Do you believe that it is morally, ethically, and/or environmentally correct to have a lot of children?

Question

Nowadays, some people are beginning to worry about the issue of human overpopulation and the environmental effects that such a large amount of humans have on this planet. We are seemingly using more and more resources per person as the years go by. However, I know many families that have a lot of children. From what I understand, some countries have placed a limit of some sorts on how many children a family can have. In order to keep the population from exponentially increasing, having 2 or less children per family would be the way to go. (one child to "replace" the mother, one child to "replace" the father) However, I know many families that have 4, 5, 6 or more children. Hundreds of years ago, this was considered normal, but there were far less people, the average life span was significantly less, and there were no environmental concerns. At this point in time, it is morally, ethically, or environmentally correct to have such large families? What do you think?

Answer 1

NO!! I do not believe it is morally or ethically or environmentally correct to have a lot of children. To say that people should be allowed to have as many children as they want because they have the "right" to do so is like saying someone should be able to pollute as much as he wants because he has a "right" to do so. All the resources that life on earth need to survive - water, air and growing soil are finite. Every environmental problem we have stems from one single thing - too many people each of whom (on average) uses too much of that resource and/or generates too much waste. While cutting back on our individual resource use and garbage will help, we will never solve the problems so long as the population continues to grow exponentially.

This is not a new issue. Scientists have known that overpopulation had and would continue to have very serious environmental consequences since the 1970s. If we had done something then, we would not have the impending global warming crisis now. If we again fail to do anything, our children or grandchildren will inherit an earth with no wildlife, little open space, catastrophic climate change, water shortages (already common in much of the world) and many other problems.

I think it is totally selfish for anyone to have more than two children. The parents might get their jollies from having a lot of kids, but they are adding to every existing environmental problem.

Hundreds of years ago, people had four kids because they expected to lose several to disease. I believe Thomas Jefferson had four or five children with his wife, only one of which survived into a adulthood. With modern medicine, most of us will never lose a child to disease, so the practice of having three or more children is outdated and harmful.

Part of the problem in the US is our tax code that gives more tax credits to people with more children. Every child uses resources and generates waste, so every child is a cost to society and has a negative impact on the environment. Should those parents who make the selfish choice to have more than two kids get a tax break for that choice? It makes no sense! Ending this tax credit would be a good place to start making a change.

I think we should focus on leaving a nicer world (one that leaves room for wildlife too) to the children we do have. The best way to do that is to both reduce our consumption and to avoid increasing the population.

Answer 2

I believe its is morally, ethically and/or environmentally incorrect to have a lot of children. How many families actually produce a usable reasource the rest of the world (or just their communities) can benefit from?
Instead they bring a bunch of consumers into the world that have no knowledge or skill to share with society.
If a family wishes to have 4, 5 or 6 kids they should be socially and environmentally responsible and teach them how to live a sustainable life- if not for the environment's benefit but for their own personal survival.

Answer 3

No, I don't think it is.

In the past it was no problem because we didn't have an issue with overpopulation. The more kids you had, the more help you would have around your farm, for example.

Nowadays there's not a good justification for having a bunch of kids, but there are good reasons not to (strained natural resources, pollution, etc.).

People will sometimes comment on China's policy (1 child per couple), saying "it's my right to have as many kids as I want, and who is the government to say otherwise?". Well, as our population continues to increase, eventually someone will have to step in, because our current population growth is not sustainable.

Answer 4

good luck it is the most sensitive subject
and overpopulation sure has a chain of effects which are all interrelated and heavily tax the system
People use and need land,so more and more is being changed to accommodate human growth and development

The necessary flora ,which permits life as we know it, is disappearing.

Eco-systems are being exchanged for desserts , concrete or roads.

World population has doubled in the last 50 years exceeding the growth of 4 million years (since we became homo Sapiens).
To satisfy the growing demand farmers are cultivating unstable lands , too steep or dry to be sustainable.

Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise.
--------------------------------------...
.
NATURES POINT OF VIEW

In Nature exists such a thing as the law of Harmony and Equilibrium

Animals have lots of young when there is plenty of food ,and have little or none when the conditions are bad
when there is a plague of rabbits ,many foxes are born,
when there is no game lions ,and other predators have few cubs.

plants do roughly the same
All follow the LAW OF NATURE OF EQUILIBRIUM
everybody is welcome ,but nobody in excess.
we must co-exist on this planet and limit our numbers to our resources

All of Nature obeys these LAWS,but Humans put themselves above the LAW,and have bred themselves into a plague
It is a miracle that Nature has allowed us to get this far.

Everything else is set upon by plagues ,disease or predators ,when they exceed their allotted quantity,or there are Natural disasters .

There are two moments in the existence of a specie when extinction is likely,
when there are two few
And when there are too many.
--------------------------------------...
PEOPLE

However population control has always been a very sensitive issue Because people get get very nervous when you go below the belt

Mans sexuality and very often how many kids hes got is proof of his masculinity and insurance for old age
with many possible incomes to assist him when he himself cannot work any more
the second point is HOW do we ethically control populations

poor areas with less education DEMONSTRATE THE HIGHEST NUMBERS OF TEEN AGE PREGNANCIES,

educated women have less children
But uneducated populations are more religious and more resistant to birth control.
to forcibly control populations is frowned upon to say the least
--------------------------------------...

Population control in the past and present

at a meeting in Kopenhagen in 1998 it was suggested to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved
War (past .present and future)
Natures way disease(today,past and future)
Manufactured disease(suspected today)
cures that kill(suspected today)
poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)
making children infertile or gay,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)
birth control,

Some Native peoples have always been aware of this
to limit the tribes number to as many as the tribe can afford to feed
in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,
Amazonian tribes have strict sexual rites that limit copulation in the conventional way.

And there were central Americans who sacrificed their excess children to the Gods

Today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazateca community in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )

education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )

there are the strong methods such as in China with laws that limit childbirth per family.
Also a horrible concept.

.
--------------------------------------...
In the Netherlands after the war families were encouraged
to have few children because it is such a small country
not much bigger than Mexico city,
so it was physically impossible to fit a lot of people into the country ,There people can understand the concept of birth control,
But in larger countries many think of the family ,not the society as a whole

what happens if the country is full
wage war and kill everybody in another place to invade and settle there ,that would be the natural solution

In the past conquering countries encouraged the people to have many kids to be used as cannon fodder

or settling farmers needed many sons to provide labor,
one would have thought that we had progressed from that

But judging by many peoples reactions, many still cling to the old self centered or invasive philosophies

Answer 5

a large number of pregnancies happen in spite of ethical, ethical, and/or environmental issues. on condition that, your question comes all the way down to a call of no remember if it relatively is greater "morally, ethically, and/or environmentally ultimate" to "have a large number of toddlers" or to kill a large number of unborn toddlers (or perhaps those already born, as is completed in a number of those countries with limits on toddlers in line with family contributors). i won't be able to think of anybody different than perverted baby molesters advancing an argument that it relatively is greater "morally, ethically, and/or environmentally ultimate" to kill toddlers.

Answer 6

There's plenty of room on this planet yet...don't think it's a problem. Large families are great...I have 4 brothers and one sister, can't imagine only having one or two or being an only child.

Answer 7

As long as you teach them Environmental Awareness there shouldn't be a problem having as many kids as you want.

Answer 8

Yes it is moral and ethical and even a good environmentalist should/can have a large family. If you respect nature, then why not multiply naturally? Humans were meant to NOT use birth control. We should welcome however many children that God allows. Do not poison your body with nasty and harsh contraceptives. There are far better things we can do to cope with and adapt to the natural population rise, than to deny our children life. There are places all around to put more people.

Answer 9

I believe it is the families right to have as many children as they want. I don't want to have someone telling me how many kids I may or may not have. I have two and don't plan on having more, but I do respect people who do have more and raise their children.
If they can raise the kids and maintain a healthy happy lifestyle who is to tell them how many kids to have.

Answer 10

I wouldn't want any one telling me how many kids I can have. So what if I have two kids then get divorced does that mean the next wife will be screwed and we wont be able to have any kids because I've reached my limit?