katie allison granju

Good article…
I wonder about the financial aspects of a larger family. Getting one or two kids through college is daunting… Trying to put four, five, or even six through seems above the abilities of all but the very wealthy. I work with several young professionals who have graduated college $50k or more in debt, and their futures are NOT what they’d hoped for. Saving for a first home is difficult when you have an $800 education loan payment each month. And, it’s very easy to get into a lot of consumer debt at the same time. Some have moved back in with their parents. Several young women say they’d like to have children, but can’t afford to, and that’s largely because of student loans, debt incurred during college years, and in one case, rising medical costs.
Scary stuff.

You would have to ask her ;-), but she seems to like helping out with the grandchildren…

“There’s no question that more people potentially have a larger environmental impact. For me to deny this would be intellectually dishonest. However, it’s simplistic to suggest that a world full of tiny families — or even zero population growth — would offer the answer to all the world’s woes. And until the earnest parents of only one child who lecture me about my family size start using cloth diapers (I do), or move from the car-centric ‘burbs to an urban neighborhood that allows them to walk most places (I have), or join the local food co-op that supports sustainable, organic agriculture (I’ve belonged since college), well, I suggest they reconsider their holier-than-thou criticism.”

I don’t think this is a good line of defense. Many of the people (not me) who would look askance at having a large family for environmental reasons may very well be doing all of those things. And to be honest, none of those lifestyle choices begin to offset the environmental effects of a human being over the course of a lifetime.

My personal defense is simply that there isn’t enough evidence of impending environmental doom to begin committing suicide or generational suicide. We’re far more likely in our lifetimes to see countries where lack of children will cripple the country because there won’t be enough working-age people to support healthcare programs and other benefits for retirees.

Look at this chart. In 1960 there were four workers supporting each retiree collecting Social Security. Today there are only three workers supporting each SS recipient. By 2030 there will only be two workers supporting each SS recipient. The Europeans are in even worse shape. When intergenerational social programs are involved not having enough kids is a much bigger problem for a country than having too many.

I drive waaaaay more than I want to, but I am cutting back in every way I can, and moving somewhere walkable was a conscious decision.

Baby C will attend a neighborhood school. That’s not a choice I have with her older sibs at the moment.

Good point, Les Jones. Plus, even if some families have big families, the truth is that our overall fertility rates in the US still hover right around replacement rates. Unless this really starts becoming a widespread trend (and I doubt it will for many reasons), the population isn’t in much danger of booming because a few families here and there have more than one or two kids.

I have nothing at all against large families - I’m the eldest of 6, and the mother of 2. If I had started earlier (kids born when I was 42 and 48) I’d have had at least 3. It always amuses me to hear of people thinking 4 kids is a lot.

However, since you invited opinions:

“In fact, I found that these mothers-by-choice of large gaggles of children were some of the most serene, self-actualized people I knew. Their lives had a clear “center,” and it gave them a sense of direction — a North Star, if you will.”

That has been my experience as well, although I don’t draw the conclusion you seem to. My speculation is that people who already are serene and self-actualized are more likely to be open to having larger families, assuming they want children at all. I SERIOUSLY doubt the large families lead to the serenity or the self-actualization - my bet is that the causation goes in the other direction.

“However, it’s simplistic to suggest that a world full of tiny families — or even zero population growth — would offer the answer to all the world’s woes.”

I don’t know what you mean here. Zero population growth is not the same thing as zero reproduction. Producing 2 children per couple over a lifetime *is* zero population growth, so what would you call a *tiny* family?

“And until the earnest parents of only one child who lecture me about my family size start using cloth diapers (I do), or move from the car-centric ‘burbs to an urban neighborhood that allows them to walk most places (I have), or join the local food co-op that supports sustainable, organic agriculture (I’ve belonged since college), well, I suggest they reconsider their holier-than-thou criticism.”

Les already addressed this - but it’s nonsense. The lifetime impact of 4 people added to the planet vs. 2 is not offset by the minor things you mention.

Folks, if you are going to quote the part of the essay where I mention a few minor “green” things I do “right,” please note the rest of the quote, where I concede that:

A.) large families have a larger environmental impact. Period

B.)I am not claiming any prize for exemplary green living, but making the larger point that everyone should do a better job of making changes themselves before criticizing others for their own environmental failings…

carry on.

interesting discussion, as always, and i welcome to lively debate!

As someone who has worked in financial aid, I can assure you that the more children you have, the more aid you qualify for. Plus, if your combined incomes are under, say $70,000 and you apply to ivy league schools, you get a TON. They have better endowments, and lots of rich people applying, so they hand out a lot to the “lower income” sections.

Megan Francis,
The tone of my question was not sarcastic.

However your rant makes you sound irresponsible and immature by making the assumption that grandmothers want to and are capable of providing regular childcare to infants.

Careful, Katie — You could theoretically become a grandmother before you’re a mother of 5! It happens . . . .

Dewi, I’m glad to hear you were not being sarcastic. I see a lot of thinly-veiled criticisms posted as questions on this blog and others, so I was making an (incorrect) guess.

Immature and irresponsible? I’m not making any assumptions about whether any specific grandmother would want to care for her grandkids or not (we handle our own childcare, for instance); it was more of an academic argument. I do think that in modern American culture it seems almost taboo for family members to depend on each other, especially intergenerationally, and I don’t think it’s a good thing.

Some of us do all the environmental things you mentioned (cloth diapers, walkable neighborhood town — in fact only one car for our family — recycle, compost, grow food in a garden, blah, blah, blah) *and* choose not to have any more kids. Environmental reasons aren’t the only ones we called it quits at 2 (at 42 I’m not up for another pregnancy and toddlerhood — although I know plenty of people do it well and happily). But I have occasionally felt the biological tug to have another/daydreamed about a bigger family. And that’s when considering our environmental impact trumps any other personal desires.

So, yes. Some of us actually have fewer kids (when we might have liked to have more) as an environmental choice.

re: the grandmother comment. My thought was that it was presumptuous to assume that if grandma watches one, she will want to watch more. Nothing to do with “looking out for each other” Everything to do with assuming. I would definitely ASK before assuming something such as this. Makes for harmonious family relations all around. Families should look out for each other but they also should not assume that they are “owed” something either without opening their mouths and asking if it is an imposition.

Grandma’s on board that is the go ahead!
J&K go have fun making a baby!

Continuing to expand your family sounds quite ideal right now but,when you’re in your 50’s and STILL dealing with teenager’s (while trying to maintain your sanity throughout the lovely curse of menopause)you’ll probably want to kick yourself more than a few times for thinking that menopause isn’t a major deciding factor. If you only knew how truly horrible it can be for so many women…
‘

Love the article–especially the last couple of lines.

Loved the essay. We just added a fourth this year. For me, for us, that’s just perfectly the limit. It’s interesting in a whole new way to be 1) considering ourselves in an undeniably large family — except perhaps for devout whoevers & 2) to be looked at like we are nuts!

I think for us, at this point, more love is more love. And chaos equals both chaos & love.

Great article. I just wanted to express my opinion about large families…being a working mother of 4 I often get the “you are nuts” and “why so many?” comments. It is what it is and we love having a big family. To each their own. Everyone has their limit. 4 is mine. I cannot wait for them to be all grown up and have each other to visit with their families. My oldest just said the other day “when you have the next baby…”I told him I was not having any more babies and they all seemed bummed about it. That to me showed they are happy. I was afraid when I was pregnant with the 4th that they others were going to be like “not again”. Instead they welcomed it and wished for a girl because that would even things out. Our extended family loves helping out - not expected but welcomed.