magic wand and all migration stopped forever.

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. Population growth in the US has nothing to do with families.

Or any other selfish breeders.

A fertility rate of 2.06 is sub-replacement. Non-Hispanic whites in the US have a fertility rate of 1.9.

Population growth in the US has less to do with the Duggars and much more to do with those who rely on cheap arugula.

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. TFR for the US was 2.122 in 2007, according to US Census

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

Who cares about the non-Hispanic white rate? Must you make this about race?

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. 2.06 per the CIA

2.06 children born/woman (2011 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Ethnic background is the biggest determinant of family size.

If you want to gripe about families, the Beckhams are a poor example.

[muriel_volestrangler]

59. So you're saying it's fine for whites to have big families

but not for others?

The estimate for 2011 may have dropped below replacement (there are often decreases in birth rate as a result of a recession), but we can see that it has very recently been above it, and had grown each year from 2003 to 2007.

Griping about the Beckham family size is the perfect example - they are rich, heavy consumers. An extra Beckham will produces many tonnes of CO2 each year.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Careful. That strawman looks pretty heavy. Wouldn't want it to fall on you.

It isn't my argument, it's yours. Your example suggests that the Beckham's family of four is an infinitely bigger problem than the Gonzales' family of eight. The latter justifies outrage not because of the family size but because it's bad form to mention it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. "the Gonzales' family of eight"? Where the fuck has that come from?

If you're going to come up with ridiculous, exaggerated stereotypes like that, then I don't think I'm producing any strawmen at all. You mentioned ethnicity. What were you saying, that temporary British residents in the US are a separate ethnic category?

You said

"Ethnic background is the biggest determinant of family size.

If you want to gripe about families, the Beckhams are a poor example."

If you're now claiming that the second sentence was unconnected to the first, and not about the Beckham's ethnicity, then why are they a bad example? The OP doesn't mention race at all. It does, however, say that "the populations of the developed world...use the vast majority of the world's resources", which is why the Beckham's are a very good example of hurting the environment. Which is what the article is all about.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. The birthrate of "The developed world" is collapsing.

The US is the sole exception, with birthrates at nearly replacement rate.

The birthrate of US citizens (nor any developed European countries) do not contribute to overpopulation, period.

Britain: 1.9
Spain: 1.47
France: 1.96
Germany: 1.41
Canada: 1.58
Japan: 1.21
South Korea: 1.23
Australia: 1.78
US: 2.06

Zero Population Growth: 2.15

To the extent that population growth is a problem, it's not a problem that anyone who is likely to be reading this has any authority or power to rectify.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. And the Beckhams, with 4 (so far) children, are far above replacement level

Is the US mortality rate for younger people really that bad that the ZPG TFR is 2.15? The UK one was 2.075, in 2001:

Replacement level is the level of fertility required for
the population to replace itself in size given prevailing
mortality rates and in the absence of migration.
Replacement level is now around 2.075 in the United
Kingdom, i.e. women would need to have, on average,
2.075 children each to ensure the long-term ‘natural’
replacement of the population.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/UKpoptrends_pt103.pdf

All estimates of US population still increase substantially in the future, anyway, since net immigration is a fact of life in the US, and the US population still has more people in lower age groups than higher ones. The birth rate is about 65% higher than the death rate - see reply #46.

You also assume that the current population cannot be 'overpopulated'. Environmentally, many of the countries you list could do with a far smaller population. See http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.sustainable.numbers.html for some numbers based on WWF work on environmental footprints. Even with a 'modest' lifestyle, most can only carry less than they already have (Canada being the one exception).

[indurancevile]

107. so is the birthrate of the third world. world birthrates in general have been declining for decades

world total fertily rate = 2.5 children per woman.

world replacement rate = 2.33

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+%22total+fertility+rate%22

people who rant about out of control birthrates don't know what they're talking about. within my lifetime we'll be at zpg.

[formernaderite]

87. thank you...

I know it's not politically correct... but it's true, and I don't see that the Beckhams are going to create any sort of growth spurt by example. That said, I am and old fart who had four kids... came from a family of six. None of my kids have more than two children of their own, neither did any of my nieces or nephews.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Population growth is entirely the result of immigration. n/t

[HockeyMom]

2. It balances out I suppose

with all the couples today who are having 1, or none.

[Maraya1969]

10. And with all those damn people dying. Throws the whole curve off.

[Posteritatis]

18. The average is about two

An average of 2.1-2.3 is replacement level.

[Warpy]

22. Right, someone else is having my share and they're welcome to them.

I know people who desperately want a house full of children. If they can afford them financially and emotionally, I just butt out. Besides, I know from personal experience how fast the fertility rate drops in the next generation.

The only ones I grumble about are the Quiverful people and that's because it's such a brutally sexist arrangement, the most extreme of them insisting on unassisted home birth. That's right, kids, give birth alone with no one to help.

The overall birth rate will likely drop even farther now that the economy has turned ugly. The birth rate was markedly lower in the Depression and they didn't have hormonal birth control and IUDs. Now we do and it's likely to be even lower.

A lot of people in this country need a big cup of MYOB, in any case.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Can't recommend this topic enough

[WinkyDink]

4. Check the demographics before lecturing.

[Posteritatis]

16. Those bothersome "facts" just get in the way of a good head of sanctimony, though. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. You'll find the Optimum Population Trust know the demographics extremely well

Why do you think anything needs to be rechecked?

[WinkyDink]

49. Why do YOU think Caucasian males no longer sit atop the US demographic pole?

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. I can't understand your question

In what sense do you think Caucasian males used to be at the top of something demographic, but aren't now? I'm particularly confused by you bringing gender into this. Or race, for that matter. There wasn't anything about race in the OP.

[WinkyDink]

55. Okay, fine; ignore ethnicity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. So what's your question now?

"Why do YOU think males no longer sit atop the US demographic pole?"

I still don't understand it. As far as I know, more males are born in the US than females, as has been the case for a long time; more females than males are alive in the country, as has been the case for a long time.

Where does the 'no longer' come into it? And what has it to do with overall population?

[HappyMe]

100. Um...so you are worried that 'white males'

will be minorities? If you are, then women are supposed to keep having kids until they get a male?
I'm trying to understand what you are saying here....


I don't think anybody should have anything to say about how many kids you have. Unfortunately I do believe that it is a discussion that has to be had at some point. How that can be done without stomping all over people's rights is going to be tricky to say the least.

[The Straight Story]

5. Your body, your choice - unless we have decided we don't like that anymore (nt)

[tammywammy]

9. +1

Yep, I'm pro-choice.

[FreakinDJ]

11. vs: Children Starving to death in 3rd world countries

kind of changes perspective when discussing "Choice"

[indurancevile]

23. But people have been starving to death since the invention of civilizaiton.

Not a matter of population, a matter of resource distribution.


Check out old news sources for stories (pre-revolution) about china's overpopulation & how it's the reason for starvation there. Now china has even more people but no one's starving.

[FreakinDJ]

24. But Birth Control is ILLEGAL in many countries

were not talking abortions - just a simple plain pill

and God forbid anyone ever offer Free Vasectomy for men who already have 2 or more children and can't afford to feed the children they already have

[indurancevile]

25. name one of the "many".

[FreakinDJ]

26. Philippines

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/No-to-contraceptives-for-birth-control,-says-Archbishop-Cruz-1484.html

[Posteritatis]

27. Now name some more, "one" not being "many." (nt)

[FreakinDJ]

29. Argentina

need I go on

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Yes, you need to come up with different examples, because yours are incorrect

The report, Illusions of Care: Lack of Accountability for Reproductive Rights in Argentina, said some 40% of pregnancies ended in abortion – one of the world's highest rates – because laws guaranteeing free and universal contraception were ignored.

"The laws are in place but they have been systematically flouted by hospitals and doctors across the country who refuse, either through ignorance of the law or personal decision, to provide access," said Marianne Mollmann, one of the report's authors.
...
Contraception became legal in 1985 but some husbands beat up their wives if they discovered them using contraception, said Mollman. "The problem is that many people who still believe contraception programmes should not exist."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/10/argentina-contraception-abortion-risks

[FreakinDJ]

30. Dubai

[indurancevile]

38. Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates. Birth control is not illegal there.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/health/uae-women-remain-unconvinced-by-birth-control-pill-survey-finds


The "many" is shrinking fast.

PS: Total fertility rate:

Philippines = 3 children per woman

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=total+fertility+rate+philippines&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v4&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=97eede9ed711c932&biw=1024&bih=604

Argentina = 2.2 children per woman (basically replacement, about the same as us)

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=total+fertility+rate+argentina&aq=f&aqi=g-v3&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=97eede9ed711c932&biw=1024&bih=604

UAE = 1.9 children per woman (below replacement)

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=604&source=hp&q=total+fertility+rate+United+Arab+Emirates&aq=f&aqi=g-v1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=97eede9ed711c932


Got any more fake scare stories?

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. No, it's legal in the country, although the government does nothing to encourage it

Your link doesn't actually say it's illegal; but this says:

MANILA, Philippines—If you listen to officials of the waning Arroyo administration, outgoing President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo included, you’d get the impression that Filipino women have no problem planning their families or getting their hands on the contraceptives they need.

To sum up their arguments, they say that contraceptives are legal in the Philippines, in fact, women and couples need only visit their local health centers where they can get them either for free or at subsidized prices. True, ever since President Arroyo took office, no national funds have been earmarked for the purchase of family planning supplies. But this is only because health services have been devolved to local government units, who have been given the responsibility to buy contraceptives and make these available to the public.

But these arguments mask several uncomfortable “truths.” A study titled “Facts on Barriers to Contraceptive Use in the Philippines,” conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and local health advocacy group Likhaan, points out that over the past decade, contraceptive use has hardly increased among Filipino women. And yet, the study goes on, “women are having, on average, about one more child than they would like.” National surveys show that women aged 15-49 want to have 2.4 children but end up having, on average, 3.3.

The situation appears even direr if we break down the statistics according to income level. The poorest women have about two more children than they want, while those in the highest income level have the number of children they want (generally one or two). Only 41 percent of the poorest women use or can afford contraceptives, compared with 50 percent of the wealthiest.

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100605-274074/Government-and-contraception

[FreakinDJ]

41. Changed within the last 7 years

last time I was there they were still arresting people for smuggling the Pill

[indurancevile]

43. not according to the nyt.

"Birth control and related health services have long been available to those who can afford to pay for them through the private medical system, but 70 percent of the population is too poor and depends on heavily subsidized care."

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. It's illegal to smuggle alcohol in most countries

and yet alcohol is legal in them. Government controls on importation are a lot different from illegality.

[indurancevile]

36. birth control is not illegal in the philippines. abortion is illegal, not birth control.

Abortion is illegal in the Philippines. Birth control and related health services have long been available to those who can afford to pay for them through the private medical system, but 70 percent of the population is too poor and depends on heavily subsidized care. In 1991, prime responsibility for delivering public health services shifted from the central government to the local authorities, who have broad discretion over which services are dispensed.

Many communities responded by making birth control unavailable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/world/asia/26iht-phils.html

so that's one of your "many" shot down.

what else ya got?

i see the "argentina" example has been debunked as well.

[dynasaw]

37. 13 Million Children in the U.S. are Starving

We have this idea that only the so called third world countries have starving people.
"--36.3 million people--including 13 million children--live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten 0households in the United States (11.2 percent). This is an increase of 1.4 million, from 34.9, million in 2002.

--3.5 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9.6 million people, including 3 million children, live in these homes.

--7.7 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Members of these households have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 26.6 million people, including 10.3 million children, live in these homes."

http://www.bread.org/hunger/us/

[indurancevile]

45. "experience hunger" or "at risk of hunger" does not equal "starving".

i like my hyperbole as well as the next person, but there are not any significant fraction of people "starving" in the us.

[WatsonT]

84. They were starving when we had a billion people and even when we had fewer

Our population isn't causing them to starve.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Yeah, funny how it's ok to tell women what to do with their bodies when we agree with it

I don't see much of a distinction between shaming a woman for having an abortion or shaming a woman for having 4 or more kids. Either way it is NOT ANYONE ELSE'S FUCKING BUSINESS.

[JackDragna]

14. Actually, at some point, it becomes everyone's business.

The planet can only support so much human interaction and population. We're already draining its resources at a dizzying rate. You can frame it as "choice," but the right to choose carries with it responsibilities. If everyone decides to have four children and thereby causes the environmental damage being done to the planet to rise to catastrophic levels and further increases the percentage of our population living in privation, then it's something we must consider as a species.

[Posteritatis]

17. Since childbirth in the US is below replacement level, clearly everyone is *not* deciding that. (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. Stats for that, please

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces.html
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0083.pdf

2,110 per thousand women represents replacement; latest figure is 2.122.

[JackDragna]

48. The world population grows tremendously, however..

..and all nations have a responsibility to keep it at a level where it does not result in the destruction of our planet and of our species.

[Yo_Mama]

20. The only reason US pop is growing at all is immigration

Restricting family sizes in the US, or in the UK, would have no effect at all on the world population.

People should bother to acquaint themselves with the facts before advocating laws to limit someone else's freedom, wouldn't you agree?

[dynasaw]

34. You forget the Fundamentalists

Mormon families are still larger than average. I know several who have five and even nine children. Blaming immigration for
the increased population in the U.S. isn't the only factor. We have a culture that glorifies mindless reproduction. It is no longer simply "a personal choice."
Two kids per family, o.k. Beyond that it's everybody's concern where resources are concerned.

[JackDragna]

51. So it's only third-world countries that have to watch their populations?

We're the third most populous country in the world. Our citizens use up significantly more resources than citizens in other nations..we utilize more food, more water, more energy and more living space. Far beyond that, however, is the idea of population control as something all nations should participate in.

[WatsonT]

85. We have the one of the least densely populated 1st world nations

and a very low growth rate that would disappear if you take away third world immigration.

If you want to reduce the human population via birth control the US is the wrong place to start.

You're stamping out sparks and ignoring the raging forest fire all around you.

[JackDragna]

95. We still have a responsibility to regulate our own growth.

The insatiable consumption of resources by this country fuels poverty and human misery elsewhere.

[WatsonT]

99. And if our growth is stagnant

or perhaps even negative, what responsibility do we have to further regulate it?

I suppose we could cut all humanitarian aid. Let famine and disease do its work in africa and asia.

[JackDragna]

106. None. We might not be growing..

..but I don't think our population level is so low we're in any danger of becoming a less productive nation. We're already one of the most populous nations on Earth. I also don't particularly favor your Republican method of regulating the population elsewhere - efforts to expand birth control and provide education in other countries has been successful in keeping birth rates down. The problem in this nation is we have a Puritian spirit which makes doing so as national policy unpopular.

[WatsonT]

109. We're among the most populous but we also occupy a lot of space

sorry but the US ranks very low on nations that are concerning due to overpopulation. By European and Asian standards we are woefully underpopulated. Look at our average population density and compare that to any other first world nation.

[JackDragna]

112. At some point, aggregate numbers matter.

..especially considering the vast amount of resources we consume. When a single American is using several times the energy, food and water of someone in other nations, a single citizen here significantly impacts the rest of the world. There's also the issue as to whether we should expand into all of the open space we have, for both environmental and aesthetic reasons.

[WatsonT]

114. Which do you suppose has a greater impact on the environment

A high or low population density?

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. I'm not "framing" it as choice. It IS choice.

What exactly would you do about it? Pass laws telling people how many kids they can have? What if a woman gets pregnant after she's had her government-allowed number of children? Forced abortions? Forced sterilization? Will birth control be mandatory for the entire population? Will people have to apply for permits to have a kid? If you really think the state has ANY business sticking its nose into people's medical and personal lives to such a grotesque extent, then you really should reconsider calling yourself a liberal.

[lapislzi]

82. You need a license to drive a car.

In order to get a license, you must demonstrate a modicum of skill in piloting a motor vehicle. I wish some people had to pass a test in order to have kids.

But seriously, education is the answer. Educate, educate, educate. In general, larger families have larger footprints and command greater resources, which are limited. Having a large family is generally not a wise choice, given the state of the planet.

[WildEyedLiberal]

102. I agree

In educated, wealthy countries, such as ours, the birth rate hovers at or below replacement level. Families like the Beckhams are outliers who are offset by the many other adults who choose not to have children or to have only one child. Accordingly I find it unseemly for liberals to focus on this one particular family for their personal choice.

[JackDragna]

96. Were any of those suggestions part of the original article?

No? Did I make any of those suggestions? I think it's time we simply have a wider use of what's been shown to work in the past: better sex ed and greater availability of birth control. If you think the state has no business at all providing such things, or you continue to put words in people's mouths, then you really should reconsider calling yourself a liberal. :)

Edit: Fair question to you..are children something more than simply an extension of choice for parents? Should the state do nothing to regulate or control its population if the population is so high that adequate housing, jobs, food or health care can no longer be delivered adequately to the population?

[lapislzi]

98. That's already the case.

There are plenty of Americans, and people worldwide with inadequate access to the basic necessities of life. Now, I agree that government ought to have an interest in making these available to the people.

But it's the responsibility of the people themselves not to breed. There is a direct correlation between family size and quality of life. And it's the responsibility of government to educate on the benefits of smaller families, and the drawbacks of larger ones. Beyond that, the government need not stick its nose. But if it does that job right, it wouldn't be necessary.

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. So, in your last question, you're insinuating that the state should regulate the population

Again, how would you do that, if you are so adamant that you would never resort to any of the measures I suggested such a policy would ultimately lead to in my last post? Just teach sex ed? Make birth control available? What if people choose - there's that pesky word again - not to avail themselves of birth control?

You can pretend all you like that your position would never infringe on people's personal and medical autonomy, but it's a pipe dream, and I think you know it, which is why you're balking at admitting that yes, you think the state should control how many children a woman decides to have.

[JackDragna]

105. Ah, the joy of having my ideas decided by others.

The problem is that you continue to see the production of children as simply a matter of "personal and medical autonomy." Children don't exist in a vacuum - they have rights, just like any other citizen, and their existence affects the rest of society. They consume resources, deserve adequate education and care and are expected, at some point, to contribute to the society in which they live. When you have a child, it's not just a thing you "chose" to have: you have created an individual that society now has an obligation to, even if you might be the person society expects to raise the child. If you simply let a population reproduce unabated at whatever rate it chooses, you will inevitably end up with a situation where society will fail to meet its obligation to its citizens. A drain on the nation's resources and increased privation for the masses will surely follow.

I never said I was completely against any regulation of population by the state - in fact, I think it's an inevitability and likely a necessity at some point in a nation that continues to have a high growth rate over an extended period. I wouldn't favor anything that physically alters anyone's body, but other methods would be acceptable. I will posit, however, that allowing a nation to become so overpopulated that you end up with teeming masses living in desperate circumstances is an infinitely greater crime than a nation passing a law restricting family size.

[LanternWaste]

113. We certainly should not merely tolerate, but condone...

We certainly should not merely tolerate, but actually condone all people having as many children as they wish. The consequences may be grim-- but only for the future, and certainly not to interfere with Choice in the here and now... :shrug:

[FreakinDJ]

19. In many countries Birth Control is Illegal

No 1 is advocating limiting choices, but rather providing choices

[hughee99]

39. I guess "my body, my choice" only applies to those who make the "right" choices. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

62. That's a non sequitur. The article in fact points out that draconian measures like

China's one child policy aren't solutions. The article is talking about ways to send the message of the need to think about the longer term implications of population growth and ways to encourage people to think about family size choices in that context.

[LanternWaste]

91. I'm afraid I do not understand how the one denies the other...

I imagine one may support the concept of choice, yet maintain that one or more particular choices are poor ones at best which will in turn affect later generations.

I'm afraid I do not understand how the one denies the other. :shrug:

[msongs]

6. free condoms and pregnancy prevention for the whole planet asap nt

[kayakjohnny]

13. Ta-Daaaaaaa!

Correct answer!

:hi:

[blueamy66]

7. My biggest problem...

my niece is naming her new baby boy Beckham.....UGH

[customerserviceguy]

8. There are legislative solutions to this

Limit personal exemptions and child tax credits to only the first two children. We already do that with child care tax credits.

You might make an exception for adopted children, and multiple births, but that would affect only a small number of people. You'd still have the freedom to overbreed, but you just wouldn't have as much of a government subsidy for doing so.

[hughee99]

74. Since population is a global issue,

is there really much the US government can legislate to "solve" the problem? The US is 149th of 222 nations in birth rate. There are more than 50 countries with twice the birth rate of the US. India's birth rate is about 50% higher than the US and China isn't far behind the the US. If no children are born in the US ever again, the global population will continue to rise at close to the same rate it is now.

[indurancevile]

79. us total fertility rate is at or below replacement rate.

[TheDebbieDee]

15. While I agree that family size is an important issue that should be

discussed, I don't think that the Beckhams, or any family for that matter, should have been singled out in this article.

[backwoodsbob]

21. OP fail

*U.S. American culture seems to glorify having babies*

We don't have children even at replacement levels.If not for immigration we would be losing population.

Guess the facts shouldn't get in the way of some good ole america hate

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. US Census say total fertility rate is above replacement level

See reply #42.

As for "If not for immigration we would be losing population" - that's hopelessly incorrect:

Birth rate:
13.83 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)

Death rate:
8.38 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Those pesky facts, eh?

[backwoodsbob]

57. really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States


The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2009 is 2.01 children per woman, which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1.<8> However, U.S. population growth is among the highest in industrialized countries,<9> since the vast majority of these have below-replacement fertility rates and the U.S. has higher levels of immigration


Guess those pesky facts can bite you in the ass.

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. US Census > Wikipedia (nt)

[indurancevile]

78. this also says 2011 total fertility rate = 2.06 = below replacement rate.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

The broad-based decline in births and fertility rates from 2007 through 2009 is now well-documented (1–3). An earlier NCHS Health E-Stat showed the overall birth count and fertility rate continuing to decline through the first 6 months of 2010 (4). This report updates and extends the trend through December 2010 (5).

The provisional count of births in the United States for 2010 (12-month period ending December 2010) was 4,007,000 (5). This count was 3 percent less than the number of births in 2009 (4,131,019) and 7 percent less than the all-time high of 4,316,233 births in 2007 (3,6).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/births_fertility_2010/births_fertility_2010.htm

birth rate tracks per capita income:





average birth rate 2000-2008 = 2.2. Average in 2009-present & you get below replacement. and birth rate is higher than the better indicator re population, total fertility rate

[Lucian]

50. I think that families should only be allowed to have one child.

Do people need two or three children anymore? Absolutely not. The more kids equals more strain on our finite resources.

This is an issue that's going to have to be addressed soon.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. How soon?

When will the US birth rate raise our population 10%? 50%?

Save you the trouble. Like Europeans, Americans are declining in population. The only reason the US population is growing is immigration.

[Lucian]

60. You have facts to back that up?

Links, perhaps?

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. Yes. Many.

Reading this thread would be a good place to find them.

[cwydro]

72. You would do well in China.

Check it out.

[Duppers]

76. Well, I have & they're doing fine

Have you?

China is correcting a problem they've had for a long time.

We all may need to learn to speak Chinese before mid-century. :P

:7

[cwydro]

92. Sure they are...

Getting rid of girl babies in whatever way necessary to have a son for the ONE child requirement.

Sheesh.

I don't want the government telling us how to reproduce, ever, in any way.

[Duppers]

93. I am not agreeeing that the GOVT should do this

But that this should be a discussion among people.

AND, for you info, I saw many girl babies. Why do people try to have boys in this country or any where for that matter?

[Duppers]

75. Agreed!

Globally we stressing the environment passed its limits to sustain populations, and I'm not talking just about people.

Egocentric morons who think things can continue on the track it are on gall me.

One only has to look around the environment, look at the destruction.



I'm happy with one child, with all my genetic eggs in one basket. We've given the kid the best start, the best attention (w/o spoiling), so that he can be a most productive and caring member of the planet.

[WatsonT]

86. How do you stop people who decide to have more?

And here is why it's a taboo to discuss such things because the obvious next step is forced abortions and sterilization. And that gives the whole discussion a very hitlery feeling which makes some people uncomfortable.

[Lucian]

89. So people should keep having children unchecked then?

Yeah, that's no strain...

:eyes:

[WatsonT]

94. Ok, so overbreeding is the problem

a solution is to offer more services/education to reduce birth rates.

That will help some but not everyone will choose to forgo breeding.

So now you have a person who has been given every opportunity to choose to not have kids, but they instead choose to have kids.

How do you stop them? Be detailed. It's not enough to say "it ought to be a law!"

Laws require enforcement and penalties. How would you enforce your limited children policy, how would you punish those who disobey?

[WildEyedLiberal]

103. Eugenics is such a strong word

It's much more palatable sounding when we call it population control.

[CBGLuthier]

97. I think that people who think that should do that

and mind their own fucking business when it comes to what others do.

[OwnedByFerrets]

66. We will copulate ourselves right out of existance.

[Duppers]

77. agreed

but you forgot to add 'without protective geer' to your statement.

:)

[OwnedByFerrets]

80. LOL so true

[Odin2005]

70. I'm concerned that a lot of my 20-something woman peers want lots of kids.

I know one gal who is 29 and already has 5 kids, all but the first were on purpose! :wtf: Most of these women don't even have good enough jobs to support that many kids.

[tammywammy]

73. Most of my peers want no kids. I'm 30. n/t

[entanglement]

81. Threads like these really bring out the racists and hypocrites, don't they? n/t

[WatsonT]

83. US/UK aren't the problem

without immigration we'd have a stable, possibly slightly declining population.

Also people are weary of the whole debate because the solutions proposed often get in to worrying territory.

Make healthcare and abortions and sex ed available sure, but what if people keep having kids?

Forced sterilization is an unpopular notion for good reasons.

[Darth_Kitten]

88. I think having kids until you get the sex of your choice is wrong.

Appreciate what you have. :)

[sarcasmo]

90. Saw a couple at dinner the other night with 4 kids, they couldn't control them.

I was thinking that was 3 kids to many.

[InvisibleTouch]

104. That is indeed a good point...

...and I've always said there are way too many humans in the world, which is the absolute most basic source of all the environmental calamity. Furthermore, one child born in an industrial nation uses 100 times the resources of a child born in the "third world." On the other hand I'm not into forcing people how to live their lives, telling them how many or how few children to have. But they can certainly be encouraged! I feel that the effort should go into bringing about a paradigm shift, so it seems normal and even admirable to have only one biological child, and adopt others if one wants more. Where is the Hollywood opinion-factory when we need it?

[Wait Wut]

108. Interesting comments here.

Surprising, actually. The argument shouldn’t be about “choice”, it should be about practicality.

I personally am a huge advocate for lowering our nation’s population for several reasons. Technology is, and will further, reduce the number of jobs available. I can’t do the research at the moment, but I’m going to take a wild guess and say that the ratio of blue collar to white collar jobs has changed drastically in the past few decades. We’re beginning to see real effects of this today. In the graphics/printing industry alone, I can now do the work of 4 people in half the time.

Our public schools are way too overcrowded and have been since the late 70s. Reducing the population will only be beneficial to students and teachers.

The strain overpopulation puts on natural resources is an issue we’ve all been discussing since before I was in high school (about 30 years).

My best friend has six children. I love them all and would never tell her she’s being irresponsible for having that many kids. She doesn’t breed because of religion, she just loves kids. Does that make her right? Not at all, and I have had this discussion with her. She has real concerns about her younger kids being able to survive in tomorrow’s world.

This is one of those subjects where there really is no “right” or “wrong” side. It should be a discussion where we address attainable solutions to the problems of hunger, underemployment, education and conservation. There are families that do well with 5 kids, others shouldn’t have any. It isn’t about morals or rights, it’s about responsibility to not only our national society, but global civilization.

[Exultant Democracy]

110. The UK is on the brink of a population crash, they actually need more young people there.

You can't equate the global population with the relative population of individual countries, that is the first and most important fallacy in this argument. As for the Malthusian predictions that have been going on for over a century, ask any demographer wort his salt now and he will acknowledge that the global rates of population growth are in fact dropping rapidly. Urbanization and access to health care/ contraceptives in the developing world will take care of this problem as they already have in developed countries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. UK population is expected to grow about 15% in the next 22 years

The UK population is projected to increase by 4.3 million by 2018. This increase is equivalent to an average annual rate of growth of 0.7 per cent.

If past trends continue, the population will continue to grow, reaching 71.6 million by 2033. This is due to natural increase (more births than deaths) and because it is assumed there will be more immigrants than emigrants (a net inward flow of migrants).

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1352

So who told you it is on the brink of a crash? Even if you assume no net immigration after 2014, they predict the population will increase until 2034 (link to downloadable table here: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/NPP2008/information-note-additional-variants2.pdf)