Family size

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by marsupial

It's not just about money, it's about time. Once upon a time in agrarian societies families with lots of children were families with lots of farm workers. Life isn't like that anymore. Children are expected to spend all day in school and then come home to do homework. Add in an extracuricular activity or two and their day is full from morning to night. Parents are away from home and at work all day. They hardly have time to spend with the 1-3 kids they may have let alone think about adding 5 or 6 more to the brood.

so you would think that richer people would have more kids because they can afford to do more activities and pay for extra help.

But no, the inverse is true.

Richer people want LESS kids, despite having MORE to offer kids.

The future belongs to those that have children.

[marsupial]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so you would think that richer people would have more kids because they can afford to do more activities and pay for extra help.

But no, the inverse is true.

Richer people want LESS kids, despite having MORE to offer kids.

The future belongs to those that have children.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that finances and materialism aren't the only reason people aren't cranking out a baker's dozen.

[RedHeadGal]

And I think that children are valued differently than they used to be. There is a tension, perhaps, in the quantity vs quality. Those who have fewer children may feel that they can add more value by investing differently in the children they have than those who cannot or do not. I'm not saying one way is right or better.

I'm not sure the future belongs to welfare moms with 8 kids.

[BarbaraGordon]

I was at a party a month ago. There was a very attractive woman there with a fairly young girl. I assumed (as anyone would) that it was a mother and daughter. Nope. They were sisters. Two of ten kids. And not blended-family kind of ten kids, actual mom-and-dad-got-pregnant-every-other-year-for-twenty-years kind of ten kids. It was interesting talking to them. They were unusually intelligent and informed, they both played several instruments and a couple of sports, and the girl conducted herself as more of an adult than a child.

I would never in a million years want to have a large family, but there are some that love it and do it well.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

And I think that children are valued differently than they used to be. There is a tension, perhaps, in the quantity vs quality. Those who have fewer children may feel that they can add more value by investing differently in the children they have than those who cannot or do not. I'm not saying one way is right or better.

I'm not sure the future belongs to welfare moms with 8 kids.

sure it does. In a hundred years, her genetic and cultural influence will be extraordinarily more than yours.

You have two kids. One is gay and other has 2 kids. Those 2 kids have 2 kids. So now you have 2 great-grandchildren. One has 1 kid, the other has 2 kids. Now you have 3 great-great grandchildren. And so on.

Well the lady with 8 kids. Each of them averages 4 kids. And each of those grandchildren averages 3 children. 96 great-grandchildren. Compared to your 2. If each of those g-grandchildren averages 2 kids, then she has 192 great-great grandchildren. You have 3.

But my, YOUR great-great grandchildren will be SO talented. They will be pure delights. But sadly, they died in a car wreck. Your line ended. The end.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

sure it does. In a hundred years, her genetic and cultural influence will be extraordinarily more than yours.

You have two kids. One is gay and other has 2 kids. Those 2 kids have 2 kids. So now you have 2 great-grandchildren. One has 1 kid, the other has 2 kids. Now you have 3 great-great grandchildren. And so on.

Well the lady with 8 kids. Each of them averages 4 kids. And each of those grandchildren averages 3 children. 96 great-grandchildren. Compared to your 2. If each of those g-grandchildren averages 2 kids, then she has 192 great-great grandchildren. You have 3.

But my, YOUR great-great grandchildren will be SO talented. They will be pure delights. But sadly, they died in a car wreck. Your line ended. The end.

Interesting that you see a legacy as linked solely to genetics. When my mom died, people talked a lot about her legacy, which was limited to her children, of course. I get that, but I still thought it was a little sad. I like to think most people have more in them than that.

ANd now that Mormons have 4 kids instead of 8 or 12, I guess the future for us looks grim as well. . .

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

Interesting that you see a legacy as linked solely to genetics. When my mom died, people talked a lot about her legacy, which was limited to her children, of course. I get that, but I still thought it was a little sad. I like to think most people have more in them than that.

ANd now that Mormons have 4 kids instead of 8 or 12, I guess the future for us looks grim as well. . .

outside of your family and close friends, what is your legacy?

I don't kid myself that my work is all that important to many people. And people have open access to my work product, unlike a lot of people.

What's so damn important about most of our jobs anyway? You think a corporate lawyer making a ton of money in the bay area isn't instantly replaceable, for example? Hell, if we all wrote a novel, it would be a question mark whether our own children would even read it. Much less care.

Or perhaps, for some, their legacy will be the nice vacations and travel they experienced. And the resultant flickr photos, and the trinkets that are carted to the local goodwill/DI/fleamarket when you die.

What makes you think that your legacy will be/is more than your mother's? If she served others more than you end up serving others, then I would venture her legacy will be greater.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

outside of your family and close friends, what is your legacy?

I don't kid myself that my work is all that important to many people. And people have open access to my work product, unlike a lot of people.

What's so damn important about most of our jobs anyway? You think a corporate lawyer making a ton of money in the bay area isn't instantly replaceable, for example? Hell, if we all wrote a novel, it would be a question mark whether our own children would even read it. Much less care.

Or perhaps, for some, their legacy will be the nice vacations and travel they experienced. And the resultant flickr photos, and the trinkets that are carted to the local goodwill/DI/fleamarket when you die.

What makes you think that your legacy will be/is more than your mother's? If she served others more than you end up serving others, then I would venture her legacy will be greater.

I see our legacy to be our relations.

What did we do for those around us? What did we do for our children, our parents, our siblings and our friends?

Most of us will do little of any significance for our communities and very few of us will contribute broadly in our professional lives, except how we act as people in terms of relationships.

If you run a 11.5 sec 100 meter dash, who cares. But if you are gracious to your competitors and forced everybody to their limits, you will have an impact.

So it's not a question of genetics, but how we treated each person around us in whatever realm we traverse. How did your interaction with all persons improve or detract from that person's life experience? And did you neglect those to whom you have duties and obligations?

[RedHeadGal]

I never said anything about a legacy being a job. I agree that it passes in terms of who you are and probably is made greater in terms of how much service you give those around you. Which probably has little to do with how many children you bear.

If that's true, then, would you be more likely to be able to serve more with fewer children?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I never said anything about a legacy being a job. I agree that it passes in terms of who you are and probably is made greater in terms of how much service you give those around you. Which probably has little to do with how many children you bear.

If that's true, then, would you be more likely to be able to serve more with fewer children?

No.

For the same reason that the following maxim holds true: "If you want something to get done, assign it to a busy person."

A family with 10+ kids in my ward, every fast Sunday, volunteers at a soup kitchen for the homeless. In fact, here we see in terms of raw numbers, there service is greater.

Not to mention the service that is directed towards the children themselves, by the parents.

If you took your line of thinking to its conclusion, the people best able to serve humanity would be the ones that have NO children. And I reject that on its face, because if everyone did this, humanity would end. A great service to humanity is rearing good, decent human beings who multiply your values and work.