Why don't sikhs increase their numbers , like muslims do ? Why are we so complacent ?

[Ranjeet01]

If you notice one thing in the west, the ones that produce the most are either the bottom of society - particularly the ones on welfare. Or it would be the elites of society where they could afford to have lots of kids.

However, it is the middle that doesn't. Sikhs tend to be the productive middle part of society.

I am sure many of us have our parents that came from large families.

One of the reasons for large families was because there used to be high infant mortality, so therefore to ensure against this families had lots of kids. Also, children were the pension pot for parents when they became elderly.

Now with improvements with innoculation against childhood diseases, there is much less child mortality which results in fewer kids.

 

 

[genie]

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

That's my thoughts on the subject summed up. For some reason that upsets a few people.

Crapping out a litter of feral little scrotes is somehow meant to translate into a superb fauj of Sikhs who somehow manage to embody all the qualities requires to navigate the tough terrain ahead of us. 

Muslims are NOT an example to aspire to. Their numbers mean NOTHING in the darbaar of the Lord.

Need both spiritual and temporal (political strength) Ie Miri puri as our 6th Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji taught us. Without political strength in numbers and military spiritual strength or quality is useless as you get wiped out by your enemies as history has shown us numerous times. And without spiritual strength your soul is doomed in cycle of life and death.

So both are needed to ensure we are in a good state for the future.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

12 minutes ago, genie said:

Need both spiritual and temporal (political strength) Ie Miri puri as our 6th Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji taught us. Without political strength in numbers and military spiritual strength or quality is useless as you get wiped out by your enemies as history has shown us numerous times. And without spiritual strength your soul is doomed in cycle of life and death.

So both are needed to ensure we are in a good state for the future.

Even among Muslims the group that has more children are unworking women; while those that work make less children. Each family should decide individually depending on whether they can afford those kids and who'll be taking care of them.

[Jonny101]

Alot of people assume that one kid equals high quality and healthy  while more kids equals low quality, malnutrition etc

But if we look at our ithihas, the reverse is true. During puratan times, when Sikhs had a lot of kids they were more religiously observant(which means high quality) and they were more physically fit than us. Now when we have only one kid, our parents fail to raise that kid as a Sikh(meaning low quality) and they also tend to be fat kids on average which is not healthy either. 

 

So here we are, today we are raising low quality and unhealthy fat kids when we have the lowest fertility rates in our history which is well below replacement level.  Meaning, in future our population will start to decrease because of this low fertility rate.

[Guest Jacfsing2]

4 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

Alot of people assume that one kid equals high quality and healthy  while more kids equals low quality, malnutrition etc

But if we look at our ithihas, the reverse is true. During puratan times, when Sikhs had a lot of kids they were more religiously observant(which means high quality) and they were more physically fit than us. Now when we have only one kid, our parents fail to raise that kid as a Sikh(meaning low quality) and they also tend to be fat kids on average which is not healthy either. 

 

So here we are, today we are raising low quality and unhealthy fat kids when we have the lowest fertility rates in our history which is well below replacement level.  Meaning, in future our population will start to decrease because of this low fertility rate.

I agree with this, but can understand why people might pick the other side, they might think it's too costly to raise extra kids especially in the diaspora.

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I agree with this, but can understand why people might pick the other side, they might think it's too costly to raise extra kids especially in the diaspora.

depends on attitude mostly , sure it could be a bill of hundreds of thousands or you could use your intelligence and not buy barrowloads of new toys and extras and concentrate on fewer high quality clothes products which can be use multiple times by multiple kids . I mean things like cots, carseats, clothing, prams/strollers ...etc  keep the money for later educational/other needs . 

[Ranjeet01]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/sunday-special/perspective/why-sikhs-ought-to-be-happy-not-worried/126229.html

According to this article the fertility of Sikhs in India is 3.1.

The replacement rate is 2.1.

I have no idea what the fertility rate in the west is for Sikhs are.

But surely it is above 2. Most Sikhs have at least 2 children.

My personal opinion is that Sikh families that tend to be larger are ones that are trying for a child of a particular sex.

I have seen plenty of families where there are 3/4 girls and 1 boy. The boy is usually the youngest.

I have also personally known 1 family that has 5 boys and that is because they keep trying for a girl and they keep having boys.

One of the common expressions you will  usually hear after a second child is born is "family is complete".

[jkvlondon]

On 20/03/2017 at 5:26 PM, Ranjeet01 said:

If you notice one thing in the west, the ones that produce the most are either the bottom of society - particularly the ones on welfare. Or it would be the elites of society where they could afford to have lots of kids.

However, it is the middle that doesn't. Sikhs tend to be the productive middle part of society.

I am sure many of us have our parents that came from large families.

One of the reasons for large families was because there used to be high infant mortality, so therefore to ensure against this families had lots of kids. Also, children were the pension pot for parents when they became elderly.

Now with improvements with innoculation against childhood diseases, there is much less child mortality which results in fewer kids.

 

 

be careful with the whole innoculation  thing , it is dumbing down and damaging the kids ...also long term effects of the 'preservatives'  mean infertility for both sexes.

[Ranjeet01]

6 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

be careful with the whole innoculation  thing , it is dumbing down and damaging the kids ...also long term effects of the 'preservatives'  mean infertility for both sexes.

There has been large push to reduce population.

For men overall, there has been a large decline in testosterone levels and sperm count.

However. you will probably know that the consequence of reduced fertility is the demographic imbalance where the over 65s have increased their proportion in society. This means that there will be less young working people to support an ageing population.

This results in older people having to work longer, pressures on the health system etc. I know in the UK, retirement age is 67 currently but I know there are reports which suggest this should go up to 70.

 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

There has been large push to reduce population.

For men overall, there has been a large decline in testosterone levels and sperm count.

However. you will probably know that the consequence of reduced fertility is the demographic imbalance where the over 65s have increased their proportion in society. This means that there will be less young working people to support an ageing population.

This results in older people having to work longer, pressures on the health system etc. I know in the UK, retirement age is 67 currently but I know there are reports which suggest this should go up to 70.

 

Maybe people are just less interested in having big families for whatever reason. The Muslims still reproduce regardless of their genetic ancestry, the bigger problem is marrying latter and our Panth repeating the same Anti-Sex that's been going on since Singh Sabha, now people are claiming that Dasam Granth mentions sexual things; when in reality the things it mentions are only what a father would tell his kids about it.