To think pronatalists are on to something?

And then what? Another unpopulated planet amongst billions of others?

But what is the problem with immigrants? They replace the non working population so evidently there is room.

just finished reading the full article and someone really needs to take those poor kids off them. utterly horrific people

Why do pronatalists give their kids weird fucking names?

Absolutely this.

I am reminded of the Great Horse Manure Crisis for more than one reason. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Great-Horse-Manure-Crisis-of-1894/

I scanned that article but my takeaway is that Simone is vulnerable and in an abusive relationship. She is autistic, has an eating disorder and has to have IVF to conceive. He hits his children for what seemed to be an accident.

Frightening 😟

The problem is inequality and distribution of wealth (lack thereof) globally.

That surprises me Pollipops1. I wonder if Collins will carry all ten pregnancies herself.

They're associated with a group who flirt with Nazism and "umbrella consent" sex parties, where the women attending sign a waiver to consent.

These far-right views seem to be gaining traction, certainly amongst the techbros of silicone valley.

It is a stupid cult - no better than the stupid religious cults that preach this nonsense. And the core beliefs are racist.
“the aims of pronatalists overlap with those of racist conspiracists who believe in the “great replacement theory” – the conviction that people of white European heritage are being demographically taken over by non-whites who have children at a faster rate.”

Quality not quantity.

The best policies any government could introduce to encourage more reproduction would be socialist ones. Caps on rents and house prices, limits on how much property one can own, subsidised/free childcare, higher wages as well as higher tax, shorter working hours and flexibility, and a cultural/societal shift for men to be equal, involved parents and for that to be a basic expectation. That would improve living standards for everyone.

That said, I’m not invested in the continuation of the human race and I don’t think it’s essential. I’m not saying we should all go and jump off a cliff but many other species become extinct (many by human intervention) so why shouldn’t we? Unless governments, billionaires and corporations drastically reduce their emissions and environmentally destructive practices the future planet won’t be a nice one to live on for your kids.

I don’t think we should be taking any advice from these people, about pronatalism or anything else, when they openly admit to hitting their tiny children in the face. I may only have one child, but I’m pretty sure she’s going to grow up happier and better adjusted than this couple’s massive army of abused kids.

I’m not crazy about pro-natalist policies as an infertile woman. My workplace is extremely family friendly, which essentially means that anyone without kids gets absolutely shafted.

The thread about improving wrap-around care has posters suggesting that childless people should be the ones working the split shifts running the sessions, making peanuts, as the parents are all too busy with their corporate jobs.

I don’t disagree that if politicians want more babies then they have to fix the obstacles to that, but I strongly suspect that women who can’t or won’t breed wouldn’t fare well in a society where those changes were made. Not everyone can have flexibility, it always comes at someone’s expense.

@Hagbard i think the couple in the article aren’t super pro surrogacy

There's plenty of life on earth. When the human race dies out the rest will still be here. The planet will be far from desolate

Mass extinction events are common, Earth has gone through several already. The rest will only survive until the next one.

why would the planet be desolate? it would just rewild. all other species would thrive. it would be amazing. it is our presence that will eventually make it desolate!

the other planets are not desolate because there are no humans (and there is no proof that NONE of them have life) its because of the environmental conditions.

Which neighbouring countries have a growing population (birth rate)? As far as I’m aware they’re facing the same demographic issues as the UK.

I suppose everyone has the right to their views, but aligning with a movement which promotes eugenics, technocracy, transhumanism and tradwives seems extreme. Not sure if they utilise surrogates, as most in their circle do (Elon Musk is a prime example)

Big Great Replacement vibes. Replacement mentioned a lot in the OP I see 🤔

Gilead indeed

Well the best solution would be to make it more attractive for people to have children

• affordable housing for families
• absent parents forced to pay up
• affordable childcare to include:
• subsidised wrap around care and holiday clubs
• favourable tax treatment of all child care including au pairs and nannies as not everyone works nursery friendly hours
• less red tape for childminders. They need to be safe and stimulating environments. They don't need to endlessly document the eyfs.
• child benefits back for families with up to four children. Some people want none or one so others will need to have three or four

Then we could also just accept a bit of a gradual population decline might not be a bad thing. But at the moment its a very rapid drop in birth rate and due mainly, I think to unaffordable housing and childcare.

However I think that the solution many governments will hit upon won't be improving things so more women want to have children. It will be taking away access to contraception and abortion so that they have no choice. I think this process is already underway in the US and also in Russia.

Well it wouldn't be desolate like all the others in the solar system would it?

There's plenty of life on earth. When the human race dies out the rest will still be here. The planet will be far from desolate.

How does excessive breeding fit in with the climate issue? Surely the best thing to contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions is to reduce the numbers of children?

Numbers of children are reduced though. Unless you mean in parts of Africa, those dc will have a far smaller carbon footprint vs you for example.

Already London schools are seeing declines in school rolls, this is also due to families getting priced.

The issue is because of how the funding model works (tied to headcount as opposed to actual costs) so will impact the rest of the pupils in parts.

https://www.headteacher-update.com/content/news/falling-rolls-will-wipe-1bn-from-school-funding-across-england/

Yes it will be, because immigrant communities usually end up matching the host community re birthrate in a generation. Even with higher birthrates amongst migrant communities our birthrate is 1.9 or something. Also, if we hadn't underfunded all our public services so much, we would be able to run a proper border force system, where we manage immigration to match need. Fewer old people, fewer people needed to look after them ( I know that's simplistic, but I think it's better than a ponzi scheme of telling women to have more babies)