Kids – How Many Are Too Many?
This article written by Contributing Writer Matt Pfingsten.
I live in Southern California. There are a LOT of people here, and the population grows exponentially every year. Traffic worsens, smog thickens and violence increases. Why don’t I just come right out and say it? It is packed full-o-people. One would be hard-pressed to find an Angeleno who would actually sign their name to the statement “Yeah, I think LA could handle a few more. It’s kind of boring and quiet here, really. Plus, I’m tired of getting to work so fast. I need the extra time in my car to think!”
Yet I continue to witness people having more and more children, and can’t help but wonder why? I myself have one child, but would be more than happy with two. After that my wife and I will call it quits. I’m not suggesting that two kids is the magic number, but I am saying that the birth rate in LA needs to be brought under control.
There are a number of personal reasons for my belief in this issue which I believe apply nationally, if not globally, as well:
1. Financial. In my own personal situation, I would simply not be able to support any more than two children and provide for my family the lifestyle and opportunities that I wish them to have. I believe that we are all responsible for evaluating our own financial situation and balancing dependents against what’s fiscally possible. If you are a billionaire, have at it, at least as it pertains to this particular point. But if you will knowingly need financial support from outside parties and entities, would it not be better to wait until you can provide the resources necessary to give the child a fair shot and the best possible opportunity in life.
2. Environmental. Can we all at least agree that global warming is at least partly a reality now? I don’t need Al Gore or the Internet to convince me. I can see it. I can see it happening all around me. We are slow to react to this phenomenon because of its gradual nature. If, when I moved to LA 15 years ago I had awoken one day to find that the air quality, crime rate increase and population increase seen over the last 15 years had happened overnight I would have high-tailed it out of here in a split second. Overcrowding and overpopulating is the primary factor contributing to the rapidly-increasing degradation of our forests and environment in general. If you think that having ten kids in Detroit can’t possibly affect the Amazon Rainforest, click here. Global warming is simply the Earth eliminating toxin from itself the way our bodies eliminate a virus. Even if we all have 10 kids each, sooner or later at that rate good old Mother Earth will cure herself of the “human flu.”
3. Philanthropic. Its easy to argue that you do have enough money to support a large family and that you use compact fluorescent bulbs in your house and drive a Prius to work every day. But there’s another factor that I believe is much less tangible than the ones listed above. Human charity. I live in Los Angeles, yes. We have a severe homeless crisis. Our public schools are typically in the Top 10 worst in the country in national test averages, drop out rate, gang violence and illiteracy. The picture is pretty grim, right? Wrong. LA is Easy Street compared to other areas in the world. Bangladesh. Pakistan. Ethiopia. The list goes on and on. These countries represent our future. Imagine a human race that was able to sustain itself globally, rather than nationally. Imagine if, when deciding whether or not to add another child to the family, we stopped to think about how much resource could be contributed to people suffering in OTHER parts of the world first by opting not to. In theory, the human race would be able to regulate itself, instead of panicking when Mother Nature decides its time to do it herself.
I thought a long time before writing this post and, to be honest, I almost didn’t do it. My concern is that it may erupt into a hotbed of criticism and negativity. This is not my intention. No, this post was born out of a sadness I feel within from time to time. A sadness that comes from hearing that my neighbor’s oldest son (one of many) has no hearing in his left ear because he was gang-beaten to within an inch of his life in an LAUSD school when he was eight. EIGHT. Two or three less kids and a safer, private school would have been an option. Or, even better, two or three less kids and perhaps a teacher or parent at this school may have had just a bit more time in his impossible schedule to spend with the kids who administered the attack, maybe preventing it from happening in the first place. Two or three less kids in more than one of the families with students that attend that school and perhaps the parents would have had a bit more time to spend on their own children, preventing not only this brutal act, but others as well; potentially breaking the chain and leading to a safer and more eco-friendly existence, as well as benefiting the human race as a whole.
What do you think is the right number of kids to have? How many are too many kids per family?
Matt Pfingsten is a Contributing Writer for Discovering Dad. His personal site is The Playpen. You can also connect with Matt via Twitter @mattredsparks.
Popularity: 28% [?]
Apparently I need to write more about this topic.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
On FriendFeed, this post was liked by 0 people and commented on 0 times 
Honestly, your friends who were partying for that summer, will probably not remember their parties, but you have a great ...
Interesting comments from the men here. I love my wife now more than ever since the birth of our ...
i got a lot of really cool ideas today. i think im going to take my dad out to eat ...
"He who has a why to live can bear with almost any how."- Friedrich Nietzsche
This quote just gives me the ...
Hi! This post could not be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He ...
Comment by Mr Lady on 30 October 2008:
I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s just a personal decision in the end. I mean, look at how it’s turned out in China with the whole “you can only have X children.” I totally agree that just because you can, doesn’t necessarily mean you should, and that parents really should be taking their finances into consideration when having kids. Like, me. I really REALLY want one more. But that means I have to move to a bigger house and buy a minivan. Which means I have to work, too. Which means my kids who are used to having me home have a complete lifestyle change. So, for us, it’s not worth it.
And just as an observation, two was much easier than three is. We are outnumbered now, and it is really difficult sometimes. I have three kids, but only two hands and two eyes. I’d recommend one per to new parents, but at the same time, I can’t think of anything that makes me happier than each one of my three children. Holy Juxtaposition, batman.
Comment by Joe on 31 October 2008:
I know you were trying to avoid controversy, but I have some comments. I hope they don’t come across as rude.
I come from a family of five. We lived a lifestyle above what I would call satisfactory, though we were very far from being wealthy. And only my dad worked.
I agree strongly with taking finances into account when deciding how many children to have, but I can’t agree with much else here. I strongly believe that families are the sources of the greatest joys on the earth. And I believe the Psalm that reads, “Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed…”
I know that by citing the Bible on this important, global issue, I look like a religious nutjob. “Anyone can see how overpopulated the cities are getting!” Yeah, I don’t like being in crowded cities, and even the suburbs are pretty crazy now. We have to worry about pollution, too. Still, I think we can come up with solutions to these problems. There are plenty of uncrowded places in the US, and telecommuting is gradually growing. Why should we still congregate in cities? That’s the way of the past.
Regarding the child who was beat…well, you point out that if the family had fewer children, and thereby more money per child, they could have sent that child to a private school where he would not have been hurt. But those bullies would still have hurt someone. So that’s a rather selfish argument. Plus, as more families tried that approach, private schools would cost more. You’d end up with roughly the same number of families that could attend. And while fewer children means more teachers per student at a public school, that only lasts a short time. Schools will cut back on teachers shortly. And even if they didn’t do so voluntarily, they would be forced to within a generation, when there would be fewer adults to work. So that solution just doesn’t scale.
I say, a few better parents, and those bullies wouldn’t hurt anybody. But I know that we would have to improve ALL of the bad parents and children to make sure that no one gets hurt. And that’s an ideal that is nearly impossible to reach. But I think it’s still worth trying. Every small action yields great results that stretch for generations.
Finally, all I’ve ever seen with families with few children is that both parents work to get even more money, which they use to spoil their children and themselves. Nice clothes. Fancy cars. A second house at the beach. But I don’t think that actually makes things any better in the long run for their children. Unless they make gross amounts of money and set the kid up for life. But I don’t really think that’s good for a child. (Need an example? Paris Hilton. Ugh.)
Comment by Matt on 31 October 2008:
Hey Joe (whoa, I sounded like Jimmy Hendrix just now!)
Thanks for the great comment! First, I’d like to address the point about the bullies. As I said, private school for the victim is only an initial solution, and certainly not without its flaws, so I actually agree with you that its not the ideal solution, more of a band aid.
Second, I disagree that the bullies may have inflicted that abuse onto someone else. My point was that if not only the victim’s parents but parents of other children in that school had concerned themselves a bit more with instilling proper values into their children, something they may have been able to accomplish with less children, the bullies would NOT have done this to someone else because they would have known better. And that perhaps it could have been prevented (it happened at school) if there weren’t quite as many children for the teachers and staff to watch as well.
Second, you make a terrific point about not necessarily living in cities. I agree with you completely on this. In fact, there has been many a time when I have come close to jerking the car off the 405 Freeway and heading straight for Montana to live off the land. However, at some point, those areas will fill with people too, its inevitable. There will be NO overcrowded areas left at the current rate of population growth. You mention other solutions to overcrowding. Admittedly I am ignorant to what these may be, and encourage you to elaborate a bit if you can.
Thanks for weighing in, Joe. As I said, its only my opinion, and healthy debate is what I love about Discovering Dad!
Comment by tom on 31 October 2008:
I know that for some, the reason for having more kids is a basic, primal instinct dictating that having more children in a resource-stretched environment increases the chances that your own line will survive.
In my case, I was good with two… and then I got married to a woman with one… and then the two of us accidentally brought forth number four. We’ve ensured there will not be number five. But we’re happy with the number we have. I always wanted to have a substantial family.
Food for thought, no doubt about it. Thanks, Matt.
Comment by Daniel on 31 October 2008:
When my wife and I started out, we both had a vision of wanting three kids of our own and then adopting a 4th.
Now that we have two kids, I’m fine with that number. I like being able to hug all my kids at once.
Comment by Charlie on PA Tpk on 3 November 2008:
…at the risk of stirring up (more) controversy…..
No, I do not believe that Global Warming is even is “at least partly a reality now”. Your point of LA have crime, over population, etc. is accurate enough for that location, but globally speaking, there isn’t scientific evidence of ‘warming’. There is, of course, scientific ‘consensus’, but that’s never been a universally accepted standard.
As for my family, we’ve got two kids (boys 13&5) and have never discussed more; sort of a mutual understanding.
But instead of lamenting on how your neighbor, for example, might have afforded private schools had they less children, as yourself why the conduct you describe (the beatings) can go on without due punishment. That is the real crime.
Comment by B. Wilde on 9 November 2008:
I have five kids but welcome your point of view. I think we should be thinking through the issues you raise and challenging our current behaviors and choices against future living. I am an only child. I wanted to have a large family. I wouldn’t trade any of them, but it is challenging (and a bit crazy at times). My hope is that I can be responsible with the lives I chose to bring into the world so that they may grow to be a benefit to this great planet and give more than they take. I’m glad you had the courage to post your opinion. You certainly won’t lose me as a reader. I think your thoughts are valid, but I also think that maybe it’s not so much a question of how many we bring into the world as it is a matter of how many can a couple handle. Would love to continue to dialogue about this if you’re interested. Great post – very thought provoking.
Comment by Matt on 12 November 2008:
Thanks for weighing in on this, B. I agree with you 100% on your comment about “how many a couple can handle. That IS the main issue. The problem with a post like this one is that you have to address the majority, or at least what I assume to be the majority. Sure, there will always be exceptions to every argument, but that wouldn’t make for a very interesting opinion. I am very much aware that there are people, like yourself, who are able to bring that many children into the world, provide exceptional futures for them, assist their fellow humankind AND leave the word a better place. The problem is that, in my experience, you are in the minority. I stand by my original viewpoint that, when dealing with the world as a whole, the number of children each set of parents has should be kept in check. Thanks for commenting, and I am ALWAYS interested in continuing dialogue about anything!