Halibut Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Please indulge me! If I lived in the kind of place where very few children survive into adulthood and the only support I could ever hope for was from my own children, where lack of hands to work or grow food would mean starvation, I think I'd have lots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 If I lived in the kind of place where very few children survive into adulthood and the only support I could ever hope for was from my own children, where lack of hands to work or grow food would mean starvation, I think I'd have lots. Even if it meant that many would die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Even if it meant that many would die? More a case of because many of them would die, rather than even if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Sure, yeah. Do you support Labours budgetary plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 More a case of because many of them would die, rather than even if. But you could take care of a lesser number, you could have more later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 But you could take care of a lesser number, you could have more later... You're just not seeing it are you? If you know that three quarters of your children will die before the age of five, you make sure you have a good number of children. Having less means you're likely to end up with one, or two, or none and not enough hands to earn money or grow food and a limited chance (given that we're talking about low life expectancy) of making it to adulthood and being able to provide for you and their own offspring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 You're just not seeing it are you? If you know that three quarters of your children will die before the age of five, you make sure you have a good number of children. Having less means you're likely to end up with one, or two, or none and not enough hands to earn money or grow food and a limited chance (given that we're talking about low life expectancy) of making it to adulthood and being able to provide for you and their own offspring. But in a lot of cases they all die and their "supplies" could have stretched to a lesser number. It's basic economics 1 on 1. I see what you're saying, but the numbers and pain draw a painful picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Enoch Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Your remarks re 'if they had two or three they'd probably all survive because we can handle that amount fiancially' are utter twaddle and so vague as to be meaningless. Woo woo woo, call the cops! Leader of the Grammar Police makes a mistake in a sentence ... SHOCK HORROR! Hee hee hee .... this machine sniggers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMoran Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 You're just not seeing it are you? If you know that three quarters of your children will die before the age of five, you make sure you have a good number of children. Having less means you're likely to end up with one, or two, or none and not enough hands to earn money or grow food and a limited chance (given that we're talking about low life expectancy) of making it to adulthood and being able to provide for you and their own offspring. Or raise your health and hygene standards, grow food instead of buying guns, have fewer children thus leaving money and recourses to raise said standards and so eventualy fewer children will die and they will need to have less kids. Having masses of kids just so on the off chance one survives isnt an ideal situation and one that wont change unless prioritites do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 I just wish sometimes you'd express your own ideas beyond getting into one line pI*ssing contests with fellow forumers. It's a bad habit of yours If you believe that the problem of the worlds large population of poor could be solved so that there would be no more large populations of poor and needy then come out and say it. Dont make me have to ask you again I have to go pick up the grand kids from school. I look forward to your meaningful input into this conversation Of cause he thinks it can be solved and should be solved but not by him, he thinks everyone else should solve it, he doesn’t want poor starving people and he doesn’t want birth rates controlled, he doesn’t want to give up what he has to help solve the problem but he would be happy for everyone else to give up their wealth to solve it. It’s always about equal distribution of wealth so everyone in the world is poor instead of some being wealthy and some starving. No different to the Geldof’s of this world that lives a very wealthy life whilst pleading for everyone else to help the starving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.