"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Mark Browne wrote:

snip

Fact is, most people are going to bang out the majority of their
kids
between
their early 20's and mid 30's. Maybe even late 30's these days, with
prolonged
adolescence and all. If they all had to wait until they could be
certain
how
their economic fortunes would turn out...(and who can be, these
days?)...the
biological clock will, in may cases, have stopped ticking.

Really? I guess I was wrong to wait until I had a more stable
financial
situation, and had gotten my "adolescent" pleasures out of my system,
before settling down and deciding to have kids then? And here I
thought
I was just being responsible.....

snip

I forget that you are still in the early years of child rearing. I have
forgotten the "bother" and only remember the good stuff. In my memory, the
burdens of taking care of the family are lumped with the day to day survival
of the family. Now it does not seem like it was all that much of a hassle.

All I remember is the picnics, vacations, birthdays, graduations, and other
such events. The stuff we did before the kids does not really seem to have
counted for much. The "things" really don't seem to have counted for much in
my memory space. Come back in 20 years or so and we will have a meaningful
talk about any changes in your perception of family values. Until then you
really don't have much to base your decisions on.


Forgive me if I miss-remember the facts; did you not say you have
considerable difficulties bearing children because of your decision to
delay
starting a family?

I said that we had trouble, yes. But whether that was a direct result of
waiting until we were in our 30's, is not the likely culprit. Plenty of
people give birth during that time. In fact, once it did happen, it was
9 yeasr later, and things were still not that bad (and 100% paid by
HMO).


It would seem that your formula for success nearly
stopped your gene line right in its tracks!

Not at all. You are basing that conclusion on the assumption that my
delaying starting a family was the root cause. I do not believe that
this was the case.

You may not believe in evolution, but those of us who do know a simple
truth; evolution favors early breeders.

In most of the developed world, the breeding rate among the "well to do"
drops, frequently below the rate of replacement. In both the EU and the USA,
the only reason we have any population growth is the large families of the
poor. Like it or not, the values and culture of "rational" family planning
are being replaced by those of the lusty immigrants. They are "winning" by
default.

This is a significant part of why I spend so much time advocating an
equitable financial system. If you raise their standard of living of the
working poor, their family size drops. This relationship has been
demonstrated time and time again. I see the cause of advancing the financial
status of the poor portion of our population as enlightened self interest.
It goes a long way in insuring the survival and successful competition of my
offspring. You may wish to reflect on this when you think about your Childs
future. If the poor of our country do better, we *all* do better.



I my own case, I had my children in my 20's. The pregnancies were easy
and
natural. No need to experience the problems of middle age reproduction:
no
reproductive clinics or consultation, no need to regulate or time
intercourse, no gestational diabetes, no need to get genetic counseling,
no
need for a C section, no sickly and expensive premature babies. Just
ordinary, big strapping healthy kids that grew up just fine, even though
I
had to give up a few "things" keep them well fed and happy. I don't miss
the
"things" I did not buy. If I was the sort of person who passed judgment
on
the lifestyle and family value choice of others, I might have some
second
thoughts about yours. It would seen that to you, "things" are more
important than family.

When I was in my 20's they were. By allowing my wife and I to enjoy
life, unencumbered by the burdens of raising small children, we "got it
out of our systems", and when we did settle dowm, we have nothing to
miss, or regret. The problem with many young couples today, is that they
plunk out kids before the paint is even dry on their home. Then the
issue of giving up one income, when they need the money the most, or
sentencing the children to the impersonal route of day-care, becomes a
sore point, and many people find themselves in divorce court, becasue
they can't cope with the sudden responsibility, when they still like to
"kick up their heels" a bit.

Since you claim to honor traditional values, early
child rearing is as traditional as it gets.

I would think that responsible child rearing makes more sense.

We agree that a child will be better cared for if it is raised by a parents
that are both responsible and caring. Biology favors early childrearing. Add
that to the mix and you will be getting the best of all worlds.

Everybody has their own priorities. You want to operate for a position of
relative safety and comfort. This is a completely understandably point of
view. Not everybody shares that view.

If you are more concerned with (insert your favorite "kicking up the heels"
use of funds and energy) than raising the next generation, then I feel safe
in claiming that your priorities are out of whack.

"Traditional family values" revolved around raising the family while young.
All energy should be applied to the all-important next generation. Then,
when earning potential and saving are much higher, buying the caddie and
taking the vacations. The central thrust of my complaint is that the family
should come *before* pleasure seeking.

When you claim to be speaking
with the voice of reason - that the poor should not breed until they are
not
poor - I have a lot of trouble taking you seriously. You ignore nature
and
biology at your own peril.

Nature and biology should not take precedence over responsible planning.
You imply that we are a slave to primitive instincts, and cannot control
the urge to "do it". That's plain and utter hogwash. I was able to put
it off, so anyone else can too. I'm nobody special, except that I took
the time to plan. It was helpful that my wife agreed with my reasoning.
You are doing a grave disservice to your kids, as well as exposing them
to possible psychological damage, by bringing them into an environment
where the proper care is not forthcoming. And it is arrogant, and
selfish to think that it should be the rest of society's place, to take
up the slack for your (not you personally) poor planning.

Dave
These are certainly important factors that should be included in family
planning. It sounds to me like you are just advancing the cause of hedonist
pleasures in place of survival of the family line. In the overall scheme of
things, I don't think you will make much of a difference.

The only thing you will leave behind is your family and your works. I would
hazard a guess that your professional work will account to nothing in 100
years; I know that mine won't. This would point the way to family being the
only lasting contribution.

"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
(1769-1821)

Like it or not, most of the world and history proves that it is entirely
possible to have children and be poor. You do what is right for you, the
rest of the world will keep on doing whatever it wants. In ten generations,
compare your line of 1 child families to the offspring of poor but lusty 6
child families. Given the values you hold and instill in your young, odds
are very good that your line will have died. There will be great plenty of
the poor but successful breeders around.

If none of them have every heard of you or your now deceased offspring, or
of any contribution any of you have ever made, will you have mattered at
all?

Mark Browne