indian surroundings
2007-04-11 19:56:18 · 13 answers · asked by tijo 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Singles & Dating
HOPEFULLY NONE
2007-04-11 19:59:05 · answer #1 · answered by fgfggfgfg 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
At least 42, and not more than 1337!
Seriously, most experts agree that with the population boom crisis, we should have (at most), one child to replace each parent, which would mean two children per family.
Of course, you could always have zero, and adopt someone. Or you could have three or more in case a few of them decide to be celibate or die, etc.
There is no real answer, because things change. You can't plan to have two children, then expect that you can't have a third (mistakes happen, sue the manufacturor!), or expect that one won't become sick and die, etc. You can't 100% guarantee that you won't get a divorce and re-marry (causing some serious complexity to "one child per parent" if you both have children). What about unmarried couples? If you break up, what then?
So, my answer is: none. Eventually something will happen and you'll have children anyway (via marriage, adoption, or immaculate conception (although he looks a bit like the mailman..)). So, you save against everything else (including others not following this advice and having 8 kids) by having zero, and just letting things happen as they will (with adequate protections of course).
2007-04-12 03:10:26 · answer #2 · answered by earl71972 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In today's world, heath care ,education, food, clothing, are a large part of your expenses and the more childern you have the more it will cost you ..I know you can't put a price on things but in all reality these are things that need to be considered before starting a family .
I know lots of poor people who have lots and lots of kids and they have a house full of love and all take part in helpong eachother ..
I would say that you should have as many children as you feel you want ..and can afford to provide the best quality of life for ..
2007-04-12 03:06:09 · answer #3 · answered by myopinionforwhatitsworth 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't know about indian's population, but i heard in india there were only 2 class of people the rich and the poor so i guess if your rich 3 to 5 is enough and if your poor 1 to 2 is better....
2007-04-12 03:05:27 · answer #4 · answered by JOY 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1 - 2 Easily managable. Plus when shopping for a house, a standard 3 bedroom will do..
2007-04-12 03:00:08 · answer #5 · answered by BigWashSr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably only two. Things cost to much now days to have anymore. If you just had two, and maybe a year and a half apart, so they would be close in age-they can play together.You probably could afford to give two pretty nice things, and send them to college. A family of four would be just perfect!
2007-04-12 03:03:24 · answer #6 · answered by sue d 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How can you or anyone answer this question. It depends on you. Can you afford them? Love them? Feed them? Protect them? Take care of them? Provide emotional love?
Some can, most cannot and should not be breeding.
You must decide that before you go on. It is great you had the sense to ask the question!
2007-04-12 03:01:58 · answer #7 · answered by javarick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1 if u want to shrink the population slowly, 2 if u want to maintain the current population
2007-04-12 03:03:18 · answer #8 · answered by HopelessOne 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Children are blessings. Maybe you don't appreciate them when they are young but when they are older you realise the truth.
2007-04-12 03:02:20 · answer #9 · answered by Prudens 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2. cuz 3 is a crowd.
2007-04-12 03:04:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I only want 2 kids.
Three is too many and if you only have one then they'll be lonely.
2007-04-12 02:59:19 · answer #11 · answered by Bootsy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋