Is there a dependence on the number of children in the family and its well-being?

Hello ATS!

Now the general trend in the West, according to the dominant “agenda”, is a reduction in the number of children in families. Moreover, this is explained and instilled as a necessity, since it is impossible to improve the well-being of a family and the quality of life if there are a large number of children in it. That is, personal comfort and wealth are incompatible with large families. But has this always been the case, and what was the situation with such “dependence” before?

Let's delve into US history. Benjamin Franklin's father, Josiah Franklin, was the youngest son of a poor English family. In 1685 he was forced to flee religious persecution to New England, to the city of Boston, which later became the capital of Massachusetts. He had 17 children: 7 children from his first wife and 10 children from his second. The three oldest children, as I understand it, remained in England, and the youngest 14 children grew up, reached adulthood and started their own families.

Before leaving, Josiah Franklin worked as a dyer, but there was no great need for dyers on another continent, so he took up making candles and making soap. In his free time, he painted or played the violin; he was also a good mechanic and, in general, knew how to work with his hands: he knew the basics of several crafts.

All his children studied, while Benjamin Franklin, as a smart guy who learned to read early, studied grammar, arithmetic and writing. His father was going to send him to the candle making business, but Benjamin showed such a clear distaste for this occupation that Josiah eventually sent him to study as a printer, despite the fact that Benjamin’s older brother, James, had already become a printer.

Josiah Franklin lived to be 89 years old without any illness until his death, and his second wife lived to be 85 years old. Their marriage lasted more than half a century. They did not receive any benefits from the state: on the contrary, they paid taxes and donated part of their income to church needs.

Please note: Josiah Franklin raised 17 children, being a poor man, in a wild and undeveloped country where there was neither minimally developed medicine nor technologies that made life easier. All his children grew up to be worthy and educated people, and one of his sons - the same Benjamin Franklin - became a scientist, became involved in politics and eventually founded the United States of America.

Similar large families today can be routinely observed in Amish families, who try to live exactly according to the technologies of those times - without electricity and other frills, but with horses.

The life of a modern person is much more comfortable: we have washing machines, cars, diapers, and numerous benefits from the state. But the modern Western “agenda” says that it is absolutely impossible to have more than three children in the modern world, unless you are a millionaire, since with the birth of the fourth child the family inevitably becomes poor, after which children deprived of proper care grow up to be semi-literate Mowglis, capable only of robbing passers-by and carry stolen engines from elevators to metal collection points...

Please explain this paradox to me. Why did traditional families calmly manage and manage 17 children, while modern families believe that children are insanely expensive, so that it is wiser for middle-income spouses to limit themselves to a cat or a dog?

Thank you.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Why did traditional families calmly manage and manage 17 children, while modern families believe that children are insanely expensive, so that it is wiser for middle-income spouses to limit themselves to a cat or a dog?

We are a 'traditional' family. We have one child. She's adopted. We couldn't afford to adopt more. It's very expensive. And the one child was expensive as well.

I don't think that having 17 children is healthy. I don't think that having more than 3 or 4 is healthy. Children won't get the amount of attention they need from the parents. And the parents won't have the money to be able to give the children what they need. If someone who lives in the city has bunches of kids, then the kid ends up in public city schools which suck, and the kids don't get the laptops they need to get a good education because the parents can't afford it, and the kids won't get the attention needed from parents to keep the city kids out of trouble, and the family ends up getting government assistance for food etc etc ... and why should my tax money pay for someone else to have bunches of kids? That's not fair. It's THEIR responsibility and if they can't afford to feed them, then they shouldn't breed.

Several reasons.

Contraception. Today there are many ways to avoid having children.

Cost. The way society is set up today, the cost is prohibitive.

Want. Many people would rather not have children simply because they prefer to live their lives without them. FOR MANY REASONS THAT ARE NO ONE'S BUSINESS.

Have kids, don't have kids, have many of them, have one. Do what you want. I don't understand why this is even an issue unless you believe there is some great conspiracy to keep people from having kids. I'll tell you though, I'm not seeing it.

While I agree people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them, don't punish the kids and deny them food because their parents are losers or going through hard times.

Some people really try hard and still can't make it. And have a heart for the kids please. They did nothing wrong. So feeding them should not be a problem.

a reply to: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Do what you want. I don't understand why this is even an issue unless you believe there is some great conspiracy to keep people from having kids. I'll tell you though, I'm not seeing it.

If there is no God, then you can do whatever you want?

Even if there is a God, you can do whatever you want.

a reply to: RussianTroll

a reply to: RussianTroll

My great grandparents had seven children. They weren't really affluent but they had some lands, grew their own food, had cows and hens. My grandma had to work very hard in the kitchen, cooking dinners for family and field workers. She had to milk cows and tend to hens. Her sisters got married quickly so all the work was left for her. The great grandmother did nothing because she thought she had children to work. She didn't let my grandma to continue her education because she believed the place of the woman is at home and school is stupid. She was illiterate herself. My grandma always remembered her childhood as painful and very difficult. But she always put her family's well being before her own.

Today, children are brought up in cosy conditions. They are often spoiled and therefore selfish. Later on they grow up thinking they are special snowflakes. But in spite of that, I wouldn't idealize the past. Parents have to find some golden mean; cater to their needs, give them love and comfort but also teach responsibility for others.

You can have as many children as you want. The question is whether you can afford that. It can't be easily calculated. There are families which aren't wealthy but they spend their money responsibly and always manage to save some. Money is not everything though. There are other things to consider like patience and time you can give your child, the ability to deal with their behavioral problems and the most important question is whether you want to have children or not.

If you (I mean the general you) don't like children, don't want to have children, then don't have children. You can serve your community in a different way. If you think one child is enough, or two or three children are enough, then don't have more children. If you feel like having a lot of children and you think you can care for them, then go for it. It's the matter of personal choice.

Nobody is forcing people to reduce the number of their offsprings. However, there are many irresponsible people who breed like rabbits and then vegetate on welfare or leave their children to fend for themselves. It's better nor to be a parent at all than to be a failure of a parent.

a reply to: RussianTroll


More of a good living standards question.

Having too many kids is detrimental to parents and the kids themselves in most cases. Not much for them and many parents will be unable to feed them or take care of them.

originally posted by: RussianTroll

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Do what you want. I don't understand why this is even an issue unless you believe there is some great conspiracy to keep people from having kids. I'll tell you though, I'm not seeing it.

If there is no God, then you can do whatever you want?

No because living in society with rules and regulations place you in the same situation no matter if your deity exists or not.

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Even if there is a God, you can do whatever you want.

a reply to: RussianTroll

I agree you can do whatever you want but still need to follow society's rules. But yes, theoretically speaking you can do what you want, with or without God.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Hello ATS!
Please note: Josiah Franklin raised 17 children, being a poor man, in a wild and undeveloped country where there was neither minimally developed medicine nor technologies that made life easier. All his children grew up to be worthy and educated people, and one of his sons - the same Benjamin Franklin - became a scientist, became involved in politics and eventually founded the United States of America.
Please explain this paradox to me. Why did traditional families calmly manage and manage 17 children, while modern families believe that children are insanely expensive, so that it is wiser for middle-income spouses to limit themselves to a cat or a dog?
Thank you.

Perhaps because industries were more labor intensive then? Perhaps Josiah Franklin didn't have to take out massive loans to buy very much tallow processing equipment but had his children help?

Family sizes around the world are shrinking. With modern technology, advanced education.....things change. But it's a world wide epidemic.

Families used to need children to help with sustaining the homestead and household, it was a lot of work. But with grocery stores and home delivery, automation of cleaning devices like vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, buildings in a box etc., children now are 'a lot of work', so much so that many people opt out because we have become a people of wanting easier, relaxed lives.

Finances, drug use, employment, lack of necessity, fear of the future, even the current gender changing epidemic.......the dynamics of a family have quickly changed. Plus it doesn't help that TPTB have been pushing overpopulation down our throats for decades.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Modern technology and access to education will inevitably lead to smaller size families everywhere in the world. Taking also into account the cost of living in our days which is astronomical in some places.

a reply to: RussianTroll

The cultural imperative to procreate is a holdover from 18th, 19th century socioeconomics when it was commonplace to house 5 generations under one roof as one clan. As one retires, the next picks up boots and hammer to continue the family trade and provide for those who provided previously. Now the cultural imperative is college, apartments, social climbing, a bizarre juxtaposition of independence and idolatry, pursuing corporate prestige, etc. Go out and find a nice office job, make more kids, bring them back home and offer them as surrogates to compensate for the ill advised philosophy of nest pushing, bridging two awkward generations who are proud, stubborn yet quietly grieving what they sacrificed to build the modern suburbs instead of the traditional farm community. And now even that token gesture of fidelity is waning because the concept of family is eroding thanks to social media and its infinite disposable relationships drowning the individual in a tsunami hivemind. Can't have family if there's no roots, and can't have roots if there's no home, and can't have home if there's no self. The self is gradually being transformed into a reflection of the technocratic industry which knows very well that islands are easier to colonize than forests.

All of this to say, it's parents vs culture. The amount of kids misses the point entirely, and the point is that eventually the next farming generation will be born from the ashes of the technocracy. Only then can the cultural imperative to procreate serve its purpose.

Wonderful. I read the comments.
I realized that Western society has absolutely no future. No future. Because the future is not hamburgers, Teslas and bank accounts. The future of society is not economics, politics, or even ideology. The future is CHILDREN. If you have children, your society and families have a future. No children - you will be swallowed up by those who have children. The main thing is fertility. And they will replace you, occupying your homes, lands, assets and jobs, peoples not related to you in culture, faith, traditions and morals. And absolutely alien. You are in agony and on the verge of extinction. You are the last, or at best the penultimate, generation of the Western world. You will die out and leave, although now you consider yourself the chosen ones. This is fog, illusion, simulacrum. Degeneration is in your minds.
Do you want to survive in this cruel world? Wake up!

a reply to: RussianTroll

There is no "survival". There is dying as gracefully as possible, and hopefully leaving behind some type of investment capital in the process, something to plant and grow and sustain the legacy. At best you achieve a mediocre string of imperfect copies who take turns overwriting your memory with their own ambitions and politics. On the subject of legacy, look to every nation, empire, franchise and church that has ever succeeded longer than a century and study the parabola of their mortality and the distribution of their spoils.

a reply to: RussianTroll

On what basis have you concluded western societies have no future?

a reply to: RussianTroll

Kids are insanely expensive.

I can hardly manage to support two of them whilst also paying the rent and keep the lights on.

Just the way the world spun.

Needs must and has to be done.

In this day of age though we dont own slaves like both Josiah and Benjamin Franklin did. Which probably helped manage the likes of 17 additional children never mind a lot of other things.

Got to call that a win really in my book.

Progress has its cost after all.

Do you not have any kids or people who depend on you RT?

As you have more children they help with the raising of the other child and aid in passing on skills you have already taught. Requiring less time spent on the each individual child to teach each individual thing, like you experience with one child, very inefficient but like you said it’s all you can manage or muster or afford or what ever.

If your someone who lives in a city period, your life sucks and you don’t even know it. The ignorant bliss of metropolitan living. If it’s all you know it’s all you know.


Enjoy the sogged out Uber eats, the 30min-1hr+ traffic you waste your precious life on daily, high crime and trash everywhere. Couldn’t pay me to live in one. I hate goin to them.

That said I give my kids as much attention as possible because I authentically enjoy the time I spend with them.

Having kids should be the highest level of self sacrifice. Your love, your time and your money in that order of importance.
a reply to: FlyersFan