UKC

Listening to the BBC today it has been reporting on the numbers of working parents who's income doenst allow them anything other than a most basic of lifestyle and many are struggling to make ends meet.

The biological desire between a loving couple to have children is immense however our natural instincts to have children evolved from a time when only the strongest in the group would either have the opportunity to foster offspring or the female would only select a partner who could protect the unit, behaviour seen all over the natural world.

Whilst a difficult question to ask, does a couple actually have a 'right' to a family.  Whilst some people may come into hardship after they have had children, do people already in difficult financial circumstances make the right choice in having children?

 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Some would say there's never a right time.

I think I would say it is quite clearly the wrong time if you are not financially stable *and* you are not willing to make sacrifices for your children, though.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If everyone stopped at two, I wouldn't mind how many had their own children.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Does anyone, whether in financial hardship or not?

In other threads you will find much hand wringing about the desire to live a sustainable lifestyle by foregoing such things as long distance flights, reducing use of plastic packaging etc.

All these things, however, pale in comparison to the ecological burden placed upon the environment by exponential growth of the human population. I wonder how many middle class families are bragging about their solar panels over the dinner table while feeding three or more offspring?

You can't ask human beings not to be human, though. It's not so much a right, it goes much further than that.

 

In reply to Neil Williams:

 There's a big difference between "a right" and "the right time"

 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't think any couple should or could be stopped from having a family but at the same time I don't believe it is necessarily a duty for society to be neutral about having a view on having children.

We could, as China did, not provide free education and health care for more than X children to encourage population control. I hesitate to say we should not automatically support children when their parents cannot, regardless of how financially reckless they may have been.

In reply to planetmarshall:

'All these things, however, pale in comparison to the ecological burden placed upon the environment by exponential growth of the human population.'

Then you'll be very pleased to know that that era is coming to an end. Increased prosperity and medical care, availability of contraceptives and above all, the empowerment of women is bringing down the birthrate and if current trends continue or accelerate the population will be going into decline, from memory sometime between 2050 - 2070.

All credit to Bill and Melinda Gates, among many others, for recognising that Malthus was plain wrong, and that looking after women and children was the best way to a sustainable future.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don't think you can or should be able to stop people from having children but couples should act responsibly when deciding whether or not to have one or more kids. By which I mean they should seriously consider whether or not they have the means to raise that child in an environment of acceptable quality.

I also would support the idea of stopping or reducing state help to families who have more than two children they clearly can't support as a way of encouraging this. Think of it as an environmental tax or just a tax on social responsibility.  After all, it's the choice many couples have to make all the time.

There are plenty of responsible couples out there who have fewer children than they would like because of finical limitations, if everyone acted in this way then we'd have far fewer social problems. 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

if there is no "right" for some random poor couple then there is no "right" for any couple however well off.  Reproduction is best seen as an imperative and if you deny the right based on economic criteria you take away your own right by some other criteria.

 

The question of a "right choice" is imponderable

In reply to Phil1919:

I would because it would be the eventual end of the species even if every couple did!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Well currently l guess society has decided that people have the right to try for a family (i.e. have children). But who knows if in the future this will change? Some countries, like Russia and Japan, are actively encouraging more children, make of that what you will.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Turn the argument around - if some people were to be denied the right to have children how would that be enforced?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Indeed that era is ending - but it’s the combination of birth rates and life spans that sets population growth, and medical research is chipping away at curing or at least significantly delaying death, as well as extending a person’s healthy time alive.  We’re in the early days of this - max lifespan hasn’t really changed in centuries, it’s just that more people live to it.

There’s no fundamental reason why people should die however.  Perhaps one very distant day they won’t...

In reply to wintertree:

That might please the animal kingdom!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Not what the UN thinks:

https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-pro...

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

 

They've been doing it since the agricultural revolution got started

 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

No one has the right to have children as such.  Do I think people should have children they can't afford, no.  

I'd prefer to see a more sensible balance between a system that protects children from poverty whilst not paying people more to have children.  

However there is so much difficulty for many young people to afford housing at all these days.   It's all a bit of a mess.  

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I think the unintended consequences of controlling reproductive eligilbity are huge - messing with individual freedom at such a level would grossly distort a relatively free society in an ugly direction.

A clutch of such cases are decided each year in the UK by the Court of Protection (I think that’s its name).  These are for extreme circumstances and give pause for thought.

Often, no.  They don’t even have to be in difficulty - just sailing close to the wind. I work with people with multiple degrees and professional wages.  Some of them have so little savings and significant mortgages such that’s I can’t imagine myself planning children in their circumstances.  If people can’t sacrifice lifestyle to make robust, defensible base to raise a family on...

But who hasn’t made bad choices in their life?  I’m happy to pay taxes for safety nets for the children of those making bad choices.  I don’t resent doing this as I think it is better than the alternatives of messing with reproductive rights or allowing some children to suffer.

However, if we continue to treat people as resources for exploitation by the “finance industry” and don’t get a lot more basic sense into a lot of people, the status quo I fear will not be sustainable.

In reply to wintertree:

But it will bring on the eventual end of the species if population isn't controlled. We could of course relax our attitude when down to the last few of us. But imagine having enough houses already built for a stable population. 

In reply to pasbury:

The way China did it was, as someone else has said, to provide no benefits for any more than one child - no free education etc.

Another way would be a fine (presumably levied against both parents, or in the case of rape only the man as well as the penalties for rape itself) or prison.

But one would have to be careful not to disadvantage the child as they didn't choose to be born.

(For the record I don't support this)

In reply to Phil1919:

Yes, once we get back to 3 billion we can start thinking about having bigger families.

In reply to marsbar:

I am sorry, but can I ask, why not? "Right" as in the thread title means "entitlement", or more fully, "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". Some people on this thread seem to understand the word differently

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I don’t know about the right to have children, but we definately need people to have children. Personally, the desire to be a parent was never all that strong, certainly not strong enough to overcome the desire for more selfish pursuits. I’m a stepparent these days, it’s great and I’m more than happy to contribute financially and with time, but on reflection I’m glad that she is approaching adulthood and not a much younger child.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I do think it is completely irresponsible to have children when you cant support yourself, ive seen it countless times, couples, usually very young, having kids they simply cannot afford.

I think if you are dependent on other people, your parents the state or whoever then no you should not have kids, absolutely not.

 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I found that once my husband and I had been married for a couple of years, people started asking if we were going to have kids. A really insensitive question I think, and I am always amazed that people feel it's ok to do that. Anyway, we have no such intentions (Well, we may look to adopt in the future, but no plans to reproduce ourselves.). A friend asked us about it one day and when I said that I didn't want kids, I felt like I was being judged for it. I followed on to say that even if we did want kids, with me being freelance in the outdoors, it's not financially viable. I was shocked when my friend (Well educated and always worked) said that we should just have kids and claim benefits!! I couldn't believe anyone would suggest that!

I didn't follow their advice!

In reply to Lord_ash2000

You're deluded if you believe that the type of disincentive you propose would stop all the kids being born into families that can't support them. People's circumstances change, and people don't act rationally in this way. Your policy would ensure that those children who are born into families unable to support them would be left with nothing. What's going to happen to these kids? 

You want the disincentive effect, but you seem to want to ignore the result that kids won't have sufficient food to eat. That's not helping social problems, that's creating really bad 3rd world ones. You don't deliberately cause children to starve as a warning to irresponsible parents in any civilised society. 

That's true, you just haven't thought of a sensible way to encourage people to make those decisions. What we want is a society in which people can in general afford to have kids : if there are only a small number who need state support, then it's no big deal to provide it. 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

So two people working full time can't afford a family and the problem is the choice of having kids, not the low wages?

Seems arse about face to me.

In reply to wintertree:

See that doesn't bother me. I'd be happy for humans to die out, five another species a chance... 

In reply to XXXX:

Could be argued low wages are also a choice....

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I see what you're saying, but just saying everything would be better if we just made everyone rich is not really adding anything to a solution. We'd solve most of the countries problems if everyone had loads of money, but unless you've got a plan to achieve that (thus making you the greatest economist of all time) then it's a bit useless. 

So given that we can't just make everyone well off, how would you square the circle? Everyone as free individuals has the right to reproduce, but many people shouldn't or shouldn't yet. For the sake of themselves, the unborn children's futures and society at large. I would say, everyone has the right to have children, but they do not have the right to expect others to pay for them.

So how do we discourage certain groups from reproducing? If we say benefits stop after two kids, then surely knowing the inevitable hardship their current children would face if they had a third or fourth child would be enough to make any sane person consider the consequences of going ahead with another child. And no one is going to literally stave here, they might have to majorly economise and cut back elsewhere but basic calories cost pence. 

It may sound a bit harsh but these are very real choices working families have to deal with all over the country all the time, how many third children do you think don't exist because sensible parents know it would have been too expensive to raise one?  

 

In reply to Removed User:

Should we perhaps support the children of financially reckless parents via vouchers or pre-paid cards of some sort to ensure funds are spent on suitable food, clothing etc?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I would rather that society accept that I don't want to have children by those who have made the life style choice so have kids. It is none of their business, which doesn't stop people saying "oh you will change your mind one day!". Just because you did, it doesn't mean I will make the same bad life decisions. I have recently taken to telling people I have promised my first spawn to a witch and don't want to make good on the deal.

Edit to say I would also like for my work place to stop discriminating against me for wanting to take time off in the summer because people with spawn want the summer months off too, and they take priority.

In reply to profitofdoom:

If we had the absolute right to have  children then unlimited ivf would be available on the NHS regardless.  

If we had the absolute right, then no children would be removed by the courts.  

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

My point is that we should create policies with the aim of better wealth distribution, rather than the aim of discouraging people to have children. 

It's not a valid policy aim, because any such disincentive is felt most by the child. 

As I said, you're deluded in your belief that people will respond to the disincentive the way you want them too. Life's not like that. People don't weigh up the economic pros and cons, they very often get pregnant and then have to decide what to do. You can say "they shouldn't", but no one cares what you think they *should* do. You have to ask, what will happen? 

So you don't think that a kid raised without sufficient money in the pot is going to be undernourished? On the one hand you're saying that kids are expensive, on the other you're saying they cost pence. The whole point is that it costs to bring up a child, and if you don't have the resources, then you can't feed and clothe them adequately. 

And many make the decision responsibly. We're talking about people who make the wrong decision, and you're solution is to make the whole family live in absolute poverty as a lesson to others. 

What I think is that the cost of paying out the benefits is a lesser cost than children being born into absolute poverty where they will have terrible life chances and create the next round of social problems as they grow up. 

You seem to think that you can cause people to live in absolute poverty and then they'll learn how to make better decisions and then the problems will go away. That's not how the world works. If you create social problems like child poverty with terrible policies, then you spend decades afterwards dealing with the consequences of people growing up in shit circumstances. It's beyond obvious. 

 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I’m in two minds about this. On the one hand, I’m firmly in agreement with ‘Can’t feed them? Don’t breed them’. At the same time, we are currently trying for our first baby whilst earning a modest income (about £45k joint PA), and know that it’s going to make us struggle, but I don’t feel any sort of entitlement to government funding to help us out. It’s our choice to have children, therefore we should bear the financial burden.

I get that no child should suffer for the poor choices of their parents, but it does grind my gears when people think that they are entitled to breed as much as they want then expect the state to fund their poor choices. If there’s no disincentive to stop breeding irresponsibly, the situation won’t change  

Also, considering the state of overpopulation & resource depletion, a breeding limit is an excellent idea. Any more than 2 sprogs is unnecessary, selfish and should be actively discouraged. 

In reply to ceri:

I'd rather not risk that. What if the human brain is evolutionally so unlikely that that no other species in our universe, let alone our galaxy or planet ever gets anywhere near general relativity or the standard model and that extraordinary knowledge dies with us. And that's not to mention Shakespeare, Mozart etc.......

In reply to Robert Durran:

Why would any of that be an issue? We aren’t doing anything with any of the things you mentioned that aren’t selfish strictly to the human species.

There are strong arguments to be made for the earth being a lot better without us! 

In reply to Fozzy:

At first glance 45k seems quite comfortable to me? If you have a mortgage I guess that eats into it, and one's lifestyle - choice of holidays and material goods does too (no judgements implied ).

I guess the 'magic bullet' would be something which discouraged the parents without impacting upon any children too. 

It depends on how things work out, I guess, if an average of 2 children per family is needed to keep population levels from declining, then if some families have 3, and some families have 1, in the bigger picture it can even out. I'm 1 of 3 boys, but I've no plans to have children, and not much of a desire to, and 1 brother has only 1 and his wife can't have anymore (she's too old), and my other brother has 2.  The question can remain, it seems, of how does one limit child numbers without negatively impacting on innocent children.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

I think that sort of knowledge transcends a mere single species. It may be unique to any life on earth that might ever exist before the sun dies, or even the universe for all we know.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If another species doesn't come across the knowledge and art, they're not going to miss it though.  

Probably.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

No, there aren't any. The Earth doesn't care. At all. 

The idea it would be better off without us is just another human construct.

 

In reply to Timmd:

Economic development does that.

It happened here in the UK. For example here in the uk my grandmother had 10 siblings, my mother had 5 siblings and I have 2. 

 

In reply to Fozzy:

Sorry but I don't believe you. There's no way on Earth you'll be returning your child benefit, refusing your free childcare hours and returning your child tax credits if you're entitled to them.

 

In reply to Timmd:

I actually think that fewer, larger families might be a more efficient way to raise children.

Larger families reuse things like cots and high chairs and prams and car seats.  

In reply to marsbar:

So can all families if some folk weren't so obsessive about having everything new. Lots of stuff we've used must have been to at least 3 families by now. Decent kit lasts longer than the time needed for them to grow out if it. 

In reply to Siward:

I’d have to disagree. Every other species on the earth, from viruses up to whales are interconnected with negative and positive feedback loops: if a virus is too fatal and kills its hosts too quickly, then it can’t spread fast enough  and won’t be able to replicate further. overconsumption of a species’ chosen food (wolves and deer for example) leading to a shortage, starvation and a subsequent reduction in population. 

Through extractivism, technology and especially farming we have uncoupled ourselves from many of these feedback mechanisms. 

As such by ‘better’ I meant ‘back in balance’. 

In reply to GoneFishing111:

Precisely, they are the choice of each and every one of us that seeks out cheap goods and services in order to further our own selfish lifestyle.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The science is only discovery of the natural laws of the universe. I was fascinated to read recently that bird’s sense of direction comes from quantum entanglement. 

As for the art, the very best of it drew inspiration from nature. 

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Only?! What is your point? Are you amazed that the universe seems intelligible or not? And that the human brain can appreciate that fact and probe those laws at both quantum and cosmological scales?

Again, not sure what your point is? Are you agreeing with me that our understanding of this sort of stuff is truly awesome or not? You do seem to be a bit in awe!

Again, not sure what your point is........

 

In reply to Arms Cliff:

I don't think you've thought this through very well, have you?

The idea that there is, or ever was, some sense of 'balance' in nature is just plain wrong. It's a constantly evolving and chaotic jumble of processes temporarily and hopelessly resisting the inevitable consequences of the laws of thermodynamics.

'Balance' is just a romantic fallacy.

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Surely the Earth as a blasted piece of scorched rock would still be 'in balance'.

An appreciation of the wonderful web of life is a human appreciation. Without a conscious appreciation of it it ceases to be good or bad or nice- these are all human-centric concepts.

On another note, what if the natural consequence of any planet with complex life upon it is intelligent life, which of itself will result in the intelligence doing its best to overcome environmental obstacles and, perhaps, subjugating the environment? Looked at thus a species capable of 'decoupling' itself from its planet is just as much a natural phenomenon as bees making honey.

 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes in the end we are all dust floating in the vacuum of an uncaring universe. I was specifically talking about the processes of feedback that exist on this planet to limit every other species, that we have stepped outside of by (amongst other things ) using power from hydrocarbons, medicine and farming (particularly fertiliser). 

 

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Except that humans just might have the ingenuity to engineer a sustained local decrease of entropy on earth to resist chaos.

In reply to Removed User:

That was my thought.

In reply to Siward:

it's not that it's good or bad (red in tooth and claw) it's that the 'wonderful web of life' seemed to be cracking on ok for a few billion years with larger (asteroids, volcanoes) and smaller (ice ages) feedback loops changing and controlling populations of various species.

Indeed, and with the estimated 40 billion earth like planets out there there does seem to be a decent likelihood of another intelligence out there somewhere, perhaps they're doing a better job than us. (Obviously that's just me seeing things through my human lens again, the intelligent life could be some sort of space whale or whatever).

 

In reply to Fozzy:

the problem is inequality of income, not people wanting to exercise the right to pass on their genes conferred by existence.  After all, natural selection is not a fair fight like cricket if you are in a poor position and you have every right to compete for the next generation.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think it would take a long time to fully elucidate my thoughts around the subject, so apologies, I will bow out of this discussion. A state of wonder seems to be natural for humans. 

In reply to wercat:

Surely that’s going against the very principle of evolution & natural selection though? Those incapable of providing suitable conditions for breeding don’t get to do so and pass on their genes, leading to the fittest surviving. 

In reply to Fozzy:

?? Where are you going with this...?

In reply to Fozzy:

Maybe we should legalise rape to get the full benefit of natural selection.........

In reply to timjones:

I think while having the ability to plan and think ahead, humans can be quite 'reactive' to their situations or animal like about seeking out comfort and avoiding hardship by the most direct route, which probably means that an individual is often going to go for the cheaper goods and what have you. To my shame, I've done that when in TK Maxx and convincing myself that a down jacket which probably wasn't ethically sourced was at the end of it's line in appearing in TK Maxx, and would just be reduced enough for it to clear if I didn't buy it/if it didn't sell at it's current price. I might have been right, but deep down I think I just wanted the cheap down jacket.  Probably in a lot of areas we can tend to seek out 'instant comfort', and it takes self control not to because it's more effort to be ethical - it can be something which requires constant attention.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

That maybe those who aren’t the most suitable type of person to become a parent (feckless irresponsible eejits who can’t exist without government support) shouldn’t be breeding & creating the next generation of feckless eejits. 

In reply to Fozzy:

There's a lot of things in the world that shouldn't happen.

In reply to Fozzy:

So....we just leave the innocent children of 'feckless eejits' to suffer and starve and let survival of the fittest take care of things?

I read in New Scientist that from a 'passing on DNA' point of view, it actually does make sense for young people living in harsh circumstances to have children while they are younger, and more able/likely to reproduce, and if their life expectancy is lower too. It might mean that their children get born into the same grimness, but the deep biological urge to pass on one's DNA is what is strongest, meaning that children can tend to be born 'while the going is good' - or before things have the chance to get any worse at least. 

If it was any other species than humans, the same rule would apply, that children are born sooner in less stable/more challenging circumstances, and even with our intellect and capacity to reason, we are essentially animals still.

Edit: It's from New Scientist, so don't shoot the messenger.  

Edit 2: This seems to suggest that the environments of deprivation (and fewer life prospects which stem from them) need to change before the behaviour will do, or that the life prospects of people from deprived areas need to be increased at least.

In reply to marsbar:

I am sorry but I do not follow your logic there. "Right" as in the thread title means people have the right, which means they are entitled (allowed) to do something, morally or legally. How does it follow that the NHS would provide "unlimited ivf"? It looks like you are saying that if people are entitled (allowed) to have children, then the NHS must provide unlimited ivf - that is not the case

In reply to Timmd:

That's the way of the world, always has been,always will be  - deal with it!

 

In reply to subtle:

What on earth are you on about? Pretty much the whole of modern society is an attempt to prevent people starving and suffering, rather than allowing "survival of the fittest" to take its course. We spend billions on healthcare, we care for the disabled, for orphans, we protect people from predators in every possible sense...The world is simply nothing like that.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

In a lot of ways, it 'is' about survival of the fittest still, but in a lot of ways we've been trying to make it not so too.

 

In reply to subtle:

Don't exclaim in my direction - I know it is. Out of interest, are you comfortable with that?

 

In reply to Fozzy:

If they can find a way of passing the genes on then it matters not to whom the cost falls when the young are raised.   Like seeds the young can encounter stony or fertile ground.   The parents if working may not be feckless at all but just ill paid by a feckless society

In reply to Timmd:

No just sterilse the idiots before they breed too much.

Up until not that long ago evolutionary pressures would have taken a disproportionate toll on the offspring of negligent parents. Medical science and the welfare state has put paid to that in the first world.

In reply to Removed User:

That's not going to happen in a modern western country like our's though. What other possible approaches are there?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

50 years time we will have bred ourselves into a hole in the ground before then. Or bombed ourselves into a hole, or starved ourselves into a hole, or diseased ourselves into a hole.

Need a big hole but many will be in it and a few won't. 

It's being so miserable, wot makes me happy.

In reply to Moley: You randomly remind me of a 23 year old talking about taking the piss out of his older mate if he ended up going out with his mother (the 23 year old's), in how he'd be asking him 'Can I have an ice cream (Dad)? '.  A more cynical 23 year old I've never met, his world view was already dark.  

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

We would have far less social problems if we could reduce family break downs.

In reply to icnoble: well from experience in the past even extremely disfunctional families didn't break up because it was hopefully a contract for a better ( than very poor) life.  Society has changed, women can have jobs and so on so the pressure for this has gone.  Just wishing for it won't bring it back.

 

Given the complete dislike of children exhibited in this thread who exactly is going to pay for your pensions? Wipe backsides etc.? Or are we resetting retirement to 75 or so?

 

In reply to Timmd:

I wasn't advocating compulsory sterilisation, although when you hear about some people it is tempting.  Certainly in Scotland, not that long ago, women were still being incarcerated in mental hospitals for "moral turpitude" basically being a bit thick and getting pregnant. Thankfully we don't behave like that towards the less fortunate members of society these days.

My view is that society should not offer any financial assistance to support more than two children unless they are suffering real hardship. If they are then those children should be supported  as far as is necessary to allow them to have a decent and secure upbringing but nothing more than that.

In reply to Timmd:

Sorry, will refrain from exclaiming in your direction again.

Am I comfortable with the sentiment that "So....we just leave the innocent children of 'feckless eejits' to suffer and starve and let survival of the fittest take care of things?" then no, but then look at what we are doing to our own society, the "feckless eejits" (whoever deemed them thus) are still breeding and foodbanks are becoming the norm nowadays, there is a rise in zero hours contracts, the state pension age is being raised etc. so it seems not much has changed really and that it really is "survival of the fittest" unfortunatly.

In reply to Removed User:

How long ago was that?

Certainly Scotland does seem to have strange views, interring babies/children in detention centres like Dungavel yet its government still keen on immigration.

 

In reply to icnoble:

That is very true, but I don't see how the state would do that, families of all classes can break apart, although I accept it's probably those lower down the ladder who are likely to be least stable. 

For those proposing sterilisation, I don't think that would ever fly in the UK, however, some sort incentives for poor/young people to use long-term contraceptives such as those copper coil things or implants could be a good idea.

Just plucking some numbers out of the air you could give say an extra 15% on benefit claims for all women between 16-25 providing they stay on a long-term contraceptive. Obviously, you'd have to arrange it so the saving in child-related costs was greater than the overall benefit increase but I reckon it might work out well. 
 

In reply to subtle:

I was only joking.  

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I tend to agree with this. But you could argue that in evolutionary terms "the fittest" are not who you think they are - ie those best equipped to lead healthy and prosperous lives in modern society - but simply those who have the largest families. Often their "survival" strategy is successfully persuading the rest of us to subsidise the cost.

By the way, although I think we probably should take into account our understanding of evolution in our framing of public policy, it can lead (and has led) to some very dark places if we're not careful.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

I was thinking about the best equipped and I suppose that to have a number of children all with different approaches to life might explode into the future quite successfully - diversity and numbers