Having Children Is Irresponsible.

[rainman]

Before you start yelling at me, I know I have potentially opened a can of worms with this thread and its title. But let me try and explain as to why I wrote it.

Before I was married, I didn't give a lot of thought to the subject of having children, I admit. I had no reason to. Now since I'm married, obviously I've discussed this with my wife and have also given it some more detailed thought and I came to the conclusion that having children in this age is simply irresponsible.

Don't get me wrong, I love children. If it wasn't for this, I'd probably have 1 or 2 with my wife. But what got me thinking is the amazing growth of world population.

When I drive in traffic, not only in Bangkok, but also in other cities around the world, like Tokyo, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Vancouver, Berlin, Madrid, etc. Just to name a few that I've experienced over the past couple of years, there is tons of traffic everywhere. When I walk on the street, you bump into someone literally every few seconds. and then we have so many nations in which people are starving to death.

It gets me thinking ..if it's already so bad now, how will it be in 40 years? There won't be less traffic, there will be more. Much more. Every family that now has a car and has 2 or 3 children, each one of those children will have at least a car as well. That makes at least 2 or 3 times the traffic we have today. How can my children live with that?

And the issue of food. There's only so much the world can produce and already today we cannot feed everyone. Millions of people are starving to death.

In the year 2000, the world had 6,070,581,000 people. That's 6.07 billion. In 2005, we had 6,453,628,000 people. That's 6.45 billion. And that means 380 million more people in just 5 years. That's already after we counted those millions that starved to death.

By the year 2040 to 2050, the world will have almost twice the population that it has now. How will the world look by then? We'll have twice the traffic in Bangkok and everywhere else in the world. Twice the people on the streets. Many more than twice the people starving. With more people, the space available for food sources is also on the decline. Who knows how much food we'll have in 40 or 50 years. On top of that, with technology taking over many of the things that people used to do in the past, the number of people without jobs (and therefor suffering from that) are also continuously rising.

Now you probably get my idea, I don't think I need to write anything more. Like I said, I love children. And because I love my children, I will spare them from what the world is turning into. An every day more and more crowded place, in which it will be more and more difficult to find a job and have a good life.

To all those of you who are dreaming of a family with 2, 3 or even 4 kids, please take a moment to think about not only your dreams, but also the lives in which you're putting your children into. The world's population is only starting to become a problem, but by the time your children are 30 or 40 years old, it will be a serious problem.

[rainman]

And I even made a typo in the thread title. "Irresnponsible" should of course be "Irresponsible"

[Jingthing]

Indeed!

And that is why gay marriage should not only be legal, but MANDATORY.

[lannarebirth]

Have a child, or not, as it suits you, but I absolutly disagree with your premise that we cannot feed the worlds people or an increased poulation in years to come. BTW, the best projections had the world reaching a peak population in 2055 att about 11 Billion. Already those projections are coming down.

[jumnien]

Just laugh off all the population predictions for the future! I remember in the 1970's the best scientists of the day were predicting that oil was running out in the next few years, they predicted a nuclear winter, etc. Apocalyptic thinking, especially as it manifests in the fundamentalist Christian environmentalist West is nothing but amusing and boringly repetitive. The best scientists today predict that we have so much oil to burn that we are in danger of a carbon summer. Just have lots of kids and hug them!

[dsys]

Dont worry standard human nature will sort it out - there be another world war when competition for resources gets too much. There will be another flu epademic. The world may even be getting hotter and kill us all off.

The food we eat and the water we drink is dangerous. The air we breath is polluted. The cars we drive are not safe. There is cancer. There is aids and birld flu. I cant drink or smoke cause its killing me.

Now you come along and tell us we cant have the simple joys of having children.

[dumspero]

I'll weigh in with the minority on this.

If one wants to have children, the better option would seem to be to adopt. There are just so many equally deserving little beating hearts out there tragically in need of a loving, nurturing home.

p.s. wanted adopt and no shock to many that my Thai wife was against it. Make 'em ourselves or no way, not even adopting her blood nieces and nephews whose parents were willing (or claimed to be-this could have been an issue, I suppose).

[toptuan]

Just laugh off all the population predictions for the future! I remember in the 1970's the best scientists of the day were predicting that oil was running out in the next few years, they predicted a nuclear winter, etc. Apocalyptic thinking, especially as it manifests in the liberal Greenpeace global-warming Al Gores of the world is nothing but amusing and boringly repetitive. The best scientists today predict that we have so much oil to burn that we are in danger of a carbon summer. Just have lots of kids and hug them!

Bold font, my insertion. Amazing how well it fits.

[PeaceBlondie]

Birth rates are plummeting, due to birth control methods. China, Mexico and Thailand each decreased their birth rates in half from 1975 to 2000. Forms of pollution are coming under control. Women's rights, including their ability to control their reproduction, are advancing.

Both of your great-grandchildren can retire on tropical beaches in Antarctica.

[Ulysses G.]

Most 1st world countries don't have enough children to provide a decent sized work force for the future and you want to cut the population further? Forget it!

[jumnien]

Just laugh off all the population predictions for the future! I remember in the 1970's the best scientists of the day were predicting that oil was running out in the next few years, they predicted a nuclear winter, etc. Apocalyptic thinking, especially as it manifests in the liberal Greenpeace global-warming Al Gores of the world is nothing but amusing and boringly repetitive. The best scientists today predict that we have so much oil to burn that we are in danger of a carbon summer. Just have lots of kids and hug them!

Bold font, my insertion. Amazing how well it fits.

I concur with your modification of my original statement. It is evident that the fundamentalists of every religion including Gorism use FEAR as their primary motivator!

[simon43]

My parents were single kids, as is my ex-wife. My 2 elder brothers have no kids. I've been trying to have as many kids as possible to counter this lack of family members! I have 5 lovely kids and the missus wants another

The only downside is that my monthly salary comes into my bank account and then goes out within a few days to pay all the bills. But I'm hopeful that some of these offspring might chip in to help out dad in his old age

Simon

[dominique355]

Most 1st world countries don't have enough children to provide a decent sized work force for the future and you want to cut the population further? Forget it!

That's where the immigration problem with economic refugees from Africa and South East Europe come from. In order to pay for the ever increasing social security bill, European countries have to admit these refugees and give them work. This creates not only social tensions but creates even more social cost. There is no way out...

If I would live in Europe, I would also think twice about having children. But here in South East Asia I believe it's different. There is much more land and once the people here have been educated to take care of the environment, there is not only enough food, but also enough space. Thailand is not Bangkok.

I respect your opinion not to have children, and I believe you have good reasons to take this decision. I just hope your lovely wife fully agrees from her heart. Otherwise, you are bound to have big problems; big, big problems. Don't forget: for women this a call from nature.

[Heng]

When I drive in traffic, not only in Bangkok, but also in other cities around the world, like Tokyo, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Vancouver, Berlin, Madrid, etc. Just to name a few that I've experienced over the past couple of years, there is tons of traffic everywhere. When I walk on the street, you bump into someone literally every few seconds. and then we have so many nations in which people are starving to death.

It gets me thinking ..if it's already so bad now, how will it be in 40 years? There won't be less traffic, there will be more. Much more. Every family that now has a car and has 2 or 3 children, each one of those children will have at least a car as well. That makes at least 2 or 3 times the traffic we have today. How can my children live with that?

They'll likely be living way above it or at least away from it and will only bump into other people and spend time in traffic when they CHOOSE to... the same as most of the descendants of those who decided and made sure they were on the boat (I dare say you included) when it left most of the world's populace behind. It's been the same for every generation since the beginning of time.

I've had the same thoughts and much to my surprise my parents (mostly my father though) said he had the same reservations before starting our branch of the family. He said the future looked fairly bleak from the point of view of a 20 something kid working his way through school during the OPEC oil crisis in Texas, pumping gas and fixing cars at a Fina gas station to supplement his meager "scholarship funds" from grandpa back in Thailand. He decided to rent out part of gas station (long before minimarts in gas stations were the norm) and began selling Asian groceries shipped out by mail from importers in California... anyway, first Asian supermarket in Austin... meat market, seafood market, later the first chain of Citgo stations owned by a Thai immigrant in those parts... and so forth. Anyway, it seemed quite bleak he said. But in the end, it was never even close in terms of his concerns that his children might not have a comfortable life.

I like children, I think my wife should have them as company if I happen to kick the bucket before I get old, and while I do still have concerns for their future... I think it's perfectly normal to feel that way... I remedy those concerns to a certain extent with making sure they have the same solid foundation to build on that I had.

[fletchsmile]

Nice to see something a little different as a post.

Personally I think the optimum is two for the foreseeable few decades. That way I'm not contributing to growing populations, my daughter has a playmate, and her brother/siser to come will teach her to share things - let's face it she'll have to. If everyone has two max, and some people have one or none, we'll be fine. As mentioned above there are enough people prefering the same sex, who will help us trend down.

BTW I'm not sure about you, but I reckon my gene pool is worth continuing, and we need a bit of quality in addition to the quantities you mention above. .

Plus I also don't see why I should have to cut back becauseof other people's excesses; and besides I enjoy the practising

[YangYaiEric]

Rainman, you must be COMPLETELY out of your mind, to post such drivel!!! (excuse me for saying so). What is life without children to pass on the fruits of ones labours? Surely you cannot be serious about considering the world's population increase as a means to justify your not having any children? Surely not!

[rainman]

Dont worry standard human nature will sort it out - there be another world war when competition for resources gets too much. There will be another flu epademic. The world may even be getting hotter and kill us all off.

The food we eat and the water we drink is dangerous. The air we breath is polluted. The cars we drive are not safe. There is cancer. There is aids and birld flu. I cant drink or smoke cause its killing me.

Now you come along and tell us we cant have the simple joys of having children.

Exactly that is the things I don't want my children to have to go through. Why have children if they have to fight a world war just to get food? Get sick from pandemic flues, face an ever warmer climate, breathe polluted air, etc? just so we can have the simple joy of having children? That's ignorant, in my opinion.

I respect your opinion not to have children, and I believe you have good reasons to take this decision. I just hope your lovely wife fully agrees from her heart. Otherwise, you are bound to have big problems; big, big problems. Don't forget: for women this a call from nature.

Of course, she fully agrees. She actually sat here with me as I wrote this.

If we really had the ability to feed everyone in the future, why are we not doing it now? Of course you can say millions are starving in Africa because the world just doesn't care about Africa. But is the world going to care about Africa in the future? I don't think so.

[rainman]

Rainman, you must be COMPLETELY out of your mind, to post such drivel!!! (excuse me for saying so). What is life without children to pass on the fruits of ones labours? Surely you cannot be serious about considering the world's population increase as a means to justify your not having any children? Surely not!

Not at all. That kind of thinking is what got us into this in the first place. Remember that more people also means more pollution and more use of oil, gas, etc. Right now we have 6 billion people. In 2050 (just 40 years), we'll have almost 10 billion. Can you imagine twice the people in the Skytrain here in Bangkok? It's already packed full now. Oh right, we'll just build more Skytrains on top. Or people will have to walk. Twice the people walking down Sukhumvit won't matter ...don't forget also twice the food stalls.

People don't realize, or don't want to realize it, until it's too late. Like with climate change and polar melting, we've been saying it for 50 years and now suddenly ...wow, guess what, we're not going to be able to stop polar melting even if we cut emissions by 100%. Read my post in 50 years (if it's still somewhere archived on Google). I'll be the old guy in the retirement home screaming from the back of the corner "I told you so!" while the nurse walking past says "Yeah sure, that's what they all say".

[mamanoodle]

We have four kids between us, all grown up and living in the UK none of them have cars, the traffic would be unthinkable everywhere if every child of every child had cars! Not everyone of car driving age has a car. We do have three fantastic grandchildren though, and they are impossible to have without children of your own, and even more rewarding, great excuse for second, or even third childhood behaviours.

[Naam]

BTW I'm not sure about you, but I reckon my gene pool is worth continuing, and we need a bit of quality in addition to the quantities you mention above. .

Plus I also don't see why I should have to cut back becauseof other people's excesses; and besides I enjoy the practising

TWO good ones Fletch!

[Neeranam]

Of course, she fully agrees. She actually sat here with me as I wrote this.

If you had kids, your time on the computer together would suffer.

Have kids, it's more fun. Also, they are a good pension plan.

Edited October 9, 2007 by Neeranam

[YangYaiEric]

Rainman, you must be COMPLETELY out of your mind, to post such drivel!!! (excuse me for saying so). What is life without children to pass on the fruits of ones labours? Surely you cannot be serious about considering the world's population increase as a means to justify your not having any children? Surely not!

Not at all. That kind of thinking is what got us into this in the first place. Remember that more people also means more pollution and more use of oil, gas, etc. Right now we have 6 billion people. In 2050 (just 40 years), we'll have almost 10 billion. Can you imagine twice the people in the Skytrain here in Bangkok? It's already packed full now. Oh right, we'll just build more Skytrains on top. Or people will have to walk. Twice the people walking down Sukhumvit won't matter ...don't forget also twice the food stalls.

People don't realize, or don't want to realize it, until it's too late. Like with climate change and polar melting, we've been saying it for 50 years and now suddenly ...wow, guess what, we're not going to be able to stop polar melting even if we cut emissions by 100%. Read my post in 50 years (if it's still somewhere archived on Google). I'll be the old guy in the retirement home screaming from the back of the corner "I told you so!" while the nurse walking past says "Yeah sure, that's what they all say".

OK Rainman. But have you factored-in population shrinkage due to natural processes, such as deaths etc? I think your predictions are slightly off-track and pessimistic to a large extent.

[LeungKen]

"The Sky's Falling In, The Sky's Falling In"

[rainman]

OK Rainman. But have you factored-in population shrinkage due to natural processes, such as deaths etc? I think your predictions are slightly off-track and pessimistic to a large extent.

Of course. My numbers are total population. That means current population PLUS new population MINUS deaths = total population. They're not at all off track, if anything they'll be even more, as we've met the population target estimates for 1980's and 2000's earlier than expected.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying don't have children, but I'd think its best if we all kept it at 1 or 2. Not for us, but for our children.

Like I said, sorry for opening a can of worms.

[rainman]

"The Sky's Falling In, The Sky's Falling In"

World population growth is a proven fact, the sky falling ...um, isn't. So why don't we leave that away?

Take a look at these numbers:

World Population in 1804: 1 billion

Years until next billion: 123

World Population in 1927: 2 billion

Years until next billion: 34

World Population in 1961: 3 billion

Years until next billion: 13

World Population in 1974: 4 billion

Years until next billion: 13

World Population in 1987: 5 billion

Years until next billion: 12

World Population in 1999: 6 billion

Years until next billion: 12

World Population in 2011: 7 billion

Years until next billion: 13

World Population in 2024: 8 billion

Notice at how we've somewhat stabilized the growth rate to the next billion? That's a start, but it's not going to solve our future problems. We're still going to have a billion more in a few years. Earth doesn't have an unlimited amount of resources or space.

[LeungKen]

and you can predict everything that is going to happen in the future ??

[rainman]

and you can predict everything that is going to happen in the future ??

Can we afford to take chances?

[think_too_mut]

Rainman, you must be COMPLETELY out of your mind, to post such drivel!!! (excuse me for saying so). What is life without children to pass on the fruits of ones labours? Surely you cannot be serious about considering the world's population increase as a means to justify your not having any children? Surely not!

You have said much smoother than I would.

[gregb]

The best scientists today predict that we have so much oil to burn that we are in danger of a carbon summer.

Sorry. Can't let this one go by without a comment. Actually, no serious geologist believes this. Sure, a few climatologists who can operate a computer have made a funny model that suits their political and funding agendas, but even their mildest prediction is almost certainly way too severe in my opinion, and the opinion of many others.

The elephant in the room is peak oil, and it's here already. Ghwar is in decline, and nothing can stop it. Climate change is real, but it will be mitigated by substantially fewer fossil fuels. Ask Dave Rutledge at Caltech. He did a very good paper on exactly this subject.

Don't confuse political events in the '70s with geological realities today. There will be a serious shakeup in the world before this gets better. Oil production is in irreversible decline, and no technologies are available to take up the slack at the rate depletion will hit us. The only thing that will work is demand destruction, which will take the form a severe economic depression. History teaches us war will be the solution to this, and in the words of some of our most famous leaders today "all options will be on the table."

There will be population reduction. It will be due to war, starvation and disease. Has nothing to do with apocalyptic thinking. Has to do with basic science, and happens everytime an organism exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment. Fossil fuels allowed us to expand into overshoot for a brief while, but like all organisms, we will experience the collapse that results from this. Much as we like to think we are different, we just aren't that far removed from bacteria.

Believe it... or don't believe it. Up to you. It will affect you all the same. Staying in denial will just make it harder. Governments know this. They are all silently preparing. They aren't telling you though, that would just cause panic.

The sad reality is there is nothing that can be done about overpopulation at this point. It might be possible in theory to feed everyone on the planet right now absent fossil fuels if people were willing to accept a mostly 3rd world lifestyle. I believe people will not accept that outcome, and therefore crash will ensue. No religion involved here. Simple biology, math and physics coupled with an understanding of human nature.

Sorry for the morbid tone of this post. Peak oil is important though. Everyone should study it and take it seriously. Based on the crude+condensate numbers we passed the peak in 2006. Wishful thinking won't change that basic fact. And while nobody can predict the future, barring a miracle, certain things do appear inevitable.

[dsys]

Your original post hinted at 13bn people. By my calculations that gives each of these 13bn people about 6760sqm of land all to themselves. Plenty of room.