Family Size Discussion Thread - How many kids is too many or too few?

[eDove]

This isn't the declining birthrates thread, accounting for the whole country or the whole world, just preferences, anecdotes, and observations.

I love the idea of a big family. However, the several I've come across in real life were full of unhappy kids who weren't allowed to have childhoods. The moms tended to be baby-addicts who'd lose interest once the child grew up, that or they were extremely religious and stressed out of their minds every day.

But I've seen small families that were depressing in their own ways too, like the 1-2 kid households where both parents were working full-time. It can be less chaotic yet just as lonely. There are fewer (practical) drawbacks overall to the smaller family because of how modern society is structured.

Do you believe we have a moral imperative to produce as many children as possible? To not have any at all? Or do you think it's all about finding that sweet spot where the family is most functional and happy?

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

I call it the <3 rule. No less than three = <3 =

 

[Spanish Chud]

half of the economy is fake and just jew daycare for women (IE: HR departments)
Crush that shit and birthrates jump to 2,6

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Do you believe we have a moral imperative to produce as many children as possible? To mot have any at all? Or do you think it's all about finding that sweet spot where the family is most functional and happy?

If I take your post sincerely, I think a lot of it comes down to mistaken assumptions about duty, sacrifice, or collective outcomes. This is especially in the first question regarding moral imperative.
The truth is that there is no central planner with the authority to dictate what a "right" number of kids is. The ideal family size is not something decided by tradition, religion, the government, or demographic charts. It's something that emerges from a product of values, resources, and the voluntary choices of individuals. And to reflect the circumstances of reality, those choices must be made freely, not out of guilt or pressure from abstract ideals, regardless of whether those ideals are "saving the planet" or "saving the nation"

I love the idea of a big family. However, the several I've come across in real life were full of unhappy kids who weren't allowed to have childhoods. The moms tended to be baby-addicts who'd lose interest once the child grew up, that or they were extremely religious and stressed out of their minds every day.

This here is close to the truth. Big families can be beautiful, but only when each child is treated as an end in themselves, not as a prop for ideology or validation. And small families can thrive when they're built on mutual presence and love, not absentee economics.

On the central question of the poll, I would instead encourage everyone to ask themselves this: Do I want to bring a new sovereign consciousness into this world, and do I have the means to nurture it with dignity, not as a ward of some failing system?
Whatever honest answer you find to that question, if it was made without coercion, it's probably the right one. That's more than any central planner could ever claim.

 

[Ed Special]

The ideal is to have kids with your wife until she doesn't birth them so much as spread her legs while they come out like so.

 

[Brenda Holiday]

Three seems best, maybe four. Once you get into 5+ it gets iffy. If you pop out kids and don't raise them properly throughout their entire childhood it's pointless.

 

[Apochrypha]

Three is good because it's big enough to establish a heirarchy amongst the siblings but small enough to realistically manage.

 

[Schwarzwald]

X - 1

X = The number of children your parents had

1 = You, Dear Reader

 

[Paper Machete]

2-4

The more kids you have the less you can give each one in terms of resources unless you're rich and even then there is still the matter of how much personal care and attentiveness you can give them after that. There is only one of (each) parent. Large families can be at risk of the kids feeling ignored, neglected because there's just so many and the older children can feel like they're made to be nannies and household servants and run ragged. Now, those are extreme cases a lot of the time but it's something to think about. I think two to four is realistic for most people.

I really couldn't imagine paying health insurance, all the doctors, the dental work, possible eye care for those with poor vision, putting into their future savings, helping with first cars, with college on 6+ kids. That's just a lot to ask. It's prohibitively expensive for a lot of couples when it's just 1-2 kids as it is.

 

[#FF0000]

At least two; it's better for a child to have at least one sibling. Being the only child at home is an isolating feeling, you have nobody who's at the same level of mental development as you.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

For me, the answer would be four children for more reasons than one, such as:

• No awkwardness of trying to evenly split inheritance money three ways.
• More people to pass on values/customs/skills.
• More hands to do work around the property your family lives.
• Siblings can rely on each other as adults (I myself am an only child and don't have anyone to help me with things like caring for older relatives) - not just taking care of old people in the family, it could be something as simple as "I need a place to stay for the night since I'm traveling, and I'll be in town".
• More possible grandchildren given kids are used to being raised in a large family.

 

[David Brown]

putting into their future savings, helping with first cars, with college

Does anybody even do this any more? I've never known someone whose parents did this for them except for maybe getting a beater car for their kid late into high school. And the car is usually a hand me down, not one purchased just for the kid. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. With how worthless college education is today I don't even see the point of saving for college. What's the point? college has never been a worse value proposition and it's only getting worse.

 

[Paper Machete]

Does anybody even do this any more? I've never known someone whose parents did this for them except for maybe getting a beater car for their kid late into high school.

Yes, if they're able. It's hit or miss these days but if you can swing it and you understand how much further ahead it makes your kids as opposed to those that might have to try to figure it out on their own, then yeah, you do it. And it should be something that everyone decently responsible considers when family planning: how much do you suspect you will be able to help them with transitioning into adulthood? What springboard can you give them?

Of course, the usual suspects don't care a whit about actually planning such things out. But by nature of the very conversation it's useless to bring them up.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

No awkwardness of trying to evenly split inheritance money three ways.

Oh trust me, if you did well, they would rather have YOU back rather than an inheritance. I wouldn’t worry about this.

 

[Großmann]

half of the economy is fake and just jew daycare for women (IE: HR departments)
Crush that shit and birthrates jump to 2,6

You wouldn’t believe how many people I’ve met who complain about daycare costs for their children instead of having their wives stay at home. The money she makes is just going into some crazy cunt’s pocket in exchange for your children getting sick from unhygienic conditions while getting beat up by poorly raised children and molested by the daycare staff.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

With how worthless college education is today I don't even see the point of saving for college. What's the point? college has never been a worse value proposition and it's only getting worse.

Quite so.

It is this tunnel-vision mindset that boomers had pounded into them, that a degree or diploma is absolutely necessary and is not optional at all. I simply don’t know where that came from.

What is so bad about settling down where you grew up and marrying your high school sweetheart? Rather than trek across the country chasing a dollar bill, and not putting down roots.

The mentality that 1st world “lower-class” is somehow terrible is a psyop. This lie that children can’t be happy without a silver spoon is used to make women kill their children in the womb. When really all it means is they may never see Disneyland or Dubai.

We also really need to stop saying white trash for whites who simply do with less. Frugal and thrifty lifestyles are what we all should strive for.

 

[David Brown]

Yes, if they're able. It's hit or miss these days but if you can swing it and you understand how much further ahead it makes your kids as opposed to those that might have to try to figure it out on their own, then yeah, you do it. And it should be something that everyone decently responsible considers when family planning: how much do you suspect you will be able to help them with transitioning into adulthood? What springboard can you give them?

The USA must have been paradise back in the day if that was considered normal. Borrowing money from my parents or getting them to pay my rent or something sounds wacky as fuck.

Oh trust me, if you did well, they would rather have YOU back rather than an inheritance. I wouldn’t worry about this.

Its really sad how often brothers and sisters turn into wild dogs when they get a whiff of inheritance. Even when it's not even that much money in the grand scheme of things. So common, too.

 

[Toji Suzuhara]

3-4, leaning more towards 3.

0 is just not a family, you can call it however you want, but a man and a woman together is a couple, nothing more. 1 is also bad because kids need siblings, they simply require some sort of 24/7 socialization with somebody more or less their age when growing up, a sibling is ideally a kid's first and best friend, after all, and if things turn out well they'll keep on being that for their entire life too. Only children are known to have plenty of issues socializing due to lacking such thing, and "increased parental attention" (in the extremely rare cases where they do recieve it) just can't make up for it.

2 is decent, but I feel like it can lead to one of the kids feeling lesser than their sibling, particularly in cases where said sibling is somewhat older and more talented than them. If that isn't handled correctly it can cause the younger sibling to develop an inferiority complex, all while negating the good things that having a sibling would bring.

With 3 such thing is less likely to occur. The kid can either bond with their remaining sibling if the third sibling is not as talented either, thus developing a way to empathize with others, or can ask them for help without feeling bad about it in the case that the second one is, taking the first sibling's successes as something to aspire to and to an extent imitate, all the while not feeling left in their shadow. Same deal with 4.

More than 4 I feel it's just too much. Obviously you space them out and whatever, but by the time you are getting to raising the last couple of them you are simply too old to do it properly, and they run the risk of not receiving enough attention. There's a good reason people in their mid to late 20s and very early 30s are so energetic, because they need that energy to raise young kids. Once you are past that age you just aren't able to do it properly, and the last thing you want is to have people who are way too old for this raising babies and young kids

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

It’s really sad how often brothers and sisters turn into wild dogs when they get a whiff of inheritance. Even when it's not even that much money in the grand scheme of things. So common, too.

Damn man, my sisters need that more than me, of course I won’t divide up the “spoils” like some vulture. All I want is the Jimmy Buffett CD we would play driving to the beach on family car rides. For memories.

I can’t comprehend that way of thinking I guess

It may sound cheesy but if family can bring out the best in us, then family can also bring out the worst in us as well.

 

[LemonMice]

2 is ideal, with a sizable minority of families having 3+

People like Elon are failed fathers. You have to be involved in raising your children as a man. Your baseline testerone levels drops to do so once you take on fatherhood iirc. Of course it can rapidly spike up in response to threats.