David Attenborough: Don't Have Large Families

[Triple Nine]

As an antinatalist, the less babies the better. Only so many resources to go around.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

I am about the biggest Sir David Attenborough fan there is. Did you know he invented sports television?
He explains evolution so easily it isn't even funny.
His special on the "Bird People" of Easter Island explained fully how and why those statues are there.
I can't think of a finer human being that ever existed.
His rise in the BBC was a complete accident. He was completely overshadowed by his famous actor brother Sir Richard Attenborough.
He has confirmed my atheism with his knowledge that if ever I had any question it was completely erased by his teaching of natural science.

Yup, he is one of the few reasons I still pay a TV licence.

[Jmpty]

Isn't the cure to poverty simply to not have (any) kids? Or to be better educated so you'll have a better job and have less kids because smarter people tend to have less kids?

If you're poor the last thing you need is a brood of kids.

You have solved poverty in one post. Why didn't everyone else in the world think of that. It's so simple, just don't have children, and you'll be lifted from poverty. Get some education, and you won't even want any kids. Wow. I better let my wife, (The university professor,) know that we aren't supposed to have kids, because we're, you know, kind of smart, and not poor.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

Isn't the cure to poverty simply to not have (any) kids? Or to be better educated so you'll have a better job and have less kids because smarter people tend to have less kids?

If you're poor the last thing you need is a brood of kids.

You have solved poverty in one post. Why didn't everyone else in the world think of that. It's so simple, just don't have children, and you'll be lifted from poverty. Get some education, and you won't even want any kids. Wow. I better let my wife, (The university professor,) know that we aren't supposed to have kids, because we're, you know, kind of smart, and not poor.

I think he was talking about poverty on a large scale rather than individual families....  

[Jmpty]

     

[Sal1981]

We already have (practically) family planning in the western world, we need to introduce that to the rest of the world.

[Mister Agenda]

Isn't the cure to poverty simply to not have (any) kids? Or to be better educated so you'll have a better job and have less kids because smarter people tend to have less kids?

If you're poor the last thing you need is a brood of kids.

If you're poor, a large brood of kids may be the only thing between you and the street when you get old.

But if you're poor in a developed country, yeah, having fewer kids will benefit both you and them.

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, good point.  I'm not sure how much this would affect the ability to reproduce, given our medical advances.  I'd say the vast majority would be reach reproductive age, even if their life spans were shorter.  I'm not sure of the size of the impact on the overall population.

The overall population includes a couple of billion people in undeveloped countries. Not everyone gets great medical care. Infected wisdom teeth still kill people.

[stromboli]

From Attenborough:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 23602.html

I think it is essentially the same message, so I didn't start a new thread.

Taking Zoology years ago when the first Ethiopian crisis happened. My teacher, who was also a Microbiologist, said then that feeding the survivors was pointless, because by the time the food got there, those survivors were likely brain damaged. Subsequent findings have borne that out. I agree with Sir David on family size and on sending food to starving countries.

[stromboli]

I grew up in a large family. Seven brothers and sisters. I grew up in poverty and relative want, compared to everyone around; my mother was in her 50's and unemployable, and I worked odd jobs from as young as 12 years old to get by. Large families in Colonial times had a point, because the death rate at birth was as high as 50%, and young children became workers at an early age to supplement labor on farms.

A lot of the attitude about families in modern times- among religions, like the dogma that goes with it- is carried over from that. It is stupid now. I had 3 kids as a Mormon and was criticized for not having more. I refused to have more kids than I could afford to raise. 3 is fine, maybe now none is better. Had I been born an atheist I probably wouldn't have had any.

[Colanth]

I refused to have more kids than I could afford to raise. 3 is fine, maybe now none is better. Had I been born an atheist I probably wouldn't have had any.

You should have - within limits of sanity - as many kids as you want.  I happen to love kids.  But people who don't shouldn't have any.  (I had one.  Her mom developed problems, so we turned off the baby machine.)  "Mom wanted grandkids" is one of the worst reasons I've heard.  (Full quiver is probably the worst.)

[ApostateLois]

Given the number of kids who are beaten, starved, raped, abandoned, etc., I'd say that millions of people are not fit to be parents at all. If you were abused as a child, chances are you will abuse your own kids, and you should think long and hard about having any. If you believe that beating a child with a belt, stick, paddle, shoe, or anything else, is acceptable because "spare the rod, spoil the child" is in the Bible, you probably shouldn't have kids. If you don't like children, but think you ought to have them because the Bible says so, your parents want grandkids, it's what everyone does, it is expected of you, etc., then don't have kids. You will be a lousy parent. I never had kids because I don't like being around them very much. I didn't even like kids when I was a kid, and knew I would never have any. Children are best when they belong to other people.

[Mermaid]

Anyone who claims humans have stopped evolving doesn't understand the basic foundation of the theory of evolution.