Too Many Children?

When I first toyed with the idea of writing a parenting blog, I thought a key issue (at least for me) with having children, was the tremendous impact (both positive and negative) that one or several children would have on our already burdened planet. The act of bringing a child into this world is the equivalent of a cosmic crap shoot, or a blind leap of faith, hoping that the thin reed that holds this whole project earth together will maintain long enough for our kids to grow up and undo all the horrendous and ignorant mistakes we had committed in the recent past. But ultimately, the gesture of having a child, in itself, is such an affirmative and optimistic action that it threatens to undo any pragmatic misgivings one may have about bringing a child into this world. But how about eight, or 10, or 14?

As sited in a recent New York Times article by Kate Zernike, the average size of families (as in number of children) has fallen drastically from the large, rambling brood of the mid-20th century to a more conservative one or two per couple (2.1 to be exact). This trending down has been gradual, and has cast the notion of more than three or four children to be almost excessive in the eyes of the majority of the population. What was once seen as “normal” to have a gaggle of children is now often looked upon as impractical, untenable, or downright irresponsible. This sort of judgment is no more evident than in the current furor and hullabaloo over Nadya Suleman, recent mother of octuplets in addition to her existing six children (14 total, if anyone is counting). Controversy aside, the lasting thorny issue is the outstanding impact of breeding, on both a conservative and sometimes excessive level.

Many parents with large families argue, besides the obvious benefits of constant companionship among siblings, that they have an economy of scale that consists of lots of children, yes, but children that pool and utilize the same resources over and over again (think commune). However, those that don’t subscribe to the more is less concept, scoff at the idea of multiple children and see it as a gratuitous drain on our, already beleaguered, resources.

How much is too many? Is there any value to the Chinese model, which limits procreation to one child per family, or can we learn from the Mormon ideology of abundance with children that populate the earth with good intentions? Like other forms of conservation, should we, as parents, curb our hunger for large families, at least until we sort out our deficits and shortages? Or just maybe, is it nobody’s business?

Feel free to chime in.

Eric Steinman is a freelance writer based in Rhinebeck, N.Y. He regularly writes about food, music, art, architecture and culture and is a regular contributor to Bon Appétit among other publications.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

pam w.

4:57PM PST on Feb 29, 2012

And meanwhile, the Catholics are imposing their "BREED, BABY, BREED" idea of "morality" on us all!

send a green star

cecily w.

4:23PM PST on Feb 29, 2012

Joe R. is right. What is particularly sad is that humans now have the means to prevent this debacle, but these means are often ignored.

Joe R.

1:25PM PST on Feb 29, 2012

Nature will eventually take care of earth's too many humans. And, it won't be pretty.

Dietrich S.

1:27AM PDT on Sep 24, 2011

Erth, you are so right! Everyone should be able to follow your statement: "Longer life and less deaths means we should slow down on breeding."
Otherwise, suffering for all life will grow until mere misery will limit human population, because the capacity of our earth is limited.
Therefore, I would prefer the painless way according Erth's recommendation.

Erth G.

1:23AM PDT on Sep 6, 2011

People dont die from so many illnesses and from war and plague like so many years ago and our lifespan overall average is over twice as long nowadays.

People get hurt they had a good chance they would die and now we can cure almost anything and make people walk again or give them a new limb or organ.

Longer life and less deaths means we should slow down on breeding since theres no reason to think we are going to go instinct theres plenty of humans on planet earth.

Jordan D.

8:54PM PDT on Sep 4, 2011

Charles W., Children do not *need* siblings. There have been tests that have shown that only children are equal to children with siblings in all areas. I know a few only children and they turned out just fine. Your argument sounds like only children are somehow messed up socially, but they are not. I have siblings and, yeah, I love them, but my life would have probably been easier without them. I guess you must have grown up with that sibling-but-also-my-best-friend type sibling that's so rare (like 1 in 100 sibling relationships).

12:58PM PDT on Mar 28, 2011

The cost and risks for tubal ligations and vasectomy are less then they were 20 years ago. And there's procedures that that are scapel free and take less then 30 minutes to have done. And usually can do this at a clinic and not at a hospital.
Typical costs with good medical can be done 200$ or less.

Something worth checking out for all those lurking about and reading this.

2:56PM PDT on Mar 27, 2011

Large families is only a reason to be selfish in many ways.
Most the times this is taught into the children teaching them this is right and the way it should be. Sounds like brainwashing or force thinking. I sometimes wonder if it is some type of mental illness and lot of them are still not explained if they are genetic or something emotional afflicted by their parents.
Back in the day a spank was all it took and now parents are now resorting to psychological games to keep their kids in line and this might be alot more worse...
And far is resources on our planet being used it, yea the costs of living are rising from over usage of gas and oil alone. And there is even speculation that drilling might be the cause of the continuing escalating earthquakes all over the world.