Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by wanet, Feb 7, 2016.
to have more than one child?
I am glad that my parents had more than one or I wouldn't be here. Wouldn't a more reasonable limit be two - one for each parent? The population would still decline due to those who don't have children.
No, I don't believe so - my dad was one of seven (and not the first one, either)! But I think if parents can't afford another child but have one anyway there's something amiss with that.
And I wouldn't be here either if parents could have just one.
If you're The Pope, yes.
It would be far better to change lifestyle and use far fewer resources.
Grown some food, walk or cycle, buy more efficent, smaller cars. Use fuel and water more sensibly.
Just buy less stuff. You don't need it.
It is morally wrong for there to be too many humans on the planet. Therefore it is morally wrong for governments not to have some sort of policy that addresses this issue. It is up to government to set the policy - which may or may not restrict or "tax" family size. The moral imperative is a collective one, in this case.
Do my vote is "other" - missing as usual!
But as that isn't happening and resources are being used up and fought over?
Governments have policies that are addressing the issue
It is why global population growth rate has been falling for 50 years and birth rates are declining markedly as nations develop.
It's not too many people. It's YOU and the amount of resources you consume living in place like the UK
At the moment the tax system tends to have the opposite effect.
However, I do suspect that "we" will ignore the issue and nature will take care of it for us.
Resources should be taxed much more heavily
Then people will use less and use them more sensibly
But again that would mean us and I sense the solution is thought to be elsewhere.... as usual
Well I am not saying necessarily that there are currently too many people, only that the issue is a collective one. And as you more or less say, that collective responsibility should be international - like global warming.
Ultimately the only moral approach to looking at economics is to think of one world. It's what I have been advocating for some time.
Growth rate may be declining but the population is still rising. I doubt that many people will opt for a reduced lifestyle unless it is forced upon them. Over my lifetime I have seen the oposite - rather than product being created with a long life and replaceable parts we have the oposite.
Recent wars have been over resources.
So what are you DOING?
I don't think that expecting individuals to solve this will work. There has to be a global solution.
I suspect that it will be ignored in favour of the economic expansion model. One model, done on a global scale suggests that the issue will become serious in approx. 100 years causing a rapid decline in population and industrial capacity.
I suspect that it will be ignored until it becomes so obvious that this is going to happen. By then any solution will have to be drastic.
It is a serious problem now. Climate change. Caused largely by developed nations (us). And the solution lies with us too.
I have one child. I may adopt in the future, but at 44 (now 48), we were incredibly lucky in the month prior to actually starting the injections/IVF, I got pregnant after miscarriages and we now have a lively, happy little boy (just turned 4). I don't physicallythink I could handle another pregnancy, but adoption might be an option when our toddler is a bit older.
I do think it morally reprehensible to have more children than YOU (not the tax-payer) can afford.
I think it is morally wrong to have multiple children and expect others to pay for them. If you have the ability to pay for the upbringing of your kids it is no ones business how many you choose to have.
Depends on individual circumstances surely?
If you can't afford it, can't provide a rich nourishing life for the child, are still driven by your own selfish needs and desires and are unable to prioritise another individual above yourself then yes... morally wrong.
But if you can be a good parents... why not? Long as you don't expect me to pay for it have as many as you want.
And yeah, I get there is an environmental consideration but as Scintillant has pointed out numerous times, our population is stabilising. Now it's about us adapting to that level of population.
Perhaps one solution would be to restrict everyone to a fair share of available resources. If you choose to have children then you have to share your share with them. Would that solve the issue.
I also tend to be pessimistic, but probably won't see the fallout in my lifetime. however, children of the youngest members of TES probably will.