? for parents - why so many kids?

Page 5 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,621
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

24 Sep 2014, 5:56 am

BobinPgh wrote:
But my question is why not 1-2 kids rather than more? I mean does anyone need more? Oh, never mind, I just read your earlier answer about all there is left to do is die so you and your wife better keep 'em coming.

It's not about needs. I don't gain anything by having more than 2 kids.

The back story is my wife was an only child. My sister died the day she was born. My brother was killed when I was a baby. My would-be mother in law had health issues such that having a baby nearly killed them both, and my wife is lucky to have survived infancy. Between the two of us, we practically have no family members left alive besides my mother. So part of it is we came from large families that bottlenecked with our parents. All that's left are a few distant cousins that don't even really talk to each other. We feel orphaned in spite of our age, and we think it would be nice for our grandchildren to know what it's like to have aunts/uncles/cousins. I like that whole clan mentality.

If kids aren't your bag, then fine. I have no reason to judge you for that. But there's nothing wrong with 1-2 kids or even joining the 4-or-more club.

One GOOD reason for having lots of kids is, as I've mentioned before, is they represent your ideals after you're long gone. The more kids you have, the more assurance you have of continuing that legacy. I think of the Vanderbilt family in the US as a good example of what I mean. We're like that except without all the money! Mozart I believe only had two kids. The sad bit is they grew up in a dead man's shadow rather than standing on his shoulders, and I think maybe nobody taught them they could do that. There's nobody surviving from that family today, and I think that's a shame. The more kids you have and the more you teach them, the less of that kind of risk you run.



refracted
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4

25 Sep 2014, 10:06 am

It's an interesting question. For us, our son on the spectrum is our eldest child and we have had four subsequent children, none of whom have autism. For us, we have an inbuilt social network for our son and their presence in his life has given him lots of opportunities to develop his social, sharing, joint-working and communication skills over the years. Also, my wife and I didn't feel we wanted to devote the rest of our waking life to our son with autism - just the choice we made.



gingerpickles
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Age: 53
Posts: 504
Location: USA

05 Feb 2019, 1:39 pm

WHY NOT?



As for me? I LOVE kids. They are even one of my "special interests"
I wanted a dozen! Seriously I wanted a handful of sons and any number daughters.
My background is huge families that shrank suddenly. I didn't have more because mostly a later corrected physical defect so I started in my 30s. Plus my X and I were often stationed more than 1000mi from each other for half the marriage(only reason the marriage even lasted <_< ). I don't like people as much but love kids, especially close to me like lil cousins, neighbors, BBF kids, younger siblings or .. of course... my own.

My Maternal Grandma is one of 16 kids (her 5th aunt had 24 in twins in trips with 2 singles going to weddings was crazy!), my maternal Grandfather is one of 6 and the youngest. The Maternal line and Dad's Maternal has late menopause, most of us in the mid 60s. Before bc definitely a big family was unavoidable unless your man died! So you better like them >_<

My paternal grandfather was one of 10, My paternal Grandmother is one of 11. My Dads dad died young, But his Aunts and Uncles have an avg of 8 in their families. My mom was one of 5. I was alone but have a dozen half-sibs. I have just 3 living children.

In less general aspect I like having my continuation thru them, I like watching their personalities blossom into individual little people. It is a miracle and fascinating to me. I definitely had to have a least a few of my own gene pool. I like watching the random yet standard combination, the eugenics of it all. I like seeing the faces of people I loved on the features of my children. It has them live on.
I might have found a big noisy nuclear family hard at times (my half dibs are separate by 20 yrs above and no less than 10 years below and only my youngest sister lived with us and she was born when I was 20) I am sure, but my parents both would have let me have "alone time" so I think I would not have hated it.
My one x is spoiled youngest of 2+2halfs and other X is spoiled "needy" one and has 2 much younger 1/2 sibs.

I would adopt a dozen but it is harder to adopt than just have your own. I have no idea of the true criteria since I have witnessed terribly treated adopted and foster kids.
All my living children are on the "spectrum" and by fate or coincidence so are their sires.


_________________
FFFFF Captchas.


coschristi
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 35
Location: colorado springs, CO

01 Mar 2019, 3:26 pm

BobinPgh wrote:
The world is overpopulated
No it’s not. That’s Kissinger era propaganda motivated by greed for the natural resources of third-world countries with high fertility rates. None of the dire population predictions were accurate then & the predictions of today won’t be either.

The one positive that came out of it was increased awareness & legislation for environmental stewardship but unfortunately; the indoctrination was pervasive & has led to aging societies & zero population growth in many areas.

Depopulation means decay; not renewal.
BobinPgh wrote:
and yet, a lot of parents I know today have 4-5 kids rather than 1-2.
Meh ... Underachievers.

BobinPgh wrote:
Why is that?
Alpha hyper-fertility combined with an ASD impacted amygdala resulting in Polyamory? I mean; that’s not actually wrong ... in my case at least.

I can’t speak for anyone else but it was my destiny. I’ve known it since (before) I was born.

BobinPgh wrote:
If one of the kids has an ASD, why do you want to make a family larger?
None of my kids “had” or “have” an ASD. My youngest one regressed into ASD & is autistic. Had one of the older kids regressed; I’m not sure what would have happened.


_________________
"Good evening," said the little prince courteously. "Good evening," said the snake. "What planet is this on which I have come down?" asked the little prince "This is the Earth; this is Africa," the snake answered.
"Ah! Then there are no people on the Earth?" "This is the desert. There are no people in the desert. The Earth is large," said the snake. The little prince sat down on a stone & raised his eyes toward the sky.
"I wonder," he said, "whether the stars are set alight in heaven so that one day each one of us may find his own again... Look at my planet. It is right there above us. But how far away it is!" ... And they were both silent.
"Where are the men?" the little prince at last took up the conversation again. "It is a little lonely in the desert..."

"It is also lonely among men," the snake said. The little prince gazed at him for a long time.

"You are a funny animal," he said at last. "You are no thicker than a finger..."

"But I am more powerful than the finger of a king," said the snake.

The little prince smiled. "You are not very powerful. You haven't even any feet. You cannot even travel..."

"I can carry you farther than any ship could take you," said the snake.

He twined himself around the little prince's ankle, like a golden bracelet. "Whomever I touch, I send back to the earth from whence he came," the snake spoke again. "But you are innocent and true, and you come from a star..."
"The Little Prince", by Antoine de Saint−Exupery


eikonabridge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 481

02 Mar 2019, 11:14 am

coschristi wrote:
BobinPgh wrote:
The world is overpopulated
No it’s not.

Hmm, have you taken a look at satellite maps of Tokyo or Los Angeles? Or take this: population density of Manhattan: 66,940 people per square mile (each person would be entitled to a space of about 6x6 square meters.) Did you know China used to have elephants and rhinos roaming?

But no worries. As my paleontologist friend told me once: the destiny of all species is extinction. We are heading there soon enough.

Quote:
None of my kids “had” or “have” an ASD. My youngest one regressed into ASD & is autistic.

I really hate that term. I mean, it is well established the autistic brain is already different inside the womb. Recent stem cells studies further show that autistic neurons become different after merely 4 days of development. So, how can someone "regress" to autism, if it has always been there, from the beginning?


_________________
Jason Lu
http://www.eikonabridge.com/


coschristi
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 35
Location: colorado springs, CO

04 Mar 2019, 9:54 pm

eikonabridge wrote:
Hmm, have you taken a look at satellite maps of Tokyo or Los Angeles? Or take this: population density of Manhattan: 66,940 people per square mile (each person would be entitled to a space of about 6x6 square meters.)


I was born in Tokyo & will be in Manhattan in about 3 weeks. I’ve been to L.A. I live in a county where there are 292 people per square mile, in a state with 52 people per square mile. Several counties in my state are at 0.8 people per square mile.

Worldwide, 50% of the earth’s population lives on about 1% of it’s land.


eikonabridge wrote:
But no worries. As my paleontologist friend told me once: the destiny of all species is extinction.


I would imagine that to a Paleontologist, it would appear that way. It would seem that humans are certainly trying to tempt fate, so who knows?


eikonabridge wrote:
I really hate that term. I mean, it is well established the autistic brain is already different inside the womb. Recent stem cells studies further show that autistic neurons become different after merely 4 days of development. So, how can someone "regress" to autism, if it has always been there, from the beginning?


Cells from autistic people growing differently than cells from neurotypical people but similar to other autistic people ... Is not earth shattering.

What I might be interested in, is if they studied cell growth from NT bio parents & NT siblings & compared that to the related autistic person. At the most, the stem cell studies may lend themselves in support of the BAP (broad autistic phenotype).

Recent studies on the actual post-mortem brain tissue from autistics show overgrown synapses due to a lack of synaptic pruning. Synaptogenesis starts during the postnatal period & peaks around 3 years of age & synapses are learning-based. The impaired synaptic pruning is proven to be associated with viral biomarkers.

How can your synapses be overgrown before they develop? How can you be born autistic before the synapses have even started forming?

Those studies are fascinating & may provide valuable information in the future but what I fear is that some will try to profit from promising “cures” by brain regeneration. I’m autistic. I’d rather not have my brain regrown, thanks. Neither would I allow it for my severely autistic son.

Lastly, my point would be that by your logic; people who develop Alzheimer’s when elderly are born with Alzheimer’s & other people are born Schizophrenic.. Both are associated with impaired synaptic pruning & viral biomarkers; same brain changes at different developmental stages.


_________________
"Good evening," said the little prince courteously. "Good evening," said the snake. "What planet is this on which I have come down?" asked the little prince "This is the Earth; this is Africa," the snake answered.
"Ah! Then there are no people on the Earth?" "This is the desert. There are no people in the desert. The Earth is large," said the snake. The little prince sat down on a stone & raised his eyes toward the sky.
"I wonder," he said, "whether the stars are set alight in heaven so that one day each one of us may find his own again... Look at my planet. It is right there above us. But how far away it is!" ... And they were both silent.
"Where are the men?" the little prince at last took up the conversation again. "It is a little lonely in the desert..."

"It is also lonely among men," the snake said. The little prince gazed at him for a long time.

"You are a funny animal," he said at last. "You are no thicker than a finger..."

"But I am more powerful than the finger of a king," said the snake.

The little prince smiled. "You are not very powerful. You haven't even any feet. You cannot even travel..."

"I can carry you farther than any ship could take you," said the snake.

He twined himself around the little prince's ankle, like a golden bracelet. "Whomever I touch, I send back to the earth from whence he came," the snake spoke again. "But you are innocent and true, and you come from a star..."
"The Little Prince", by Antoine de Saint−Exupery


eikonabridge
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 25 Sep 2014
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 481

04 Mar 2019, 11:44 pm

coschristi wrote:
I live in a county where there are 292 people per square mile, in a state with 52 people per square mile. Several counties in my state are at 0.8 people per square mile. ... Worldwide, 50% of the earth’s population lives on about 1% of it’s land.

Then tell me why China cannot feed its own people and has to import food. (Suffices to mention soy in the current trade war.) That's right: people need land to grow food. Tell me why US subsidizes growth of corn ever after oil embargo in the 1970s. That's right, before the shale revolution, corn was part of the reserve of energy for the USA if ever there were another oil embargo. Corn is part of national security. Not all land can be inhabited. You need resources: food, oxygen, forest (wood), energy (ethanol, like Brazil), etc.

The problem is not the lack of land surface area: there are plenty of mountains, deserts, ice-covered areas. The problem is the lack of arable and inhabitable land areas. US is not the world. US is an exception, in having so much usable flatland.

As I have told you, take a look at the satellite picture of Tokyo, LA, then and only then, talk. There is no flatland anywhere in these areas where people can live, anymore. These are spots visible from space. Humans definitely have changed the whole planet. (I remember when I was in Hawaii how the locals detested developing Hawaii by following the California model. They said, they did not want "Californication." That tells you something.)

Take this news: Nearly All Coal-Fired Power Plants in U.S. Are Contaminating Nearby Groundwater, New Report Finds https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/contamination-report-coal-plant-groundwater-unsafe.html Or just think about why eating too much fish is considered a health hazard today (mercury).

I am not an environmentalist. I am a realist. The role of humans is only passing. We live inside the Technological Singularity. Humans are but only one passing step in the big scheme of things. They'll be remembered as crazy little creatures.

Quote:
Recent studies on the actual post-mortem brain tissue ...

That's not recent at all. That's old news.

Quote:
How can your synapses be overgrown before they develop?

You mean babies don't have synapses?

I tracked the following article to the journal article. That's where it shows that after merely 4 days of neuron development, the neurite length and complexity of autistic neurons are already different: https://www.salk.edu/news-release/salk-team-reveals-clues-into-early-development-of-autism-spectrum-disorder/.

See also https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/03/26/294446735/brain-changes-suggest-autism-starts-in-the-womb. It's old news.


_________________
Jason Lu
http://www.eikonabridge.com/


coschristi
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 35
Location: colorado springs, CO

06 Mar 2019, 8:47 pm

eikonabridge wrote:
Then tell me why China cannot feed its own people and has to import food. (Suffices to mention soy in the current trade war.) That's right: people need land to grow food. Tell me why US subsidizes growth of corn ever after oil embargo in the 1970s. That's right, before the shale revolution, corn was part of the reserve of energy for the USA if ever there were another oil embargo. Corn is part of national security. Not all land can be inhabited. You need resources: food, oxygen, forest (wood), energy (ethanol, like Brazil), etc.


China (& India) would do better by their citizens if they stopped displacing entire communities in order to acquisition lands for “progress & development”. There are some Chinese who allege that many of China’s natural disasters that preceded famines did not happen; that those reports were international propaganda.

Many of those acquisitions resulted in elaborate & wasteful projects; some never even completed & millions of people have been forced out of ancestral agricultural lands & relocated en masses to densely populated urban areas to wait for compensation that never comes. Chinese Law now does not permit citizens to own land; they now must lease it from the state.

China doesn’t need to feed its people; they need to stop interfering with the people feeding themselves.


eikonabridge wrote:
I am not an environmentalist. I am a realist. The role of humans is only passing. We live inside the Technological Singularity. Humans are but only one passing step in the big scheme of things. They'll be remembered as crazy little creatures.
LOL. I’m with you on that one.

eikonabridge wrote:
That's not recent at all. That's old news.
Yeah, it’s old enough to be infuriating that they knew about it for this long (1980s?) but until those donations of actual brain tissue became available (2014); nobody bothered to replicate the studies for the purpose of consensus. Now that every major research facility has the tissue, it’s been replicated all over the world. And the best they can do is “Maternal Immune Activation”. Infected Mommies? Of course.

eikonabridge wrote:
You mean babies don't have synapses?

I tracked the following article to the journal article. That's where it shows that after merely 4 days of neuron development, the neurite length and complexity of autistic neurons are already different: https://www.salk.edu/news-release/salk-team-reveals-clues-into-early-development-of-autism-spectrum-disorder/.

See also https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/03/26/294446735/brain-changes-suggest-autism-starts-in-the-womb. It's old news.


Yes of course babies are born with synapses; maybe I said that wrong but the learning based, sensory synapses go through their rapid growth post-nataly & synaptic pruning does not start until several months after birth. Babies can be born phenotypically ASD; that’s the genetic component of the multifactorial equation but the dysfunctional sensory perceptions & the autistic behaviors it causes are not being triggered until after birth. And given that the cytokine markers present the way they have been found to do; that trigger is an immune response to a viral exposure.

The Zombie Mommy (prenatal exposure via infected mothers) theory is predictable, given the awkward realities of what that might mean but it’s highly unlikely that atypical synaptic pruning is programmed into microglia cells, while in the womb & before the synapses have started to multiply due to a baby being born & learning about how life looks, sounds, smells, etc ...


_________________
"Good evening," said the little prince courteously. "Good evening," said the snake. "What planet is this on which I have come down?" asked the little prince "This is the Earth; this is Africa," the snake answered.
"Ah! Then there are no people on the Earth?" "This is the desert. There are no people in the desert. The Earth is large," said the snake. The little prince sat down on a stone & raised his eyes toward the sky.
"I wonder," he said, "whether the stars are set alight in heaven so that one day each one of us may find his own again... Look at my planet. It is right there above us. But how far away it is!" ... And they were both silent.
"Where are the men?" the little prince at last took up the conversation again. "It is a little lonely in the desert..."

"It is also lonely among men," the snake said. The little prince gazed at him for a long time.

"You are a funny animal," he said at last. "You are no thicker than a finger..."

"But I am more powerful than the finger of a king," said the snake.

The little prince smiled. "You are not very powerful. You haven't even any feet. You cannot even travel..."

"I can carry you farther than any ship could take you," said the snake.

He twined himself around the little prince's ankle, like a golden bracelet. "Whomever I touch, I send back to the earth from whence he came," the snake spoke again. "But you are innocent and true, and you come from a star..."
"The Little Prince", by Antoine de Saint−Exupery


Danger45
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 6 Sep 2018
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9

15 Mar 2019, 11:19 pm

The world is over populated. And who cares how big a family is or isn’t. Some like lots of kids, some like no kids at all. Some do family planning based on their situation and ability to support their family, some don’t plan it at all. Each to their own.