To think pronatalists are on to something?

Until the next mass die off when Earth enters the next Ice Age. Assuming any living nonhuman creature makes it to the end of life on Earth (earliest around one billion years) is quite a leap. Going off-planet is the only way life can continue

And only humans have the potential for that. All living things on Earth will depend on that …. Life has been on Earth for 3 or 4 billion years but cannot survive much longer than one billion years from now

We can have more ethical lifestyles that don't do as much damage to the environment even with large families eg not flying, not driving, not eating meat.

Even if this made sense from an emissions standpoint (it doesn’t - an extra human massively outweighs every other emitting activity including flying, driving and eating meat), how many families are going to be signing up for this? You may know lots of large families living off the land, but every family I know with 3-5 kids is living a consumerist lifestyle - driving big cars, annual trips abroad, eating whatever they like.

I just think it’s an excuse when people make out that large families are all living ethically to offset their climate impact - they aren’t, and even if they were trying to, you can’t offset a whole new human by not going abroad once a year.

But who would care?

The earth would repair itself without us

Could be a virus like the mumps that only impacts male fertility.

I agree. There are many women in the world who have no ability to limit the size of their families, either because they have no access to contraception, or are prevented from using it for religious or cultural reasons. Sad really, as the lack of contraception has also enabled the uncontrolled spread of AIDS.

You're preaching to the converted here ( and in most of the world) You need to go to sub saharan Africa and tell women with little access to contraception or any benefits to financially support them or with any elder social care to stop having so many babies. They are the only ones doing it.

Good.

The overpopulation of this planet by humans is borderline unsustainable.

I didn’t say you were anti human.

Indeed- so you see that your earlier argument that is doesn’t make sense to be ‘precious’ (your word not mine) about the planet/climate change now- but not concerned that there will eventually be a mass extinction event that will end humans- is incorrect

I am not the anti-human one. I advocate for human thriving. It is those who say that the planet would be ‘better off’ without us that I say those words. Why are they so precious about a planet that is destined to be swallowed up by the sun in four billion years anyway (and devoid of life by about one billion years from now)

We can build better infrastructure now to prepare for CC indeed we already have — see Bangladesh success in lowering cyclone deaths.

Indeed- so you see that your earlier argument that is doesn’t make sense to be ‘precious’ (your word not mine) about the planet/climate change now- but not concerned that there will eventually be a mass extinction event that will end humans- is incorrect.

People being ‘precious’ about it now has improved things for people in Bangladesh NOW.

People in other countries are threatened by rising sea levels, fires, floods, food scarcity

Food scarcity is not as common as it was just a few decades ago. Death by the climate has dropped hugely, this despite the massive rise in population. Check Worldometer for climate deaths by year if you don’t believe me.

You can’t have it both ways- if CC can be managed through better infrastructure so that people in the next few generations aren’t threatened… then caring about it NOW is going to be necessary

We can build better infrastructure now to prepare for CC indeed we already have — see Bangladesh success in lowering cyclone deaths.

Exactly. We are animals- we evolved and are evolving. If the end of that journey is we accidentally kill ourselves off that is still the conclusion of our evolutionary process.

We have influenced the evolution of other animals- but that is also normal, just like lions existence has influenced the evolution of gazelles.

People in other countries are threatened by rising sea levels, fires, floods, food scarcity etc. Yes Britain isn’t at the coal face in some ways, but Britain isn’t the world.

They are not threatened though? Climate change is happening but it can ofc be managed through better infrastructure…

You can’t have it both ways- if CC can be managed through better infrastructure so that people in the next few generations aren’t threatened… then caring about it NOW is going to be necessary.

Evolution is just that though. Evolution. We have evolved brains complex enough for us to do whatever it takes to continue our survival as a species. Just as other species evolve in order to survive. In our case, that means we have developed brains big enough to invent medicines. We may be too clever for our own good and kill ourselves off with antibiotic resistance, and climate change and man made viruses, but that is also evolution.

It's more about their overall philosophy about being positive about wanting to parent more than 2.4 DCs.

Weren't the iPads and the neighbours doing the heavy lifting parenting?

Yes but it is argued that we have stalled natural evolution, certainly within our own species (modern medicine) and within the species that we use as food for example. Our actions have evolved some species for our own benefit but not for those animals…

Strongly suspect the hunter gatherers were rounded up and used as slaves to drag the stones to Stonehenge - many dying on route.

Weird neolithic event means there's now less dairy intolerance in white British than elsewhere would have favoured bell beakers who were herders. However some similarities between uk Celtic and Semitic languages could suggest some crossover. Stonehenge builders were from middle east.

The pro natalists were musk supporters thinking we will be able to colonise the stars so planetary limitations aren't of concern

Societies should devote more of their budgets to caring for the ageing- if they can find money to fight wars, they can find it to look after the elderly.

But that's exactly the issue - how can societies with shrinking working populations pay more and more for the increasing percentages of elderly?
It's all very well to say "we just need to fund x/y properly", but where will the money come from?
Fwiw, I find the couple in OP's article quite odd and I don't think an ever increasing population is the answer, but a rapid birthrate decline creates its own issues.

The order goes from Western Hunter Gatherer (eg Cheddar Man) who were gradually (and iirc somewhat violently) displaced by Anatolian farmers, the Neolithic megalith builders. They in turn are replaced by the Bell Beakers in the Bronze Age

Totally agree with this, we are living in time poverty.

integration of the Neolithic and Beaker peoples was not a violent event

It is very hard to imagine how 100% of the male DNA was replaced by the newcomers. They don’t have a good explanation, I assumed violence, so maybe a bit of a leap I admit. Could have been plague (but doesn’t account for the gender discrepancy)

Hang on, I thought the Beaker people were late Neolithic rather than early Bronze age??