|
Post by susan on Feb 9, 2010 20:44:30 GMT -5
But never fear, some are predicting a population crash: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_populationand the rate of growth has slowed. With the epidemic of childhood obesity and diabetes, I'm sure we'll make great progress towards limiting our population growth! Wow! I do remember hearing that this is one of the reasons Social Security is in crisis. While I see it as a problem for anyone to feel coerced into childbearing, I think I was wrong to say that people not using birth control was a problem. It's not a problem if it's completely their choice to just have as many kids as they have.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Feb 10, 2010 8:35:32 GMT -5
Yes, and our population crash will leaveus fighting for a labor base even harder than Europe. The only thing keeping our population at replacement level now is immigration, and that phenomenon is one that disabates in ONE generation.
FTR, I bothered to go calculate my family's Carbon footprint numbers. Best calculator I could find was with the EPA, and even that one did not fully account for all environmentally sound practices such as food from scratch, cloth versus disposable products and rarely buying new. Even so...and even with my gas-guzzling 2 passenger van, it estimates our carbon consumption at 2,600 per individual. EPA puts the average individual number around 12,500. Replacement fanily size is 2 kids puting their number approximately 50,000. My entire family's number...and not counting some significant measures we do take...26,000.
So, while you're looking at large families and seeing criminals, we're having HALF the environmental impact as the average family in the US all with our 10 members.
And, we're not unusual for large families. Some of the radical measures other families take leave me scratching my head that nothing is worth that effort to cut costs. The mother who only shops yard sales and only takes $5 with her??? I shop consignment sales. I wait for 1/2 off day on the largest consignment sale in the region and spend pittance. But, I don't have to scour the paper looking for yard sales all spring either.
Honestly, even the Duggars did a ton more towards reducing their impact before TLC got hold of them. Now, they make a fortune hawking their kids on TV and aren't motivated to save money.
Meanwhile, my BIGGEST carbon impact is my special needs child from the fostercare system. That child took my monthly water bill from $60 to $120 and there is little I can do to reduce his impact. But, on the whole, not only are we NOT "selfish environmental criminals" but we are way below the national average in all areas...just like all the other large families I know.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 10, 2010 13:40:16 GMT -5
Actually, Jo, you sound like you are some sort of Super-Being Always lots of talk about saving the environment or saving money, but never much time spent thinking about the sustainability the natural resource known as Woman (on whose back an *enormous amount* of the burden of producing Human Life itself has been laid…). So, this is my question: how sustainable are you? How much more can you take on before it's too much?
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Feb 10, 2010 13:55:56 GMT -5
Actually, Jo, you sound like you are some sort of Super-Being Always lots of talk about saving the environment or saving money, but never much time spent thinking about the sustainability the natural resource known as Woman (on whose back an *enormous amount* of the burden of producing Human Life itself has been laid…). So, this is my question: how sustainable are you? How much more can you take on before it's too much? I'm glad you asked that question, because most QF women I know live(d) this way. When I decided to no longer plant our garden because my hands were full, it was a MAJOR issue.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Feb 10, 2010 15:23:10 GMT -5
Um, yeah, at this point the baby factory here is closed, most of the children are back in school and mon is working on her college education.
While you'll get no argument from me at this point that repeat pregnancies are not healthy for an individual, I still nmaintain that large family size can not only be a personal NON QF choice but can also be accomplished without giving birth. In fact, in the circles I run in now (got kicked out of the QF circles 2 years ago), most of the families are primarily built via adoption. The largest families are definately via adoption and all are at least somewhat focused on enrivonmental factors and/or cost savings to a certain extent.
Large families and QF are not synonamous. You can have a large family and have never embraced QF and you can be QF and not have a large family. In general, most families the size of the Duggars are actually going to be adoptive families and not QF families. Most QF families, ime, tend to have 6-14 kids overall. The reasons for having a large family don't negate the environmental impact, and large families are simply not necessarily having a larger environmental impact than smaller families.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 10, 2010 17:01:28 GMT -5
Jo - Oh, shoot! I sure hope that you're not thinking that I'm judging you because that is the exact opposite of what I mean to do Another way of sayin': Women work so damn hard, all the time, everywhere and I just ask that we all take a moment to hold Ourselves in at least the same regard as all of the things we're trying to save... PS - and when I said *produce* I meant it more in the sense of *work output* not just birthing.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Feb 11, 2010 12:28:37 GMT -5
Nay. We're good.
The irony for me is that it has only been when we left QF and Dh accepted that he needs to HELP me that I've been able to start doing more stuff I wanted to do from the start. HE is planting the garden. I'll do the baking but only with a massive mixer to help me. We're all doing the recycling stuff. When we changed everything, he was more available to help me.
I'm just saying that QF or not, a lot of large families do these things not as some perfect way of doing things but to SAVE MONEY. No matter what your religous beliefs, large families cost money, so when you try to save money you end up doing things that help with the environment as well. My premise was only that you simply cannot assume that large families are 'environmental criminals' when you fail to account for our desperate need to SAVE MONEY and what it will lead us to do (like scouring Craigs List for a month, keeping my eye out for a used wooden playset rather than buying one new at the store).
|
|