Is it still possible to have a big family in the modern

I love babies, but isn't the world kinda overpopulated? You do you, man, there's probably a way

>>17634308
>isn't the world kinda overpopulated?

Sorry, how and why should that affect me and my desire to live a full life and propagate my genes?

I should not have children because people in Nigeria are having too many? What makes them more valuable than me? What gives them more of a right to procreate than me?

What's wrong with you? Are you a moron?

>>17634318
>You do you, man, there's probably a way

>>17634318
Not him but calm down. You must be here for anger management.

>>17634342
I didn't mean to make him angry, I'm not in control of his life, He can do whatever, I was kinda just implying it may not be best to go the Duggar way

>>17634336
>>17634342

When people have ridiculously moronic opinions that are destroying Western countries I get pissed off, apologies for my interest in my country and my people, y'know, the country that my ancestors fought and sacrificed for

>>17634302

You need a lot of money.

Remember in the old days and in poor countries they have lots of kids out of necessity. You needed extra hands to help out with work, and because statistically a third of them will die before they hit 18. You might go through a few wives too because you never know if a pregnancy will kill the mother.

Plus in shit countries like Bangladesh your body will break down from years of hard labor and you will need multiple offspring to take care of you when you are no longer the breadwinner. These countries don't have anything close to social security or a safety net of any kind so your large ass family is your retirement plan.

im planning to have 5 desu
and im not even rich

>>17634355

If you personally don't want kids then okay and I don't have reason to object with you

Apologies for anger but the "isn't the world overpopulated" argument is incredibly common, and yet is complete and utter bullshit. It's the height of illogical thinking. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

The logical conclusion of that argument is that you should kill yourself. "Stop drinking because there's too many people without water in the world." "Stop eating because there's not enough food in the world." These are not reasons to suddenly throw your interests as a human being into the bin. They are not reasons at all. They are not reasons for anything. Every human being is born with the same reason and purpose in life, which is to do as best as they possibly can with the time that they have, and anybody who pursues any goal that is not that is delusional, self-hating, self-destructive, and completely illogical.

>>17634374
>You need a lot of money.

You might be right unfortunately

>necessity

It's also the most fundamental human desire to want to procreate as much as you can (as much as you can afford)

>>17634375

Good man

>>17634388

It is also my most fundamental human desire to rape this unbelievably hot Columbian chick that goes to my gym, but that wouldn't be terribly decent of me.

Just because I have a primal urge doesn't mean it is a good idea to act on it.

>>17634378
No, the logical conclusion to "there's a water shortage" is "don't use more water than you need," not "kill yourself." Jesus.

>>17634378
I do want children though... I don't think you should kill yourself, I just disagree with having 20 children, but if that's something you want to do, go ahead

>>17634308
Over population is a meme. We can create new ways to convert energy into usable forms and humans will always demand things.
The only reasons people starve to death now a days is lack of skills of disease or in some cases stupid people or a combo of all 3.
>inb4 muh fertile land
There are people who can grow shit in Africa despite the harsh conditions

the problem is farming responsibly with modern knowledge not necessarily technology and not just throwing shit and seeds in the ground and ripping it out asap

>>17634457
Hm, I learned something today.

>>17634391
>It is also my most fundamental human desire to rape this unbelievably hot Columbian chick that goes to my gym, but that wouldn't be terribly decent of me.

The only reason you shouldn't do that is because the consequences would be bad for you (jail). But if you're willing to accept those consequences then there is no reason not to do it.

Having children doesn't have any bad consequences like that. And not only is it the thing that humans desire the most, it is also the function of every single organism on Earth to propagate itself as much as possible.

>>17634413

No, the logical conclusion is "kill yourself", because then you wouldn't be using any water at all.

If you're saying "don't have children because of other people", then you should also say "kill yourself because of other people". It's logically equivalent.

But you're probably going to say "no, just have a reasonable number of children". What determines reasonable? You? That idea is essentially communism. Trying to force people into having a number of children that YOU choose. I believe in a free society where people are allowed to do whatever they please (as long as it doesn't break the law). People should have as many children as they like, if they can afford it, and anyone seeking to curb that is evil, in my opinion.

>>17634433
>I do want children though... I don't think you should kill yourself, I just disagree with having 20 children, but if that's something you want to do, go ahead

If your reason for wanting less than 20 children is "I want to be able to give all of my children a good amount of attention, so I won't have too many" then I would say that's a good reason

If your reason is "I don't want to impact other people too much", I would say that's a bad reason. It's up to you, of course, what you do, but I would personally say that is a stupid reason on which to make decisions about your life. You should do everything that is in YOUR interest. Not somebody else's interest.

>>17634413
There is no water shortage. The water that exist is the water that exists. If you need more water then go get it.
Maybe building metroplex' in the desert is retarded without proper planning. Or perhaps shit happens and people need to be more prepared and have skills other then desk job knowledge

>>17634302

Probably not. The question is, why would you? Nothing but a shitton of parasites that shit everywhere and just constantly consume, that you can't possibly pay attention to all at once.

Having kids is fine, but having a ton that you can't financially support, need the government to subsidize, and can't possibly give equal time to as they grow is selfish, and a waste.

>>17634302
Yes it's possible. I've a few big families that are real legit. They shave a strong moral foundation that the parents instilled to their children and not "just bc" they actually believed in it.

You should start right now to become a life hacking legend, make functional fixedness an antithesis to your life. And practice minimal yet fulfilling lifestyle. Maybe a new executive car isn't worth the price and a family trip that you all can experience is. Things along that line. You'll need to basically become somewhat of an autodidact and apply that shit don't just become one of those academia assholes that don't actually do anything

>>17634460
Yeah farming science is getting pretty bad ass now and mixing in biology a lot. Rather then alter the plants and a bunch of expensive crazy research money is starting to be spent on how to mix and match fields with biodiversity that is mutually beneficial to the other thing growing. For instance check out the polyface farm, they use the left over crops of one thin g to start the next and let the animals fertilize the fields by constantly moving the birds to different areas and building rabbit sanctuaries that they then scrape the shit from and mulch then breed worms to start another crop and stuff like that. Basically mimicking and exhaserbating natural processes has lead to high yield and nutrient packed foods and lower costs bc you can recycle a lot of stuff and make your own as well. It just takes more work and creativity

>>17634466
Like you said, I only would like to have a few children so I have give more attention to them, ya know?

>>17634302
Yes. Just be poor or black.

>>17634318
Kek'd so hard because of your stupidity, i don't wish well to human kind so you keep reproducing.

>>17634318
Holy shit. I kinda hope your inferior genes get deleted from the gene pool before you reproduce.

But whatever, if you want to bury your best friend and raise problems that last after you die... Make sure you can feed them at least twice a day and that's pretty much it.

>>17634308
>I love babies, but isn't the world kinda overpopulated?
Because they still breed like rats even though they no longer die like rats. The birth rate in the west is below the replenishment rate, we're sustained only due to immigration. When you have a country that does not import the third world such as Japan, their population falls down quickly.

yes, big families are still possible.

I have 4 kids, on a single income. my wife is a stay at home mom, and homeschools our kids.

At my church, many families are larger.

We live in a rural area. You can live very inexpensively in a rural area, when you live very traditionally. It's common for families here to be large, and to grow much of their own food, and make/mend/hand down child clothes, etc.

So, it's certainly possible, but it may require sacrifices you and your future spouse are unwilling to make.

>>17634472
>Probably not. The question is, why would you? Nothing but a shitton of parasites that shit everywhere and just constantly consume, that you can't possibly pay attention to all at once.

Good goy, listen to the liberal indoctrination you got at school

Don't have too many children goy, remember to pay your taxes which are paid as foreign aid to Nigerians having 6 children per woman, who will eventually come to your own country and replace you!

You wouldn't want to be racist now, would you goy?

>>17634507

Good ideas 2bh. So essentially you're saying "be frugal". And yes I can see how that would be necessary.

>>17634524

If that's your prerogative, do what you want, I'm just saying that doing/not doing things because you fear what others will think of you is completely and utterly illogical.

>>17634847
>>17634881

Good goy, wish for your own demise and that the superior African genes replace you goy! You don't want to be seen as racist now do you goy! REMEMBER THE SIX GORILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>17634918
>The birth rate in the west is below the replenishment rate

Exactly correct

>Because they still breed like rats even though they no longer die like rats.

Also correct. Western medicine has meant that they are no longer dying as much as they used to. But they are not curbing their birthrate either.

It's funny because if liberals were logical about stopping "overpopulation" then the first thing they would advocate would be the cessation of foreign aid to Nigeria and other African countries like Chad, Angola, Niger, etc.

But they're not logical, and they don't really want to stop overpopulation. All they actually want to do is virtue signal.

>>17634987

That sounds very cool anon. Yes I think that's definitely going to be true, it will require a lot of sacrifice.

Where do you live if you don't mind me asking, the US?

>>17635757

I'm gonna be dead, I don't care about passing on my super special white genes and don't understand why you /pol/ faggots care either. No one's going to remember you anyways.

Babies suck, and I don't need "liberal indoctrination" to come to the conclusion that all of the parents that I know are constantly exhausted and spend all of their free time cleaning up literal shit or fixing shit their kids broke.

>>17635794
>my super special white genes

It's nothing to do with whether your race is special or not you stupid fucking moron

It's to do with the fact that the function of EVERY ORGANISM, no matter what species or race or whatever the fuck, is to propagate itself as much as possible.

>I'm gonna be dead

You're right, you are, and your offspring will be the only thing that will survive.

If you're not going to have kids why not kill yourself now? There's no point to you living anymore because you're going to die and rot into the ground without any offspring anyway. I guess you're just too pussy to do so so you'll live the cowardly hedonistic life of mooching off a culture without contributing to the population that uphold it? Great.

>>17635773
>Spouting /pol/ shit
>T-that'll teach'em I'm right!

More possible than ever, I guess. Lots of food to go around. I think you'd have to make at least 100k though, if you want them to be in activities and have nice things...

File: 1473559767323.png (1MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1366x768px

>>17634302
just marry 5-6 girls, each from a different country and each will sire you two children. I'd prefer they are all white though.

>>17635835
>the function of EVERY ORGANISM, no matter what species or race or whatever the fuck, is to propagate itself as much as possible.
I guess if you're a primitive monkey or some shit and don't know better but I have decided my """"""function"""""" is to enjoy my own life however I see fit and not give a fuck about let alone make life altering irreversible decisions based solely off who or what exists after I'm dead.

>>17634302
A WHOLE fucking lot of money and someone to have those kids with.
Or accept you're going to give a mediocre future to your kid. You cannot invest in high quality things (such as very good education) if you have a lot of kids to take care of.

>>17635835

That's not entirely true, as different species contribute to various ecosystems outside of their own species. Take bees for example. They help cross-pollinate other plants, which in turn provide the ecosystem for us to breather oxygen and process carbon dioxide. If you had a male bee that didn't bother cross pollinating anything and spent all of his time sitting in his bee house fucking bee ladies to have little bee kids that took after dad and didn't do any cross pollinating, what would you have? A bunch of shitty worthless bees that have no point in existing.

Meanwhile, I'll be out here with no kids contributing to society by actually producing things, furthering the economy, producing jobs, and helping actual productive people do productive things, instead of sitting in the house desperately trying to raise 20 fuckers in which at least half will probably end up fucking around and contributing nothing of value to society.

>>17635916
Man you are really confused about how bees work. However I will give your analogy an A for effort

File: image.jpg (95KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 600x600px

>>17635919

It's like this, right?

Anyways, the point is less about bees and more about how one or two productive people who work towards common goals and bettering society are worth more than 20 people on welfare who are just fucking and producing more meat bags to just continue fucking some more.

>>17634302
>Parents have brown hair
>All the babies are toe headed motherfuckers
How

>>17634388
>>You might be right unfortunately
He is right, to raise a single child from 0 to 18 years old takes on average $245,000 dollars, my grandparents had 5 kids and basically only survived by having 3-4 jobs between the both of them, skimped on meals and lived on food stamps. If you want 10 kids then you better start winning that lottery.

>>17635786
>That sounds very cool anon. Yes I think that's definitely going to be true, it will require a lot of sacrifice.Where do you live if you don't mind me asking, the US?

I live in North Dakota.

It's great, and I love it.

However, for selfish reasons that I will now explain, I don't recommend that other people move here.

Increases in population lead towards political liberalism, higher crime, increased "diversity", and a whole bunch of other societal effects that I don't want.

And even if you don't move specifically to a rural area, the political dynamic in the Midwest is that each state's large town is much more politically leftist than the rest of the state, and uses its population to dominate state politics for leftist causes. So in ND, the city of Fargo dominates state politics with its leftist garbage. In the state of Minnesota, Minneapolis dominates the state with its terrible politics. The state of Illinois is completely devastated by Chicago politics.

So, don't come here - and especially don't come here and live in Fargo or one of the other left-leaning population centers.

Most people here are descendants of Scandinavians. We're very, very white, and well adapted to cold weather.

I'm very proud of our state; we produce a big chunk of the USA's food and energy (coal, oil, and wind). We also are home to about 1/3rd of the USA nuclear deterrent forces. We have a tiny population but we accomplish a lot for the nation. In return, we want the nation to generally leave us alone.

Anyhow, if I didn't have family attachments that kept me approximately where I am now, and I wanted to live an affordable, rural life, I'd be looking at any of the following places:
Dakotas, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska.

In Alaska, the government still auctions/sells land at ultra low prices to attract settlers. It's written right into the Alaska constitution.

File: white male.png (125KB, 1017x673px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1017x673px

>>17635849

>not having an argument
>lol i'll just call it "/pol/-shit", that'll do!

Its absolutely possible and the biggest issue people have today is that they absolutely overestimate the cost of having children.

I'm a Mormon in Europe and here in Germany we have families were both parents are working good paying jobs - only having 1-2 children because they feel that they can't afford more.

Meanwhile at my church you have middle (and even lower class) families having 4-5 children and they are doing just fine.

Sure it takes sacrifice (in regards to vacations etc.) but its is definitely not impossible.

>>17635866

>I'm going to ignore my most important and fundamental desires, and instead just be a hedonistic sack of shit because i'm too lazy/inept to get a wife and have some kids

>I'll just throw all the efforts of my ancestors to procreate, millions of years of my genes, into the trash, because I'm so spoiled, self-centred, hedonistic, devoid of morals and values, and just a complete waste of fucking space

File: obongo-laughing.jpg (78KB, 631x480px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 631x480px

>>17635869

You have a point but I don't think having more kids necessarily means they all get a worse life, not at all

There are also many benefits for the children if they are part of a big family. They learn better social skills among children their own age (their siblings), whereas single children and even those as part of two kids spend more time by themselves, can feel isolated, and can sometimes become too dependent on their parents

>>17635916

Your understanding is completely wrong

Do you think the bee gives a fuck about creating oxygen for humans? The bee doesn't even know what a human is, or that it needs oxygen to survive

The bee does everything that IT needs to survive and proliferate as much as possible. The fact that plants benefit from the bee's activities are of no concern to the bee whatsoever. If the bee had a more efficient way of making food then it would go and do that.

You fundamentally misunderstand nature if you believe in some sort of holistic, Gaia type theory.

>Meanwhile, I'll be out here with no kids contributing to society by actually producing things, furthering the economy, producing jobs

You mean you'll be cucked into serving other peoples' interests and throwing yours into the trash? Fucking lol (pic related is just for you)

>>17635941
>Anyways, the point is less about bees and more about how one or two productive people who work towards common goals and bettering society are worth more than 20 people on welfare who are just fucking and producing more meat bags to just continue fucking some more.


I don't like that some families are already wards of the state and then continue to crank out children they cannot support.

However, without new children, any society dies.

Children are the future of society. Somebody's children will inherit our society. They may as well be ours (yours and mine), raised with our values, and able to weave their own ideas into the constant stream of our Western Civilization and the human progress of our ancestors.

I happen to think that ours (USA) is a society that should not vanish from the Earth. Yet, if we replace Americans with people who are not culturally American, the USA will indeed vanish. Demographics is destiny.

Now, it is possible that 2 people who choose to not have children can create contributions that greatly impact and improve the future of civilization. E.g. Alan Turing was a gay man that helped create the modern computer industry, and helped the Allies win WW2. So he obviously had a huge positive contribution to society.

However, despite IQ being highly heritable, and despite Turing being brilliant, he did not pass on his genes to any children.

That's a shame - it is likely that his children would have also been brilliant, and could have also made great contributions.

Anyhow - you can certainly contribute in a huge way to our civilization without having children.

The question is - are you?

Are the contributions you are making so great that they make up for you not providing new humans to replace you when you die? Or, as others have accused, are you a machine of hedonistic consumption, that doesn't actually contribute much to the long term health of civilization?

>>17636054
Don't forget making some /pol/tard on a Laotian goatmilking forum so mad at my life choices that have nothing to do with him he goes on an incoherent tirade while bleeding from the ass. Truly that's the best perk

>>17634302
Yes it is you just need a big income. If you have a big family and need government support then you're no better than a nigger

File: image.jpg (751KB, 1448x815px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 1448x815px

>>17636100

Right there with ya pal. Satisfying morning, if I may say so myself.

>>17636037
That sounds like a cool place to live.

All cities tend to be more leftist 2bh and I think it's been that way since the beginning of time.

But yeah, sounds like a good life you've got there man, props.

>>17636051
>Its absolutely possible and the biggest issue people have today is that they absolutely overestimate the cost of having children.

I think there's some truth to that. People think they have to buy a new Mercedes as well as having kids and that's the reason they're tight on money, not because of the kids.

>>17636100
>>17636140

To be honest it's a very good thing that the weak are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool.

>>17636054
Nice spooks pal

>>17634302

yes. two requirements
>be rich
>be comfortable not giving your kids the modern conveniences most white children have (private bedrooms, individualized attention, student loans (As those take a parent co signing and your debt will only stretch so far))

>>17636070
>I don't think having more kids necessarily means they all get a worse life, not at all
It depends on what skills you consider valuable.
Surely having a lot of kids means that they get to spend time around people their age, which is valuable for sure.
It's not something impossible to have as an only child (classes, sports, kids of your friends, religious groups, other relatives). And it's not granted to have better social skills if you have a lot of siblings.
Having less children means that you can invest more on each kid - spend more time with them, invest on their education, make them travel or give them better experiences overall.
So, it's pretty much up to you and what you want for them.

>>17634302
Easier in many ways with family/income support.

If you're rich... great. If you're really poor great.

If you're middle class ... You can't afford kids!!

>>17634457
hey dingus tard, food is NOT the only resource humans consume.

>>17634318
>Sorry, how and why should that affect me and my desire to live a full life and propagate my genes
he stated something thats somewhat a fact. what you do with that knowledge is up to you. its more a matter of 'you making a decision that affects everybody in a way that they perceive as adverse but you go ahead and do it anyways'. smart people take these things into consideration when they make choices. id have no problem killing your kids should there be a water war

>I should not have children because people in Nigeria are having too many?
no because its living in a western country thats the problem. even poor people consume much more massive amounts of resources than most people outside of the west. its at a rate thats unsustainable in the short term. niggergerians have tons a fucking kids because the can afford because they dont have to have electronics that manufactured and shipped from every corner of the planet to accessorize their living quarters that arent several hundred/thousand sq ft larger than whats needed and takes massive amounts of fuels to heat/cool because theyre built with fuck tarded materials that dont make sense for the local environment

>What makes them more valuable than me?
the question is what give westerns the right to strip the planet bare and why you specifically

>What gives them more of a right to procreate than me?
nothing. if you can afford to procreate, procreate. you apparently cant afford to procreate in the way you want to. that may or may not be by design (by the way raising more than 3 kids is full retarded even if you can afford it)

>>17634302
Go to France

>>17636051
how does it feel knowing your cult is only able to sustain itself with internal population growth and even that is stalling because most members go inactive (read want ab so fucking lutely nothing to do with the church) and it start declining in membership within the next 100 years?

File: 928365.jpg (178KB, 1271x713px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1271x713px

>>17634302

>>17636051
>Its absolutely possible and the biggest issue people have today is that they absolutely overestimate the cost of having children.
It depends on what standard of living do you want to give to your children.
My boyfriend has three brothers, I'm an only child.
I traveled a lot, studied abroad, learnt three languages. I went to a good university, then to med school and have a good job.
My boyfriend went to a decent school and ended up with a lot of student loans (which I am paying, since prestigious school got me a badass job).
His brothers are all in university too, and his parents couldn't afford giving him a better education.
I can understand when you, as a parents, sacrifice your own standards for your kids, but I think it's selfish to ask your kids to sacrifice their lives for your desire to procreate, if you don't have the means to give your kids great chances.

>>17634302
>Tfw made this >>17634308 yesterday
Jeez I'm looking at what I missed, and there was a lot of shirt having to do with what I said. I left here peacefully but boom A ton of arguments afterwards