What's the effect of having plenty children to the national economy of a country

[Latviand]

To the family, I am sure that having a lot of children is going to be a problem especially if they all started schooling which can be pretty expensive even if you all enroll those kids in public schools, don't forget that with more mouths to feed then the less likely that you will be able to set aside some money for savings. If in terms of economy, I think it's only a problem for short-term since they are going to be an addition to the workforce of the country, with more people means that more labor force that is if we set aside the issue of brain drain for the sake of this hypothetical stuff.

[1714904475]

1714904475

[dothebeats]

To the family, I am sure that having a lot of children is going to be a problem especially if they all started schooling which can be pretty expensive even if you all enroll those kids in public schools, don't forget that with more mouths to feed then the less likely that you will be able to set aside some money for savings. If in terms of economy, I think it's only a problem for short-term since they are going to be an addition to the workforce of the country, with more people means that more labor force that is if we set aside the issue of brain drain for the sake of this hypothetical stuff.

Well that depends on them and if those children will grow up and actually work. Believe it or not there are number of individuals from poor family who are not working and are depending on the help being provided by their government. Hence, instead of helping the country they are adding to the cost. So in a way they can be a problem.

[DrBeer]

Traditionally here in our country couples are encouraged to have as many children as they can, so they have children to take care of them when they get old, this is the reason why we have a population explosion and since we are in a third-world country where there's too much corruption, inflation is too high and there's scarcity of jobs and per capita income cannot sustain a big family, it's not logical to have a big family anymore.

Having a big family is only good if the economy of one's country is good but if the economy is struggling the head of the family will also struggle to sustain it, it's hard to sustain a family of 6 here in our country if you are only a minimum earner of $11.02.

A highly questionable idea...
Let me explain. Okay, I have nothing against having lots of kids. But if you want to have and raise happy and successful children, who will really be your support and help in your old age - you must give them a good upbringing, good education, teach them to be independent. Yes, after some time they will most likely become successful and will easily help you in your old age.
But if you raise a lot of poor and unhappy children - all they will be able to do is to bring a couple of pennies to you in your old age, and neither you nor they will live a full life, and in your old age you will exist on pennies, and you cannot dream of a good, secure old age.

I have my own theory that the call to have more children is a legacy of the Middle Ages. I will explain - when a country is filled with a large number of poor people - it is an ideal environment for the maintenance and servicing of totalitarian regimes - people are ready to work for pennies, will follow any order not to lose their jobs, they will not have any thoughts about freedom, about choice - their whole life will be reduced to earning a penny to somehow feed themselves and their families.

PS Studying history, I can say more - for example, in tsarist Russia it was customary for peasants to give birth to many children. But it was a consequence of high mortality rate and low level of medicine. And yes, it was considered that even if 10 children would bring a kopeck later, it would be good, since no one paid pensions to peasants from the state, and it was impossible for them to collect any capital.

[Synchronice]

Traditionally here in our country couples are encouraged to have as many children as they can, so they have children to take care of them when they get old, this is the reason why we have a population explosion and since we are in a third-world country where there's too much corruption, inflation is too high and there's scarcity of jobs and per capita income cannot sustain a big family, it's not logical to have a big family anymore.

Having a big family is only good if the economy of one's country is good but if the economy is struggling the head of the family will also struggle to sustain it, it's hard to sustain a family of 6 here in our country if you are only a minimum earner of $11.02.

A highly questionable idea...
Let me explain. Okay, I have nothing against having lots of kids. But if you want to have and raise happy and successful children, who will really be your support and help in your old age - you must give them a good upbringing, good education, teach them to be independent. Yes, after some time they will most likely become successful and will easily help you in your old age.
But if you raise a lot of poor and unhappy children - all they will be able to do is to bring a couple of pennies to you in your old age, and neither you nor they will live a full life, and in your old age you will exist on pennies, and you cannot dream of a good, secure old age.

I have my own theory that the call to have more children is a legacy of the Middle Ages. I will explain - when a country is filled with a large number of poor people - it is an ideal environment for the maintenance and servicing of totalitarian regimes - people are ready to work for pennies, will follow any order not to lose their jobs, they will not have any thoughts about freedom, about choice - their whole life will be reduced to earning a penny to somehow feed themselves and their families.

By the way, good athlete will bring more money to family than the well-educated person. Just compare the salaries of footballers and basketball players to cloud or web developers/engineers, to CEOs. Without a doubt, footballers earn way, way more. Today, even retard youtubers and tiktokers earn more money than a lot of talented and educated people. At the moment, educated and hard-working people like people in trades, aren't appreciated, while onlyfans whores and retards are well-recognized and life the life at its fullest.

By the way, I will repeat again. It's also proven that people in poor countries tend to be happier. This is probably because they have strong bonds with their relatives, are very social and often have fun after the work. While the west is rich and people work more, we made ourselves socially very isolated. I have heard from my great-grandfather that neighbors used to gather at each-other's house and were drinking beer, singing and had fun. This doesn't happen today. People today only go in clubs, take ecstasy and do some nasty staff, call it the fun.

This is what I wanted to add. Otherwise I share your idea, already posted the same.

[Latviand]

~

Well that depends on them and if those children will grow up and actually work. Believe it or not there are number of individuals from poor family who are not working and are depending on the help being provided by their government. Hence, instead of helping the country they are adding to the cost. So in a way they can be a problem.

That's not the point I'm making although your concern is valid. But I don't think that they wouldn't contribute to the economy if they don't work, if they still buy goods and services, they will still be participating in the economic circulation since them buying those stuff regardless of where they get their money from is still going to have taxes which is a big part of the economy and for the markets, more people consuming is always a good thing for the market and a good market will be an indication of a good economy if not growing.

[mvdheuvel1983]

The most important question to ask is, can you manage having many kids in this economy? I want to assume that by many kids you mean from 5kids upwards. Let me first bring to your notice that many years ago, it was easier having many kids and in turn a plus to the economy but one the divorce rate is high, there are literally more single parents than we have ever seen and if you consider, summer camp, daycare, the rising cost of health insurance and health care and then paying for college, you would conclude that there is simply no positive effect of many kids on the economy rather it puts stress on the scarce economic resources of a country.

[Lida93]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

Having many children without corresponding means of taking good care of them all is wrong and of a negative effect to a nation's economy. And when I say taking care of them is not just only in the aspect of being able to provide food and shelter for these multitude of children per family but been able to give them sound education that they become assets to the society not burden.

And for a nation that's already populated it will be unwise to still give birth to many children in such a country wether you have the resource to take care of them or not.... The concern is reducing the total population of the country so the nation's resources and opportunities could reach almost everyone near evenly.

But for a nation with limited populace having many children isn't only a blessing to the family but the nation as it's workforce would grow geometrical, let say in next ten years to deliver the economy especially for a production nation.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

Is there an effect both positive or negative to the county's economy when couples have plenty children?

In the past before the current economic era, around the 15th century and the beginning of the French industrial revolution, having many children was seen as fertility and good for both the family work force and country's also. The labour force was majorly manual and those who worked at the plantations were sort after as able bodied men or women.

But at the moment, what is the viability of having many children especially as it could reduce the per capital income.

In those days you are talking about, Education and white collar jobs weren't really a thing, i mean education was minimally available, white collar jobs were almost non existence, the major source of livelihood back then was farming, and a man in need to have a lot of children who will work on his farms, usually married a lot of wives.

But today civilization has taken over, there are now white collar jobs every where, and one of the most important criteria one must possess if he or she wants to work a white collar job, is that person must be educated, and your level of education most times will determine how high you get paid and also with less work.

Having a lot of children today, i would say can either be dangerous or healthy for the economy, it all depends on the couple having those children, if they couple are comfortable in both finance and mental ability to train those children well, in education and morals, those children can grow to become assets to the nation and the world, but if they are not properly trained, those children can grow to become a big problem to the nation and world at large, by becoming thieves, armed robber, drug and human traffickers and all manner of bad stuffs..

So it all depends on how those many children are brought up, that alone can tell whether they become assets to the economy or liability to the economy.

[Lorence.xD]

To the family, I am sure that having a lot of children is going to be a problem especially if they all started schooling which can be pretty expensive even if you all enroll those kids in public schools, don't forget that with more mouths to feed then the less likely that you will be able to set aside some money for savings. If in terms of economy, I think it's only a problem for short-term since they are going to be an addition to the workforce of the country, with more people means that more labor force that is if we set aside the issue of brain drain for the sake of this hypothetical stuff.

Actually good point, because if the family can't manage to support their children's education most likely they would go to public schools which is supported by government which is normal because it's their citizen's taxes to use as fund. But imagine this case if one family had like 5 children and they can't manage to support them so those 6 slots are already taken so for those other family they can't enroll their child into public schools due to limited slot only. I think this could be the fault of the both, which is the government and the parents. Maybe if there's no corrupted government there wouldn't be a problem in slots in any public schools while for the parents, they lack family planning that causes them to have problems in their financial. Just imagine of supporting a child starting from as a toddler their needs until they grow up.

[Latviand]

~

Actually good point, because if the family can't manage to support their children's education most likely they would go to public schools which is supported by government which is normal because it's their citizen's taxes to use as fund. But imagine this case if one family had like 5 children and they can't manage to support them so those 6 slots are already taken so for those other family they can't enroll their child into public schools due to limited slot only. I think this could be the fault of the both, which is the government and the parents. Maybe if there's no corrupted government there wouldn't be a problem in slots in any public schools while for the parents, they lack family planning that causes them to have problems in their financial. Just imagine of supporting a child starting from as a toddler their needs until they grow up.

More fault to the government to be honest with you, look at the educated population and see how many kids they have, pretty sure that they're on the low end compare that to the uneducated or poorly educated population. If the government were to pursue creating a quality education for all and their help doesn't end at the school, I'm sure that we would see a population that's smarter and knows the consequences of having a children. Or if they already have the quality education, the government should also pursue improving reproductive health policies, this one if improved to the highest level will be the biggest move against overpopulation. It's not "if" when it comes to no corrupt government, whatever you think will happen when there's no corrupt government is guaranteed to happen. The last part, a lot of Scandinavian countries already do that.

[fadhilz123]

That's not the point I'm making although your concern is valid. But I don't think that they wouldn't contribute to the economy if they don't work, if they still buy goods and services, they will still be participating in the economic circulation since them buying those stuff regardless of where they get their money from is still going to have taxes which is a big part of the economy and for the markets, more people consuming is always a good thing for the market and a good market will be an indication of a good economy if not growing.

In my opinion, the point you made is quite reasonable because contributions to the economy do not only occur for those who have jobs, but those who do not have permanent jobs also always make a contribution to the economy. This means that as long as everyone always needs food when hungry and has to buy food to keep himself alive.

It will still have something to do with the economy because the circulation of money that is used by everyone when buying something will make it the wheels of the economy so that everyone who is still alive in this world actually always contributes to the economy, except for those who no longer need food. So even this contribution does not only take place for those who have a permanent job, but those who do not have a permanent job also make a contribution in this kind of thing.

[DrBeer]

Traditionally here in our country couples are encouraged to have as many children as they can, so they have children to take care of them when they get old, this is the reason why we have a population explosion and since we are in a third-world country where there's too much corruption, inflation is too high and there's scarcity of jobs and per capita income cannot sustain a big family, it's not logical to have a big family anymore.

Having a big family is only good if the economy of one's country is good but if the economy is struggling the head of the family will also struggle to sustain it, it's hard to sustain a family of 6 here in our country if you are only a minimum earner of $11.02.

A highly questionable idea...
Let me explain. Okay, I have nothing against having lots of kids. But if you want to have and raise happy and successful children, who will really be your support and help in your old age - you must give them a good upbringing, good education, teach them to be independent. Yes, after some time they will most likely become successful and will easily help you in your old age.
But if you raise a lot of poor and unhappy children - all they will be able to do is to bring a couple of pennies to you in your old age, and neither you nor they will live a full life, and in your old age you will exist on pennies, and you cannot dream of a good, secure old age.

I have my own theory that the call to have more children is a legacy of the Middle Ages. I will explain - when a country is filled with a large number of poor people - it is an ideal environment for the maintenance and servicing of totalitarian regimes - people are ready to work for pennies, will follow any order not to lose their jobs, they will not have any thoughts about freedom, about choice - their whole life will be reduced to earning a penny to somehow feed themselves and their families.

By the way, good athlete will bring more money to family than the well-educated person. Just compare the salaries of footballers and basketball players to cloud or web developers/engineers, to CEOs. Without a doubt, footballers earn way, way more. Today, even retard youtubers and tiktokers earn more money than a lot of talented and educated people. At the moment, educated and hard-working people like people in trades, aren't appreciated, while onlyfans whores and retards are well-recognized and life the life at its fullest.

By the way, I will repeat again. It's also proven that people in poor countries tend to be happier. This is probably because they have strong bonds with their relatives, are very social and often have fun after the work. While the west is rich and people work more, we made ourselves socially very isolated. I have heard from my great-grandfather that neighbors used to gather at each-other's house and were drinking beer, singing and had fun. This doesn't happen today. People today only go in clubs, take ecstasy and do some nasty staff, call it the fun.

This is what I wanted to add. Otherwise I share your idea, already posted the same.

Quite a controversial opinion A good businessman - will bring even more, besides the age of an athlete is limited, and to get into the "big league" is much more difficult than to become a famous athlete.
A good doctor - is valued even more, and will find a job in virtually any country, with a guaranteed high income.
I will assume that there are more well-paid programmers than well-paid athletes. And the prospects for a good programmer are longer.

And again - in a poor family in a poor country, where a child has a very limited choice of opportunities - it is almost impossible to become a famous athlete. Only a few get such a "lucky ticket".

Regarding happiness, please accept with understanding what I will say further. As practice has shown - any unemployed poorly developed person lives more joyful and happier than, for example, a person who works. This is from personal observation. And here everything is easy to explain - a person who is not very developed has extremely primitive values! He can live happily in a shack, begging, receiving alms, and he will be completely satisfied with it.

The higher and more complex values - the more difficult it is to achieve them, it is a fact. But for example, I am not attracted to such "asceticism and primitivism in life, for the sake of an interesting life, I am ready to work hard, to work.....

[Latviand]

~

In my opinion, the point you made is quite reasonable because contributions to the economy do not only occur for those who have jobs, but those who do not have permanent jobs also always make a contribution to the economy. This means that as long as everyone always needs food when hungry and has to buy food to keep himself alive.

Well yes, you've just expounded on the point that I've said about consumption being a contribution of the unemployed population and you've just stated what I've said already said but in a different set of words and sentences.

~

It will still have something to do with the economy because the circulation of money that is used by everyone when buying something will make it the wheels of the economy so that everyone who is still alive in this world actually always contributes to the economy, except for those who no longer need food. So even this contribution does not only take place for those who have a permanent job, but those who do not have a permanent job also make a contribution in this kind of thing.

Again, you've recycled what I've said and you keep repeating the same thing. And also, those who don't need food still contribute to the economy, they might still be using services like hospitals or buying medicines and if they die of starvation, they are giving works to coroner, embalmer and the whole funeral industry which all of them get some form of compensation or salary when they do work and they in turn contribute in the economy.

[Synchronice]

Quite a controversial opinion A good businessman - will bring even more, besides the age of an athlete is limited, and to get into the "big league" is much more difficult than to become a famous athlete.
A good doctor - is valued even more, and will find a job in virtually any country, with a guaranteed high income.
I will assume that there are more well-paid programmers than well-paid athletes. And the prospects for a good programmer are longer.

And again - in a poor family in a poor country, where a child has a very limited choice of opportunities - it is almost impossible to become a famous athlete. Only a few get such a "lucky ticket".

I mean, athlete gets: wealth, fame, appreciation, everyone loves him, kids admire him, kids want to become that famous athlete and so on. Businessman or doctor or engineer will never get this, doesn't matter how much money he/she has. Businessman will definitely make more money but businessman is under huge mental stress, is responsible over income while athlete gets millions like a wage, guaranteed. If you come from a poor family, you'll find easier to get high income via sport compared to uni degree. I mean, if we put the equal efforts in both of them.
By the way, it's opposite, kids from poor family are the ones who become top athletes because poverty gives them motivation while a rich dad's guy has everything and there is nothing to motivate him, he lacks nothing.

Regarding happiness, please accept with understanding what I will say further. As practice has shown - any unemployed poorly developed person lives more joyful and happier than, for example, a person who works. This is from personal observation. And here everything is easy to explain - a person who is not very developed has extremely primitive values! He can live happily in a shack, begging, receiving alms, and he will be completely satisfied with it.

The higher and more complex values - the more difficult it is to achieve them, it is a fact. But for example, I am not attracted to such "asceticism and primitivism in life, for the sake of an interesting life, I am ready to work hard, to work.....

Yes, I agree with you but what's the point of life? To struggle or to be happy? It's very hard to enjoy life today, I sometimes find myself anhedonic. You get this, then something new comes up, then someone gets jacked and you want to look like him, then you want to get this or that and you can't really stop to enjoy the life because today's life is very competitive and very diverse where everyone expects from you to achieve as much as possible.

I sometimes really think whether it's better to live in poor nation where most people are happy or to face the reality of capitalism.

[Spaceman1000$]

I think on the current situation of things across the globe, I would sincerely advise parents should give birth to a number of kids they can bring up in consonance with their income.
Because as an average income earner, you shouldn't give birth to children you cannot feed or take good care of.
 gone are those days you need people to help work in your farm as parents.
Today, you have to spend money on school fees, clothing, electricity bills, feeding until they are up to an age to start staying on their own.
I feel rich people, can afford to give birth to as many as they want because the economy favours them.

[DrBeer]

Quite a controversial opinion A good businessman - will bring even more, besides the age of an athlete is limited, and to get into the "big league" is much more difficult than to become a famous athlete.
A good doctor - is valued even more, and will find a job in virtually any country, with a guaranteed high income.
I will assume that there are more well-paid programmers than well-paid athletes. And the prospects for a good programmer are longer.

And again - in a poor family in a poor country, where a child has a very limited choice of opportunities - it is almost impossible to become a famous athlete. Only a few get such a "lucky ticket".

I mean, athlete gets: wealth, fame, appreciation, everyone loves him, kids admire him, kids want to become that famous athlete and so on. Businessman or doctor or engineer will never get this, doesn't matter how much money he/she has. Businessman will definitely make more money but businessman is under huge mental stress, is responsible over income while athlete gets millions like a wage, guaranteed. If you come from a poor family, you'll find easier to get high income via sport compared to uni degree. I mean, if we put the equal efforts in both of them.
By the way, it's opposite, kids from poor family are the ones who become top athletes because poverty gives them motivation while a rich dad's guy has everything and there is nothing to motivate him, he lacks nothing.

Regarding happiness, please accept with understanding what I will say further. As practice has shown - any unemployed poorly developed person lives more joyful and happier than, for example, a person who works. This is from personal observation. And here everything is easy to explain - a person who is not very developed has extremely primitive values! He can live happily in a shack, begging, receiving alms, and he will be completely satisfied with it.

The higher and more complex values - the more difficult it is to achieve them, it is a fact. But for example, I am not attracted to such "asceticism and primitivism in life, for the sake of an interesting life, I am ready to work hard, to work.....

Yes, I agree with you but what's the point of life? To struggle or to be happy? It's very hard to enjoy life today, I sometimes find myself anhedonic. You get this, then something new comes up, then someone gets jacked and you want to look like him, then you want to get this or that and you can't really stop to enjoy the life because today's life is very competitive and very diverse where everyone expects from you to achieve as much as possible.

I sometimes really think whether it's better to live in poor nation where most people are happy or to face the reality of capitalism.

1- Regarding the famous athlete - I absolutely agree. But... No less admired is a successful businessman. Or a doctor who invented a new method of treatment for many people. Or a famous engineer. Although I note - that more pubic figures, such as athletes and actors - they are usually better known and more "honored". But this again depends on what a person is interested in. For example, I will not name a single famous runner, tennis player or basketball player - I am not interested in these.... Boxers to name - yes I can, because I gave the third part of my life to boxing - but this is a profile interest.  Actors, which I consider great - literally a couple of people - it depends on my taste, I am not a fan of mass cinema ... In short, fame is also shaped by a person's interests.
2 And about the meaning of life One can be an ascetic. One can be happy that the sun has risen and eat a bowl of broth. And you just enjoy the process of existence. But I'm not interested in that. For me the meaning is achievements, new knowledge, etc. activities that require effort and testing of one's abilities - from physical to mental exertion. Setting challenging goals and achieving them is very interesting. Although I know a lot of people who are not interested in this at all - a small income, primitive housing, and satisfaction of basic needs are enough for them.

[n0ne]

I think on the current situation of things across the globe, I would sincerely advise parents should give birth to a number of kids they can bring up in consonance with their income.
Because as an average income earner, you shouldn't give birth to children you cannot feed or take good care of.
 gone are those days you need people to help work in your farm as parents.
Today, you have to spend money on school fees, clothing, electricity bills, feeding until they are up to an age to start staying on their own.
I feel rich people, can afford to give birth to as many as they want because the economy favours them.

Agreed, the global situation need to be considered before giving birth to a child. It isn't a task that could end in a short time period. Growing a child requires additional earning, compared to the past there is good awareness around and people have been giving birth accordingly. In my country the number of child have reduced to two and over time this could move to one as the parents are thinking wise and doesn't want their child to suffer. In the past the children grew by their own and now those opportunities have shrunk due to the difference in the parenting. Everything is on a cyclic process, and things could take a change with time.

[Ayers]

I think on the current situation of things across the globe, I would sincerely advise parents should give birth to a number of kids they can bring up in consonance with their income.
Because as an average income earner, you shouldn't give birth to children you cannot feed or take good care of.
 gone are those days you need people to help work in your farm as parents.
Today, you have to spend money on school fees, clothing, electricity bills, feeding until they are up to an age to start staying on their own.
I feel rich people, can afford to give birth to as many as they want because the economy favours them.

Agreed, the global situation need to be considered before giving birth to a child. It isn't a task that could end in a short time period. Growing a child requires additional earning, compared to the past there is good awareness around and people have been giving birth accordingly. In my country the number of child have reduced to two and over time this could move to one as the parents are thinking wise and doesn't want their child to suffer. In the past the children grew by their own and now those opportunities have shrunk due to the difference in the parenting. Everything is on a cyclic process, and things could take a change with time.

I completely agree with this thought and advice. If we cannot take care of them and give them a full life, then it is best not to give birth to them. Things have changed a lot and not having money these days is a very terrible thing. Don't compare our generation with our parents' generation, they didn't have many diseases in their time and could still live without much money by raising livestock and farming. But today, there are too many things to worry about when the weather is getting more and more severe, everything requires money...The birth of a child should be carefully considered to suit the family's economic situation.

[dothebeats]

I think on the current situation of things across the globe, I would sincerely advise parents should give birth to a number of kids they can bring up in consonance with their income.
Because as an average income earner, you shouldn't give birth to children you cannot feed or take good care of.
 gone are those days you need people to help work in your farm as parents.
Today, you have to spend money on school fees, clothing, electricity bills, feeding until they are up to an age to start staying on their own.
I feel rich people, can afford to give birth to as many as they want because the economy favours them.

Agreed, the global situation need to be considered before giving birth to a child. It isn't a task that could end in a short time period. Growing a child requires additional earning, compared to the past there is good awareness around and people have been giving birth accordingly. In my country the number of child have reduced to two and over time this could move to one as the parents are thinking wise and doesn't want their child to suffer. In the past the children grew by their own and now those opportunities have shrunk due to the difference in the parenting. Everything is on a cyclic process, and things could take a change with time.

I completely agree with this thought and advice. If we cannot take care of them and give them a full life, then it is best not to give birth to them. Things have changed a lot and not having money these days is a very terrible thing. Don't compare our generation with our parents' generation, they didn't have many diseases in their time and could still live without much money by raising livestock and farming. But today, there are too many things to worry about when the weather is getting more and more severe, everything requires money...The birth of a child should be carefully considered to suit the family's economic situation.

I couldn't agree more. I always say this and I think it is very important to emphasize that giving birth to child with poor economy and environment does not just bad for the parents but also to the child. Long gone are the times when it is okay to have birth and see where everything goes. Today, family planning is vital to ensure the child and the family's future.

[Mame89]

Of course, it affects the economy of a country. I once read a book, the book tells about the state of the earth if there is no war and the world is peaceful. If Earth had no wars and natural disasters at all, that would have taken many lives. So it is certain that the population of the earth's human race throughout the world will be very large in number, and this is very serious if the maximum limit of the earth's capacity is so large, because many people need food, shelter, and other needs. Even if it is given to everyone it is not enough, I am very grateful that throughout history in the world, there have been many wars, in the end, many people died and in the end, the human population on earth was balanced, I agree that the population is limited so it is not full and the Ecosystem is Stable.

Sometimes you want to have fewer children because the cost of living is getting more expensive. Parents who want to provide the best for their children in the future, starting with food, education, shelter, and so on. It's a shame that so many children who instead of going to school end up becoming scavengers, instead of eating nutritious food when they grow up eat stale food and carbohydrates continuously.