Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    As many as I can afford.
    
    Large families may be hectic, cumbersome, and make travel almost
    impossible, but they really are terrific.
    
    I love it when some relative throws a get together and I get to
    meet 10 new people who are now my cousin or nephew or cousin.
    Along with them I see about 40 others who I see maybe once a
    year.
    
    For me, I think 3 or 4 is a good practical size.  The limiting
    factor is that I want all my children to be able to attend college
    if they want, and not some mickey mouse State Univeersity, either.
    
    I'm just dreaming at this stage, a note in 733 (why 2 children per
    family) inspired this.
    
    I feel so domesticated now.  ;^)

    Tch tch tch. Anything more than 2 (straight replacement) simply
    cannot be justified under any circumstances. There are altogether
    too many people already.

    I think seven would be about right.  Lotsa kids so there are lotsa toys
    at Christmas.
    
    Also, it's good to keep superior genes in the gene pool. 

>                            -< None for me, thanks >-

>    Tch tch tch. Anything more than 2 (straight replacement) simply
>    cannot be justified under any circumstances. There are altogether
    
    If you're not having any, Paul, can I take your quota?
    

    re .4

    Nope, I'm just making up for my parents' having 4.

    re.0
    I'm still trying for the first phase finding someone to bear
    it/them.
    
    -j
    

    In the beginning I wanted four...why?  Because it was an even number
    and for some reason that seemed comfy...now, two seems like a nice
    number at times...but then I go back to my memories of growing up in a
    large family and think four again.  
    
    My SO and I haven't gotten around this discussion yet...so who know
    just yet?  All I know is he LOVES kids...so if (when) we get to that
    time in our lives, we'll make the decision then.
    
    Shilah

If I could afford it ... I think that four would be a nice number, but,
I have two and I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone
can afford 4 kids ... 

Bubba

    I don't think there's one number which is right for everyone.  For
    some the answer may be ten, for others, zero.  The important things
    are that each child be loved and wanted and that the parents can
    support them.
    
    My mother had four kids, and it was very difficult for her, but none
    of us were "accidents" and we were all very much wanted.
    
    For myself, I'm contented with one.
    
    				Steve

.10>    On the other hand, maybe the faster we overpopulate the planet,
.10>    the earlier we'll die out, giving the planet another chance...
    
    I'm not giving up a large family just to save the planet.  ;^)
    
    Besides, we won't ALL die off, just the less fit, and that's
    natural selection in action.  It's worked for millenia, why
    interfere now?

.10> Being able to support them is insufficient reason for exceeding
.10> two.

It goes without saying (in my book) that love, care, and the attendant
features be there .. however, the simple fact of the matter is that
children *are* expensive and my (my wife had a little to do with it)
decision on two was based on the fact that I could NEVER afford to
give three or four what I could have given two.

A trip to the shoe store is mind boggling ... buying two bicycles ..
clothes ... it is expensive, any way you cut it.  For some reason
girls tend to wear dresses (and this daddy likes 'em in dresses). I've
often wondered if boys be any less expensive .... they tend to wear 
jeans until they're ... well ... despicable.

Bubba

    re .10

    Caught me - I deleted the reply because I didn't want to seem to
    be insulting anyone who already exceeded two, and something in my
    wording could be taken that way. But the quotes in .10 and .11
    from my original .10 capture the essence of my hot button here.
    Nobody should have any children they can't support and love
    (without outside help, government subsidies, etc.). And no matter
    how much money, love, and desire for children you have, nobody
    should have more than straight replacement numbers - which means
    one per parent (aka two per family assuming the traditional if
    uncommon permanent monogamous marriage).

    Look at the trends in pollution, deforestation, population, etc.
    etc. It's hard to argue that having children you can afford is
    sufficient reason for destroying an entire planet ... and it's not
    that far off.

    Assuming that I can find someone to bear them I'd be happy with two if
    I could get one of each.  If the first two end up the same, I'd like to
    give it one more try before deciding to stop.
    
    But, all this is just dreaming, I don't even have any potential spouses
    identified.
    
    Rich

    	Actually, the average family in the more developed societies should
    have about 2.3 children for population replacement. The .3 is to allow
    for the fact that some will die before in turn reproducing, some will
    prove to be infertile, and some will choose (becoming a monk or other
    reasons) not to have children.
    
    	For less developed societies the figure should be higher since the
    accidents and diseases that prevent a baby from becoming a reproductive
    adult are more common.
    
    	I have 3 kids - the eldest one is planning his marriage, and I am
    not likely to have any more.

    Funny this should follow my note.  I'm one of eight kids and I've
    always dreamed of having at least 5 kids.  I fell in love with an older
    woman and most of her child bearing days are behind her.  If we have
    one we will be very lucky.  Been trying for a long time and running out
    of it.  Honestly it doesn't look good for us and I can't say if I'm
    upset or not.  We'll live well in either case.
    
    My mother says that maybe its my role in life to raise our son and be
    the role model he's always lacked.  That thought helps but I know it
    would be good to have a child.
    
    Kinda sad particularly considering the challenges I have being a
    step-father and teaching our son.  He's 14 next week.
    
    Anyway, to repeat, I thing 5 is good if you can afford them.
    
    Marv
    

    I entered a note in 733 about the reasons choose for having only 2
    children.  Thanks for entering your reasons in this note.  The insights
    into a couple's limiting their children to two are helpful.
    
    My wife and I have much more than 2, which was a conscious decision to do
    so.  When parents of small families tell me about the expenses of children,
    I can sympathize, but I sometimes get a chuckle at their reasoning and
    complaining. 
    
    With larger families you make different choices.  My wife and I
    don't have to agonize over some decisions  such should the whole family
    vacation in Cancun or Disneyworld this year?. Or, should my kids really 
    go to Harvard or Berkeley? Or, do we really need a new BMW or will the 4 
    year old Volvo hold up?  
    
    What I mean, is that it seems to me the justification for limiting
    family size stems from some financial decisions which, in my opinion,
    can be somewhat shallow, such
    as having the annual Carribean vacation versus having a child. 
    
    There is another consideration that should be taken and that has to do
    with old age.  One of the traditional reasons for kids was that they
    were to take care of their aged parents. For 2 kids to take care (i.e.
    pay for the care of) their older parents, they will have to be rich.
    My parents had 3 and we found it very financially straining to take
    care of them in their old age.  Plus, the emotional support they needed
    was also difficult.  Spreading that around 3 kids was ok, but had there
    only been 2, that might have been a real burden. In my case I gave up a
    home, promising job and standard of living, to move back east to
    provide financial and emotion support to my brother and sister who were
    breaking under the strain of caring for our parents.
    
    
    However, I agree with what has been said by others relative to the
    decision on family size.  It is up to each couple to make that
    decision.  For some it is small (1 or 2), others medium 3-5, and still
    others large (6+)  Whatever the case, when children come into your
    life, life certainly becomes more interesting, more challenging, more
    rewarding, more expensive, but also more loving.
    
    My 2 cents,
    
    Paul
    

    Don't think I have seen a single reply that takes into consideration
    how many children the mother might want. (not a criticism, just an
    observation)
    One of the implications of a large family is (typically, at least) a
    long time away from an 'outside' career for the mother (home parent if
    you must).
    There are lots and lots of (future) mothers who see at least two lives
    for themselves. A life as a parent and a life outside the home in some
    kind of working environment. Such families often have in mind that
    being a parent has declining time demands as the children grow, and
    that the vast majority of post-children adult life is spent with more
    limited time demands.
    For my wife, having two children resulted in her spending 10 years away
    from her outside career.
    We also made the _choice_, that it was essential that she be the one
    who care for the children until they were well into school age. This is
    a decision that I am very, very glad she made, a decision that I feel
    was crucial for the development of our children.
    
    				herb

    My husband and I had 5 children, 1 homegrown and 4 adopted. I would
    have gladly had more had we had the space and financial ability. I'd
    have liked to have had a second pregnancy if the first one had not
    been so difficult. I was a college teacher most of that time which
    made it possible for me to mother small children and still work at
    my career. 
    
    Bonnie

    
    I always like the idea of 4 .. the reason .. that is the minimum number
    of kids where everyone has a brother and a sister.  I'd guess that is
    partially the result of 1) my always wishing I had a brother and 2)
    being glad I have a sister and 3) liking my parent's big families.
    
    For Emmy and I reality is probably coming in around 2 .... age,
    careers, energy level, world population, etc seems to be setting the
    limit ... if our 2nd is a girl also I bet I'd be willing to try one more
    time to have a boy (I'd really like to have at least 1 of each).
    
    Greg
                                   

    after (say) 2 birth children there are lots of unwanted kids of both
    gender, who need desparately to be wanted and loved, who won't add
    to the population...
    

    Herb
    
    A lot of those unwanted kids are:
    
    1. severely handicapped, mentally retarded or both
    2. of grade school age or older
    3. of mixed racial background and not available to white parents
    
    Taking in an unwanted kid simply isn't for everyone...
    
    Bonnie
    
    (speaking from experience)

    sure

    re .16, if you have "much more than 2" children, and can still afford a
    4 yr. old Volvo, and a trip to Disneyworld, then, IMHO, you're *very*
    out of touch with why some couples think they can't afford more than 2
    children!  My ex and I had one child and still never had enough money
    to take her to Disney World or buy a 4 yr. old Volvo!!
    
    When some couples say they can't afford more than two children they're
    talking about the differences between living in a safe neignborhood or
    a slum, the differences between buying new clothes at discount stores
    and walking around in rags, the difference between not taking a
    vacation and going camping somewhere in the same state for a week in
    the summer!!   
    
    Maybe you've never noticed it, but everyone isn't a high paid
    professional.  Some people really don't make enough money to support a
    pack of kids.
    
    Lorna
    

    I think I'll be much more useful to society as an uncle.
    
    As in "your disgraceful Uncle Ray" and "oh god, what did Ray send her
    for Christmas this time?"
    
    Ray

    
    Well I have 2 children (one of each flavor) and I always thought that
    I had the perfect number, however since I am a single parent now and
    tend to think alot about the future - I certainly wouldn't mind having
    one more.  Kids are great - mind have been very rewarding and very
    fulfilling to my life.
    
    -Lynn
    

    Two or three, depending on if I"m able, and if we can afford it.
    
    Tammi

The following is something to chew on, especially for those who
feel that overpopulation is not a U.S. and/or a personal concern.

The following might look like an advertisement (sorry), but it was
an easy way for me to express my view.  We are a non-profit.

	~Mike

___________________________________________________________________

	"Environmental Degradation
     is a Symptom of Too Many People"


    ZERO POPULATION GROWTH
       of GREATER BOSTON


The "Apparent" Problem:

We see it every day.  Water and air pollution with resulting health
problems, loss of open space, traffic and crowding, spiraling social
costs, loss of biological diversity, scarce resources and many more.

The media, government and the public often call attention to such
problems, yet the number and severity continues to get worse.  We
are now beyond the point where we can ever expect to find the
resources to individually deal with them all.

Most of these problems are, at least to some extent, symptoms of too
many people.  These symptoms will continue to increase in number and
severity if our population continues to increase.


The Population Statistics:

In the United States, population increases by some 2.7 million
people each year, the equivalent of an additional California each
decade.  Our population doubled in the 55 years between 1935 and
1990 from 127 million to 254 million.

Worldwide, population grows by 95 million people each year, doubling
every 39 years.  From 1970 to 1990, 1.6 billion people were added to
our planet, more than existed in 1900.  World population now exceeds
5.4 billion.


The Population Connection:

Virtually all environmental problems are exacerbated by continually
having to provide for additional people.

Fewer people would mean less demand for water, energy, and
landfills.  It would mean fewer cars clogging our roads, people to
draw on over-taxed public services, and people in the checkout line. 
Fewer people would mean that money for rebuilding the central
artery, a second airport, or to clean up Boston Harbor might be used
for infrastructure, hazardous waste cleanup, or tax relief.


What We're All About:

We are a group of people who are concerned with environment and
quality-of-life, for ourselves and for our children.  We  believe
that the population- environment connection must be exposed for all
to appreciate.


What We Wish To Accomplish:

We wish to promote a non-coercive national population stabilization
policy so as to protect the well-being of present and future
generations.  We do this by writing letters and articles, hosting
presentations and discussions, sponsoring education and legislative
action, and by other methods, some of which we have not thought of
yet.


How You Can Help:

Just joining is a great start, an application form appears at the
end of this pamphlet.  If you might be interested in assisting with
one of our activities (or starting your own), let us know on the
application form.  On a personal basis, you can consider the
population connection when discussing environmental issues and in
planning your own family.


What you get by joining ZPG:

You gain the satisfaction of contributing to the cause which many
believe has a greater potential to directly and indirectly improve
the quality of human life than any other.  You also receive our
monthly newsletter.


For More Information:

Please join us at one of our monthly meetings (even just out of
curiosity, no obligation).  Meetings are generally held the third
Monday of each month at 7:30 pm.  Phone us at 617/864-4464 anytime,
or write to the address below to get more information.


A Bit of Fine Print:

We are a fully affiliated chapter of the ZPG National Office, 1400
Sixteenth St. N.W. Suite 320, Washington, D.C. 20036; 202/332-2200.


    Zero Population Growth
       of Greater Boston
        P.O. Box 390888
   Cambridge, MA 02139-0888
         617/864-4464