What if the many compelling reasons for "traditionally very large" families, are actually as relevant as ever?
Yes, there are historical/sociological reasons why most traditional cultures emphasized large families, and many still do. I don't think this is a good reason to actively encourage the maintenance of such a practice, however.
Then you must have not fairly considered all the practical reasons, and how most of them, are still quite relevant to the "huge" world population size of today. More and more people would be glad to live. Most everybody wants or ends up with having children. Promoting the natural flow of human life unhindered. Concerned about the possible "side effects" of shoddy and experimental "modern" methods of "birth control." It goes against nature. It favors too much problem socialistic and globalist modes of anti-freedom "control" of populations. "Religious objections." As the numbers of women of childbearing age naturally rises throughout many areas of the world, there's then no "need" to expand "family planning" to match, as babies can be welcome to naturally come out of more and more birth canals, and populate the planet faster and faster, so that all the more people may experience life, and the human race can naturally "blossom." And so on.
And people haven't considered near enough, that there are several practical reasons for the natural encouragement of large families, even in the "huge" human population size of today. It goes hand in hand with promoting family values and better respect for people and human rights. If we allow human numbers to go right on accumulating naturally, then we probably also have to allow for people to have decent places to live, decent family wage paying jobs, and so on. But if we allow the eugenics ideas of "limiting" natural family growth to go unchallenged, then that becomes a handy scapegoat for defending the corrupt status quo, and doing little or nothing for the "burgeoning billions" of people already here. "Family planning" becomes a handy cop-out, for not making already-needed improvements.
While I do think the overemphasis on overpopulation as a source of problems is misguided, I think that there is absolutely no way that the current consumption habits of people in the United States, especially, can be expanded to the world population.
That really isn't true, and promotes "old" ideas of conquest and colonialism, or "contraceptive imperilism." Actually, I say much the opposite. We see more and more of the world naturally growing so dense with people, that they should be adopting more "modern" methods of accomodating so many.
"The developing countries should become more like us, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should become more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist
One example of this that I often like to promote, is that I do agree with those who advocate that mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public. Because that's what's common in developing countries, where people often are still more pronatalist than we are. If more people are to be encouraged to let their families grow naturally, without the burdens of unnaturally contracepting, then I figure that babies must be more welcome, most anywhere that parents may go. And isn't a quite fed baby, preferable to a fussing crying baby? And with more people all around, populating more densely, is it really reasonable to expect some nice nursing room to be found nearby, as in many Churches? Even on cramped airplanes? I don't think so. People eat in public, and mothers don't want to be couped up in some dirty old tiny restroom, to care for their infants.
One thing that people in developing countries increasingly need, is electricity. Why? I have heard that electricity is sort of a form of contraceptive, because what else is there to do in dark villages at night, but make more babies? But that's not the reason. The pro-life side of that, would be turning on lights at night, to change the baby's or babies' diapers. What they need electricity for, is because of respiratory problems people are having, with huddling around millions of smoky cooking fires in growing cities. Burning trash, wood, or dung to cook food. Surely there must be a better way? Aha! There is. Modern gas or electric cookstoves and microwave ovens. Modern appliances such as that, do the job so much better, control just the right amount of heat, right where it's neededwithout smoke! Just what growing and increasingly densely populated cities would seem to need, to reduce rising concentrations of air pollution.
Growing families may also need larger homes, so as to not be too cramped. And better-paying jobs. Well all that, points to the more "modern" ways already popularized by the developed West.
Now I would agree with questioning some of our "consumptive" practices, but would disagree with the stupid condescending notion, that an increasingly populous world can't also be more "modernized." In fact, more population is fine and great, but more population + more poverty, really is not the ideal combination.
So I think the first priority should be the wealthy countries reforming their economics from inflationary to sustainable practices, and encouraging sustainability in the developing countries. As the general well-being of the people improves, there will be a tendency to slowing population growth. But I think with the deployment of technology and smart planning, the carrying capacity of the planet for human population is actually much higher than the glib assumption based on the notion that everyone has to be able to consume as wastefully as Americans do now.
With 4 or 5 babies being born worldwide, a second, we don't have the "luxury" of "first priorities." It's all already happening. Developing countries already are gaining in population size, as they are simutaneously modernizing. Sure, developing countries may benefit by being able to skip perhaps, some of our past "polluting" steps in the process, and copying the better or cleaner technologies of today. I am not at all interested in the phony contraceptive-induced "demographic transition" theory of slowing population growth. Rather, I would love to see technology better applied, to better promote and support, our naturally "high" birthrates, and go on encouraging natural family growth worldwide. We should work on breaking up the greedy oil corporation stranglehold on gasoline price-gouging, as people in China and India have just as much right to drive cars as we do, and I deeply resent the communist/enviro-radical economic trend towards making overpriced medical care/insurance, and driving cars, increasingly a priviledge reserved only for the rich.
Human population growth is beautiful, for it allows all the more people to experience life, and so let the growing human race "blossom."
