jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (8 posts)

What makes some people not to acknowledge that the large/very large family is on

  1. gmwilliams profile image87
    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

    What makes some people not to acknowledge that the large/very large family is one of the major

    contributors to socioeconomic poverty nationally as well as worldwide?  Why WON'T they further realize that much of the socioeconomic poverty in the nation & in the world would be DRASTICALLY reduced if more people practiced judicious/prudent family planning & reduce family size to 1-3 children?


  2. Mitch Alan profile image81
    Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago

    Family size has nothing to do with poverty levels, in of itself. We have 8 kiddos between us and are not in poverty. The issue is having more kids when you must rely on the government to support them and that is a critical distinction that you did not make. Demonizing larger families or equating family size alone as a factor in poverty is unfair and unfounded without that distinction. Furthermore, using the term poverty as a global term is not an accurate description, as the term is not universal in its meaning. What we call poverty here in the United States is, by and large, not the same as what true poverty is found in other parts of the world. Your question could be better and more intellectually discussed if it was reworded to reflect these two important distinctions.

    1. Nadia Ribadu profile image61
      Nadia Ribaduposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hear, hear!  The question is pseudo-intellectual, and yet ill-posed, not to mention without consideration of other factors.

    2. teamrn profile image67
      teamrnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Nadia, How is the question pseudo-intellectual and not considering other factors?

  3. teamrn profile image67
    teamrnposted 3 years ago

    I think family size has every thing to do with it. Bottom line, when more goes out in the monthly budget than comes in, there is only one possible outcome. Sure, changes can be made and belts tightened, but at the end of the day, when more goes out (and it is often because of increasing family size) than comes in, there is a problem.

    Eentually, as family size increases enough, the family may (if it hasn't already) decreased from 2 incomes to one to care for the children. With one income, there's often a need for more income

    1. gmwilliams profile image87
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly, it is simple mathematical logic that there is a strict correlation between large families & poverty. There is LESS monies allocated per child in a large than in a small family. This means that children must be content with very little.

    2. gregas profile image82
      gregasposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If it is a rich factor then that doesn't even come into account. I look more at food and water supplies. I don't think anyone really considers what it really takes to feed the world as it is now. Greg

  4. twayneking profile image90
    twaynekingposted 3 years ago

    In cultures where maintaining family lines is paramount and where children die at alarming rates, large numbers of children is seen as necessary. Increasing the education levels in a culture is the best way to reduce family sizes. I also found the way you asked the question - as though the third world poor were somehow willfully ignoring something that liberal white Westerners think is obvious. It must be nice living up there on Mount Olympus and looking down on the ignorant masses below. Much better to do like us meddlesome Christians and build schools, dig wells and establish churches to teach a better way of living in impoverished countries.