You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521
Interesting and worrying. We can't go on growing unsustainably but this suggests we are heading for a very painful turn around. Something else to worry about for our kids!
Lots to think about but one thing they comes to mind is it feels at times my wife is looked down upon for choosing to, at the moment, be a full time mum to our kids. If attitudes like that are widespread I can see a big blocker for bigger families. Do we need to respect the family far more?
Good.
Note there is a difference between fertility and fertility rate.
If you know somone who is genuinely looking down on your partner, as you put it, I would respectively suggest they get an attitude adjustment fast or they do not deserve to be a part of your life.
Really poor writing in that piece - what does "more than halve" mean?! And "by the end of the century" is a hell of an extrapolation given we're currently one fifth of the way through.
That said, it's no surprise that fertility rates are falling; as women are more supported in pursuing careers, the age at which they have their first child is increasing, and the chances of subsequent children dropping.
On the plus side, if you're looking for a career in the medical space, fertility treatment is a growing space right now and for the foreseeable future!
and time to get the Barry white LPs on the turn table perhaps 😉
Waderider, I'm generally for an end to the growth of the population, but a decrease needs to come with a soft landing, I can't see the crash that article postulates being anything other than very very painful.
+1 good
Far too many humans on the planet as it is...
I had a jaw dropping crash in fertility 10 years ago.
A weekend on the couch with tight pants and a bag of frozen peas and I was back at work on Monday.
It raises important questions and its not automatically a good thing, the population age profile will be skewed with massive aged population needing to be supported by a much smaller active population.
So there will need to be what ? Forced euthanasia , national "service" for females to produce
increased intensive farming and resource exhaustion to mine rare minerals to build care robots.
This along with climate change pushing the populous to migrate north will bring great change.
Whereas, as a woman who has decided to not have children (after much, much soul searching), I am looked down upon selfishly taking another route in my life...
Societal pressure as a woman in her 30s is just huge, and horrid - for both mothers, and non mothers.
Note there is a difference between fertility and fertility rate.
Indeed, otherwise we really would be heading for Handmaid's Tale style dystopia, given that all the other elements are in place. 🙂
Forced euthanasia @80 would get my vote
Unless you are currently aged 79 I do not think you are in a position to promote that idea.
Off the wall idea maybe but instead of thinking of old people as a burden why don't value our older people, treat them with dignity and respect and plan for, and fund, a high value world leading social care system that allows people to enjoy their last few years of life whilst still contributing to the society that they helped build? Bonkers eh?
Another good from me, maybe Humans have a chance of survival after-all.
Population grown is a huge problem, far bigger than a 'fertility crash'
I mean, look at this:
Around the time of my Kids birth, global population was around 7bn, around the time of mine, around 4bn, my parents, 3bn and my Grandparents, 2bn,
Even based on this 'terrible' news we'll reach around 10bn in 24 years roughly when my Kids will be thinking about Kids of their own I'd guess. It won't be until 2100, when most of us will very likely be dead that it will 'fall' to 8.8Bn.
At the start of the Covid crisis I dared to mention that a reduction in population would be a silver lining, I was called all sorts of horrible things, Humans have no stomach for letting people die, so unless we want to over populate ourselves out of existence (and take the rest of the planet with us) we have to reduce the birth rate.
The only problem to over-come is our obsession with borders, look at the article, it's the developed countries that will suffer because they have too many old people and too many young. They face a choice, either allow people to move into their countries to look after them, or suffer as the cost of being old raises exponentially.
...lower fertility rate poses challenges for economies. Counties boom when ratios of young to old (as in working versus non-working adults) are high, and the young are well educated: Germany and Japan after WW2, China now, Nigeria soon. they stagnate a bit when this turns round: Japan recently, us now, Germany soon, but on global level we're ahead of the curve.
Gapminder website is brilliant for all this, and may even give grounds for optimism... https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-reliable-is-the-world-population-forecast/
If there are fewer younger tax payers, there will be less tax income for the NHS to keep the larger number of older people going, so the problem will resolve itself 😎
Overall a good thing potentially for the planet, but as others have said, the economic and care implications are huge and costly
+1 good
You do realise that it will cause massive social upheaval and make life hugely difficult for people who are now young, right? I'm not advocating carrying on expanding and consuming forever, but likewise you can't just base your views on misanthropy.
Having children (in the West) has become a 'luxury' - as living standards rise the desire/ need to procreate seems to fall off and having more than one child becomes unusual. The third world will eventually follow suit.
For dystopian world-view enthusiasts this will only be seen as a good thing (then off they trot for another self-flagellation/ self-hating session). I'm not so sure, as a humanist I celebrate our success as a species and hope that we will continue to thrive and maybe even survive the next extinction event.
Forced euthanasia @80 would get my vote
Logan’s reasonably brisk walk?
I think it was off to carousel at age 35 in Logan's run, that would certainly tidy this place up a bit
So basically the R number for the human race is going to fall below 1 soon. We will gradually disappear. Bad news for COVID19 - it will have to find a new host.
The problems that are envisaged with changing age demographics will only become reality if a small percentage of the human race continue to horde all the wealth.
no surprise that fertility rates are falling; as women are more supported in pursuing careers, the age at which they have their first child is increasing,
The biggest issue with that assumption is that it self-selects which couples are choosing to wait and have less kids. That has major implications for society too, as this brief documentary explains:
That 'idiocracy' seems very close to the truth!
I am willing to do my bit. My sperm are like a gazillion percent ready.
Also limiting number of kids per couple preferable over forced euthanasia.
Doubt it'll end up like 'Children of men' any time soon, as said worlds overpopulated as it is TBH.
Me and the wife tried for a kid for years on and off, never happened though despite both being fertile.
That ‘idiocracy’ seems very close to the truth!
If you haven't seen it then I recommend it. It is less of a film, more of a sadly-accurate prophecy.
Idiocracy is looking more and more like a warning than a comedy as the years go by.
I think it was off to carousel at age 35 in Logan’s run, that would certainly tidy this place up a bit
A bit? There would be about three people left in here!
Also limiting number of kids per couple preferable over forced euthanasia.
Old people cost money, young people generate money* and economic growth. So more kids needed for there to be less justification for euthanasia
(As a parent of three increasingly less young adults - my attempt to avoid Logan's brisk hobble - my personal experience runs exactly counter to this...)
Interestingly UK's population only remains relatively young due to immigration, much like Germany.
Whilst European countries are due a massive reduction in population, Africa's is due to triple.
value our older people, treat them with dignity and respect and plan for, and fund, a high value world leading social care system that allows people to enjoy their last few years of life whilst still contributing to the society that they helped build? Bonkers eh?
Because it costs shit loads to provide and very few want to pay for something so far off nor for something they're not going to benefit from directly.
I've not got kids, nor have any intention of having any. I'm sure I'm not alone in being loathe to pay for a future generation that I'm not emotionally involved with.
The population decline is also going to expose the capitalist / consumerist economy built upon the premise of continued growth. Maybe the system will adapt.
Happiness index rather than GDP.
Whereas, as a woman who has decided to not have children
'You'll change your mind!'
My wife and I got told that so many times, so don't feel like it was just you. She also felt heavily judged and hated it.
We are both into our 40's and have felt this way since our 20's. I can't see us switching views any time soon.
I’m sure I’m not alone in being loathe to pay for a future generation that I’m not emotionally involved with.
You're not.
You're currently paying for the generation which came before you. I assume you had parents and grandparents and so on.
It's the future generation that you're not emotionally involved with that will need to pay for you.
+1 for it being brilliant news.
As well as slowly starting to see a slow in the exponential growth of human numbers, it also shows a societal change in that women have the ability to progress their careers and much more of a choice as to what they want to do with their lives.
Yes, it will present issues with an aging population but the other option of continued growth (or even a maintenance of 2070 population levels) would not be sustainable.
Yeah, I don't see how this is a bad thing. Children are environmentally disastrous so a reduction can only be a good thing. I know "the economy blah blah" but the planet doesn't really give a shit about money. People might but if the environment goes fully downhill everyone will die and the money will be useless then anyway.
You’re not.
You’re currently paying for the generation which came before you. I assume you had parents and grandparents and so on.
It’s the future generation that you’re not emotionally involved with that will need to pay for you
That's kinda my point.
I'm not keen on paying for the current older generation. I'm sure when I'm old the kids that are being born now will feel the same.
My parent's generation had it real good. For the most part they had secure jobs, affordable housing and decent pensions. Our generation will no doubt be viewed in a similar vein by the next.
I’m not keen on paying for the current older generation
So your not really keen on paying for anyone then?
My parent’s generation had it real good. For the most part they had secure jobs, affordable housing and decent pensions.
....parents who had the decency to die in their sixties or seventies....
I’m not keen on paying for the current older generation.
Why not?
For the most part they had secure jobs, affordable housing and decent pensions.
If they have pensions then you are paying for them. That's how pensions work. Your economic activity is what creates their money - and yours too.
People might but if the environment goes fully downhill everyone will die and the money will be useless then anyway.
You sound like a 16 year old who's just learned about the environment.
Money can be useless with or without environmental quality. Likewise the environment can be managed for better or worse with more or less population. If you really cared more about nature than humanity you'd be working out how to kill as many people as possible before killing yourself - but I'm fairly confident you're not.
The population needs to level or decline slowly. But if it halves in a lifetime, that will cause absolutely huge social issues. And by 'social issues' I mean everyone being much poorer than they are now, both old and young. And by poorer I don't just mean having a smaller TV or a VW instead of an Audi, I mean having far fewer opportunities to live a good fulfilling life.
I'm lost.
Overpopulation apocalypse is now becoming the lack of children apocalypse?
As populations become more developed then it's always shown that people have less children. This is a good thing because it will self regulate the world's population eventually. Even areas now where people have many children will hopefully catch up in development terms in a generation or two.
The curve, to use a current term, is flattening out and so tending towards a max population and then even decreasing.
There is a reason that the over population scaremongering has gone quiet.
Overpopulation apocalypse is now becoming the lack of children apocalypse?
Overpopulation has already happened and the lack of children apocalypse is just a massively pessimistic bit of maths.
As molgrips says, it is the speed of decline rather than the decline itself. A gradual decline over 500 years would not really be a bad thing.
oldtennisshoes
Forced euthanasia
@80 would get my vote
I think you'll find the current govt's Covid policies has that covered.
Rather than forced euthanasia for older people who have made their contribution to society, why don't we have a nice war and funnel loads of sexually active conscripted younger people into the killing fields? That will have a major effect on fertility rates especially if we make sure women get equal rights to participate.
However a better solution is that we euthanise anyone who thinks killing people for fun or profit or ideology is a good idea. Oh...
But of course, we'll exempt the special people like ourselves...
The curve, to use a current term, is flattening out and so tending towards a max population and then even decreasing.
Well no, the point of the article is that it's falling off a cliff rather than just easing up slowly.
Forced euthanasia
@80 would get my vote
How did you come up with 80?
If you support murdering people based on age then 60 would be the age to do it. The age where passing the line between giver (working, paying taxes) and taker (pensions, healthcare, social care etc,.)
Aldous Huxley had it right in Brave New World. Live fit active healthy and productive lives until your mid-eighties, then keel over suddenly. None of that rotting away slowly in your old age. I think I'd prefer mid 120s to mid 80s though.
I think it was off to carousel at age 35 in Logan’s run
With the added bonus of chasing Jenny Agutter about.
It can't be anything other than a good thing. I doubt it'll come to pass but a significant levelling off will only be a plus.
Why do you say pensions are paid for by the next generation? Money is a universal negotiable good. In principle, you work, you save money or invest it a pension, then you use it to pay your living costs when you're no longer working. In the meantime your saved money is available for other people to borrow. State pensions may appear to be paid for by the current workers but that's only because the saved money is used by Government to reduce the state's debt.
Of course, it doesn't always work like that. Inequality means not everybody can afford to save for their old age, and some that could save choose not to.
To get back to the prospect of a declining population, spreading resources more uniformly would help. Nationalism and racism, both currently been encouraged by those who expect to benefit, need to be stamped out. A huge amount of resource is used up competing instead of co-operating. The economic unit has become larger as communications improve, but the pace of change is too fast for a stable community to evolve. Voluntary euthanasia does need legal mechanisms; yes, they will occasionally be abused, families may pressure people into it, but the current situation is that people who don't want to live are being kept alive at significant cost, and that money could keep others alive. Life is over-valued among the haves, and very cheap among the have-nots, worldwide.
It’s a good +1 from me
The economic costs if sticking to current systems are outweighed by the environmental (and economic) costs of not.