shiv wrote:Many of this latter group are burdened by brothers and sisters whom they need to care for and get involved in property disputes where a small plot owned by the father has to be divided between 6 children making it relatively worthless. So they see the ideal of just one or two children knowing that they can get a much better life for those children and leave their children a far larger share of property that they may acquire. So these people are dharmic in wanting to look after their children's future but are still going against the recommendation to have 6 kids.
I think for whatever reason the poorer Hindus make more kids, be it tradition, ignorance, or simply lust, we should be thankful, otherwise the demographics would be a skewed a lot more.
Property disputes in India and almost everywhere else happen simply because the parents are too stupid to lay out a just plan for property division early. Many of us may have been witness to it in our own families. But due external counselling for the parents at the right time can be quite useful.
Generations which used to have multiple siblings 3, 4, 5, and more are slowly now dying off, and I speak of this worldwide. People have been used to having relatives on visits and every now and then to see them at family functions, but quite often one tended to take them as given without really appreciating these bonds of blood relations. Generations growing up would just have one sibling living somewhere near or far, and they would be hard placed to look for emotional, logistical and financial support or even security. It is the older generations of uncles and aunts and cousins that give people a illusion that extended family relations are here to stay. They are not, unless one works for it.
So as parents what one can give one's children for posterity is really other brothers and sisters, and that is far more valuable than some little piece of property. Sooner or later the parents are going to go and it is one's brothers and sisters which would still give you the feeling that one has not been uprooted and left alone.
Western society too is having a good taste of loneliness. Old parents gone and no brothers and sisters. Wife was divorced some time ago and the lone child that one did have doesn't seem to call you more than twice a year!
Sometimes we take too many things as a matter of course, that we have a large family network, but once one's uncles and aunts start leaving, it would fragment, and the coming generations would simply not be having family support. Having just one brother or sister is quite risky. One doesn't know if something befalls him or her, or one has a fight with him or her, it would leave one totally devoid of sibling support.
shiv wrote:I think that it is the wealthy people who can afford it, who should be having more children because they are the ones who can absorb the financial stress which has become an inevitable accompaniment to more children. They will also be better able to see the logic behind your argument. How do you convince them to reject their love for WU?
The question is would the Elite want to change anything. It may be in their interest to keep it this way.
Where the West broke down all potential for revolutionary resistance from society by simply turning every individual into a freedom trance silo, China did the same very physically through its one-child policy. In China, how are any two people going to sit down and develop enough trust in each other to start a revolution against the CPC? There is no blood-bond to fall back on as a natural agent of trust! So for a greedy elite there are good selfish reasons to promote very small families of one or two children, or to promote unbridled selfishness among the populace, or to keep them high on party, booze and drugs, or to overload them with social apps and computer games! There is no fight left among the population to overthrow an oppressive system if the population is just a whole lot of individuals and not a network of blood and marital-relations. The same weakness would be there when we have to face the Islamic onslaught.
At the moment Bharatiyas are just sedated by secular ideology, but we still have cohesion which comes from blood and marital relations. We cannot however take this cohesion for granted going forward. I say, this makes Dharma vulnerable!
Perhaps this "cohesion" in the populace can be mathematically modeled, depending on number of siblings.