Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Three is selfish.
Please tell that to women in developing countries with no running water.
??? women in developing countries with no running water have more children in part because they don't expect them all to survive.
It's not the same thing here. I agree with PP, I think at some point it is selfish to keep having children. Just because other people do doesn't make it okay. We are reaching a point where the farming practices that enable us to have enough food to feed the population growth are simply no longer sustainable. From a big picture perspective, it would be better longer term if families only had replacement rate (i.e. 2 children per couple). This is looking beyond the social security issue; it's about resources. At some point, it just isn't going to work.
I am always tempted to roll my eyes at people who claim to be fervent environmentalists but have more than 2 kids. The two positions are simply not compatible.
But I get that it would be a very politically messy and emotional thing trying to tell people not to keep breeding. I do find it amusing, though, when people on here are completely fine telling poor people not to have more kids but give rich people a pass. When it comes to natural resources, it doesn't matter whether the increased population is rich or poor -- there still won't be enough in natural resources to comfortably sustain that growth.