3 ms·

Well, I have a dozen kids, and I agree. Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did

Well, I have a dozen kids, and I agree. Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. My wife's uncle had the postcard family, one boy and one girl in a cute little city house with a picket fence. The daughter died, and the father completely fell apart. He lost 100% of his daughters. It is too late for him to create a replacement. Most families today are tiny. I think this has affected our perception of loss. The risk of 100% loss has become so great that people can't allow the risk of traditional play.

justinator 7y ago
Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. I think I just read the most insane sentence I'll read all year.
- bad_good_guy 7y ago
  How is it insane when this is the historic reason behind large families?
  - justinator 7y ago
    I'm not touching, "but it's historical!", because that's a problematic idea in of itself. Lots of things are, "historical", but don't make sense in the modern world. Say you had two kids, and you lost both. One way to think of it is your lost all the children you ever had. Fine. Say you had a DOZEN kids, and you lost six of them. Same thinking as above, you've lost half the children you ever had. Ok, but you still lost six kids!. Six kids have to go through life knowing they have lost six siblings. Having that somehow be better is pure insanity. Or at the very least the utmost self-centered thing I've ever heard of - you're hoping that the loss off 6 out of 12 kids is somewhat less of an impact on yourself when compared to losing two kids? These are human beings, not cupcakes you're bringing to a picnic. If you brought two cupcakes, and hoping to have one yourself, but both were eaten before you could have your own cupcake, that stinks - but you're just out of a cupcake. Then yeah: bring a dozen cupcakes to share, and have yourself your own cupcake.
- baud147258 7y ago
  If I remember right, reducing child mortality actually decrease the number of children per family, so it's not that strange. Of course it's bluntly said and reductionist, but I think it has a basis in fact.
ctack 7y ago
Does your stance on redundancy of loved ones also extend to the number of spouses you have?
ctack 7y ago
You might still want to learn how to deal with grief and loss though. If you had 12 kids to avoid the possibility of losing all of your kids or all of one gender of your kids, it might still happen anyway. What if you lose your favorite one? What if you still lose all of them? I don’t wish any of that on you or anyone, but I just have to say that breeding for redundancy to avoid the pain of loss strikes me as being, and this is putting it mildly, a tad immature.
stevesimmons 7y ago
You've increased your likelihood of experiencing tragic loss 12-fold!

justinator 7y ago

Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. I think I just read the most insane sentence I'll read all year.

bad_good_guy 7y ago
How is it insane when this is the historic reason behind large families?
- justinator 7y ago
  I'm not touching, "but it's historical!", because that's a problematic idea in of itself. Lots of things are, "historical", but don't make sense in the modern world. Say you had two kids, and you lost both. One way to think of it is your lost all the children you ever had. Fine. Say you had a DOZEN kids, and you lost six of them. Same thinking as above, you've lost half the children you ever had. Ok, but you still lost six kids!. Six kids have to go through life knowing they have lost six siblings. Having that somehow be better is pure insanity. Or at the very least the utmost self-centered thing I've ever heard of - you're hoping that the loss off 6 out of 12 kids is somewhat less of an impact on yourself when compared to losing two kids? These are human beings, not cupcakes you're bringing to a picnic. If you brought two cupcakes, and hoping to have one yourself, but both were eaten before you could have your own cupcake, that stinks - but you're just out of a cupcake. Then yeah: bring a dozen cupcakes to share, and have yourself your own cupcake.
baud147258 7y ago
If I remember right, reducing child mortality actually decrease the number of children per family, so it's not that strange. Of course it's bluntly said and reductionist, but I think it has a basis in fact.

ctack 7y ago

Does your stance on redundancy of loved ones also extend to the number of spouses you have?

ctack 7y ago

You might still want to learn how to deal with grief and loss though. If you had 12 kids to avoid the possibility of losing all of your kids or all of one gender of your kids, it might still happen anyway. What if you lose your favorite one? What if you still lose all of them? I don’t wish any of that on you or anyone, but I just have to say that breeding for redundancy to avoid the pain of loss strikes me as being, and this is putting it mildly, a tad immature.

stevesimmons 7y ago

You've increased your likelihood of experiencing tragic loss 12-fold!