I just caught up with an old friend who I had lost as a result of having kids.<br><br>I bet you have them: non breeder friends whose lifestyle was just incompatible with your new world of car seats, worrying about whether the baby is breathing, and utter and complete exhaustion. You collapse, for two hours at a time, while they go to a bar to watch the game. And so you and your friend parted ways without even realizing it.<br><br>Five years later, a call to go to lunch and the conversation leads to this: The #1 environmental problem on the planet is overpopulation. All environmental problems can be traced back to us having too many people.<br><br>He actually made a scientifically informed and coherent argument.<br><br>He was not saying I should have not had kids. The past is the past. Instead we should discourage all of our friends from having kids.<br><br>Is there a counter argument? No modest proposals, please.

It's always been interesting to me that we in the affluent world (no sense in being modest about our wealth) have the luxury of saying that the world is overpopulated and that we should have fewer children. It reminds me of that great scene in The Meaning of Life where the Protestants are watching the Catholic children dancing in the street and begin discussing how being able to use birth control (and apparently having no need for it) is what makes them better.<br><br>I often think about my sister-in-law. She has three children from four other parents. She adopted one from a previous marriage. She has never had a steady income and depends on the kindness of family to survive and frequently makes things worse to the extent of trashing a house her mother bought for her, moving into more expensive housing just as she gets fired for not going to work, buying supersized SUVs to transport boyfriend's kids. Her children have something on the order of 11 other siblings, that I know of. Looking at her family, I would say that her children will probably not have as many chances to do well in life as I would want for my own children.<br><br>My wife and I plan to be together for a long time. We're well paid professionals even if I am currently a Stay-At-Home-Dad. Without me working we're living off of a salary three to four times what her sister makes. Our mean IQ is astounding and we do our best to make the world a better place, not only for us and our child(ren) but for everyone. Doesn't that mean that if we were to raise three or four children, they would be better able to make the world even better? Doesn't it mean that by NOT reproducing more of ourselves, we are hording our riches for ourselves and not sharing with the world? Doesn't the world need more of me and my wife to balance her sister-in-law?<br><br>Population control arguments seem to come from people who are trying to justify their choice to deny themselves something. That by denying their impulse to have children (arguably to gather their own wealth) they are saving the planet. I don't buy it.<br><br>Oh, and Welcome, Daddy Troy! How did you find this site?

Mmmmmm....despite the moral depravity of the argument, and the outlandish rationalizations he has fabricated to justify his own choices, he still makes an interesting case from a pure logic standpoint. It's also an argument that I vividly remember espousing myself when I was....oh, about...maybe 14 years old..??? Glad I grew out of that phase.<br><br>Anyway, here would be some of my counter arguments:<br><br>(1) The world's problems can ONLY be solved by the kids being born right now. To stop having kids would be to doom the world to it's current state.<br><br>(2) To stop having kids is to put a halt on evolution and therefore stop all technological progress and advancement of human rights, civilization, and culture. (Tiananmen Square is a prime and obvious example of how the young kids are always the ones who advance human rights). Surely, we can not expect old people to lead radical reform in oppressed societies.<br><br>(3) But perhaps the best argument would have been an appeal to your friend's ego. You should have told him that if smart people like him don't breed, then we won't have smart kids that might be able to actually solve some of the world's problems. I'd love to see him counter that argument!<br><br><br>OK, Troy, now that I have responded to your silly question, can I PLEASE get a Woot Out to all the Double E's in the house???

Who are you and what have you done with DaddyTroy? Thanks for coming and playing in your own sandbox... we do try to keep the kitties(and their tootsie rolls) out of it...<br><br>Anyway... If your friend doesn't want(or like) kids, then he should just say so, rather than blame the world's problem on breeders. He's allowed to not like them. I dare say I didn't like them... still don't most of the time... But now, my statement is I don't like other peoples misbehaving children. (In fact, I can't stand 'em! Lil' punks!)<br><br>The environmental problem is the world is just too small. We need to make the planet BIGGER, so we have more room for our stuff (and children).<br><br>However, we all shouldn't be having football teams of children... afterall,<br>

One of the basic reasons for living is perpetuation of the species, all the way from a single-celled creature like an amoeba, to a more complex organism like ourselves. To chose not to have children is a very selfish decision and goes against our natural instinct. over population is a bigger problem in the obvious countries such as India and China, so maybe your friend should take his argument to the frontline of his cause; over there.<br><br>As a lot of people are choosing success in careers over having a family in the western world, there is actual talk of baby shortages on a national crisis level. See the article in the attached link.<br><br>www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/feb/19/gender...lt;br><br>I hope this helps you somewhat and maybe a movie such as Children of Men is not too far from the future truth.

I've heard this argument before on another message board. Except when I heard it the argument was that you shouldn't have more than 2 children, because anything more than that increases global population. If you just have 2 kids then that's enough people to simply replace you and your spouse when you die. Another friend of mine uses the staff to worker ratio argument, that you shouldn't have more than 2 kids because any more than that and the parents are outnumbered. LOL<br><br>Now it's true that there are people in this world that simply SHOULD NEVER breed! We've all heard it said that there should be an IQ test before you become parents. But for those who are excellent parents I think that they should have as many children as they want! Lets populate the planet with smart, creative, kind and loving people who grew up in stable loving homes!<br><br>Another argument for having more than 2 children is that the world is running short on middle children. If you read up on Birth Order theories it turns out that usually the middle child is the most well adjusted in the family. The middle child is often the negotiator between his older and younger siblings, they tend to have long lasting marriages in adulthood, and are generally easy to get along with. If everyone has only 2 children (or less!) we'd lose such wonderful people in our society! Just look at China and their population of only children! Only children are known for thinking the world revolves around them, are over achievers, and put a great deal of stress on themselves to succeed and satisfy their parents.<br><br>So yeah, I think the concept of not having children at all, or having fewer children then you've hoped for is craziness. How do we know that the scientist that finds the cure for AIDS isn't the youngest of 8 siblings???