Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think a declining birth rate is a good (and inevitable) thing

270 replies

OptimismvsRealism · 01/06/2024 11:09

Article in the times today about the "push for Britain to have more babies" on the basis that a declining population will cause economic shocks.

One of the proposals is "fertility checks in your 20s and education about declining fertility in biology classes".

I mean. Isn't it great that people only have babies if they really, truly want them? And isn't it good to have a smaller human burden on the planet (and fewer humans vying for declining jobs as tech replaces us at most of the things we used to do)?

I don't believe for a second that fertility checks would help anyone. Nobody is out there going "trala I'm 45 and really want five babies but just haven't felt like starting yet"!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
OptimismvsRealism · 24/06/2024 08:18

Helar · 24/06/2024 07:43

Well exactly, that’s why it is bad thing! I think it’s a fundamental difference in values and if that doesn’t appear as a loss to you then there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, but I suppose the world of the future will be populated by those who
love and believe in their own kind, which is a good thing.

Humans will become extinct whether it bugs you or not

OP posts:
Helar · 24/06/2024 08:12

TheABC · 23/06/2024 23:12

I'm not worried about the future of the human race as a whole. When time, living space and support are available, the number of children goes up. Japan's managed this in a town called Nagi.

We do need to think creatively to get through the 'care bulge' which will increase over the next 20 years.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-16/japan-miracle-town-birth-rate-depopulation-crisis

This is really interesting, as financial incentives have been tried in many other places, and they have not worked. I wonder if what was key here was the town’s self-image as a definite community that they wanted to survive, prompted by the referendum decision to remain a town?

People began to see themselves as a community with a duty to one another, and the children of the town as a benefit to all of them, instead of seeing themselves as individuals who make a personal lifestyle choice to have or not have children.

Helar · 24/06/2024 08:02

RationalityIsHard · 23/06/2024 23:07

Plenty of love, wonder and awe without the need for humanity. What would also be lost would be war, torture, religion, genocide, pollution, etc, etc.

When you look at the overall balance, it's clear we don't come out looking very good.

If there are no humans then there will be no creature there in the whole universe (as far as we know) with the cognitive capacity to experience love wonder and awe!So of course there will be lovely and wonderful and awe-inspiring things, but there will be no one here to appreciate them. Which strikes me as profoundly sad.

There will still be plenty of physical pain, suffering, violent death, torture etc amongst the animals of course. Nature red in tooth and claw and all that. Most animals live short and brutal lives and die painfully as food for other animals, or from starvation, injury and so on in this closed system.

Human beings are not perfect by any means, but we are getting better, and we are the only creatures with the capacity to care about ethics and morality and the ability to do anything to improve ourselves.

Helar · 24/06/2024 07:43

OptimismvsRealism · 23/06/2024 23:06

Who will be left to give a toss?

Well exactly, that’s why it is bad thing! I think it’s a fundamental difference in values and if that doesn’t appear as a loss to you then there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind, but I suppose the world of the future will be populated by those who
love and believe in their own kind, which is a good thing.

Drfosters · 24/06/2024 06:27

CrispieCake · 22/06/2024 13:23

I agree to some extent, but then we need a plan to deal with the care needs of older people.

Yes of course that does need to be planned but incentivising people to have more babies just to provide for the care needs of the older ones seems like a road to nowhere. As is currently the case, you can have lots of babies and none of them want to provide the care needs of the older people. We still have to import the carers. Now huge tax breaks/payments for people who care for their parents and you might be onto something.

Drfosters · 24/06/2024 06:24

Helar · 23/06/2024 22:31

If the birth rate doesn’t get back to 2.1 then humanity will die out in the next few hundred years. I think that’s a very bad thing.

There will be fewer people on Earth than there are now. That’s already assured. The question now is - can we prevent it declining to zero?

It isn’t a rate that is fixed. Currently it is a gradual decline. If the population goes back to that or 100 years ago in a few generations that is no bad thing. I am sure that when things start becoming less crowded and the environment improves, people start thinking how lovely I’ll have more children and the cycle starts again. We just happen to be at peak population now. The balance is completely off and needs a reset.

headstone · 23/06/2024 23:20

There are a lot of antinatalists on this board. I think it’s strange to want your own species to die out.

TheABC · 23/06/2024 23:12

I'm not worried about the future of the human race as a whole. When time, living space and support are available, the number of children goes up. Japan's managed this in a town called Nagi.

We do need to think creatively to get through the 'care bulge' which will increase over the next 20 years.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-16/japan-miracle-town-birth-rate-depopulation-crisis

Takamoto, 37, plays with her 18 month old daughter at the Nagi Child Home

Inside Japan’s ‘miracle town,’ where the birth rate is soaring amid a demographic crisis

Japan is confronting a depopulation crisis because of a precipitously falling birth rate, but one mountain town has bucked the trend — spectacularly.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-08-16/japan-miracle-town-birth-rate-depopulation-crisis

RationalityIsHard · 23/06/2024 23:07

Helar · 23/06/2024 23:02

I wouldn’t count on it. The evolution of human beings was an exceptional and unique occurrence, as far as we know, in the universe. What would be lost, except all capacity in existence for poetry, science, philosophy, love, wonder and awe?

Plenty of love, wonder and awe without the need for humanity. What would also be lost would be war, torture, religion, genocide, pollution, etc, etc.

When you look at the overall balance, it's clear we don't come out looking very good.

OptimismvsRealism · 23/06/2024 23:06

Helar · 23/06/2024 23:02

I wouldn’t count on it. The evolution of human beings was an exceptional and unique occurrence, as far as we know, in the universe. What would be lost, except all capacity in existence for poetry, science, philosophy, love, wonder and awe?

Who will be left to give a toss?

OP posts:
Helar · 23/06/2024 23:02

OptimismvsRealism · 23/06/2024 22:46

It's not a bad thing. The earth could heal. Another ape will take over.

I wouldn’t count on it. The evolution of human beings was an exceptional and unique occurrence, as far as we know, in the universe. What would be lost, except all capacity in existence for poetry, science, philosophy, love, wonder and awe?

Helar · 23/06/2024 22:55

RationalityIsHard · 23/06/2024 22:38

A very bad thing? Only for humanity. The rest of the species on the planet will breathe a massive sigh of relief (what's left of them by then).

Yes. I care about humanity and my children’s future, and beyond.

OptimismvsRealism · 23/06/2024 22:46

Helar · 23/06/2024 22:31

If the birth rate doesn’t get back to 2.1 then humanity will die out in the next few hundred years. I think that’s a very bad thing.

There will be fewer people on Earth than there are now. That’s already assured. The question now is - can we prevent it declining to zero?

It's not a bad thing. The earth could heal. Another ape will take over.

OP posts:
RationalityIsHard · 23/06/2024 22:38

Helar · 23/06/2024 22:31

If the birth rate doesn’t get back to 2.1 then humanity will die out in the next few hundred years. I think that’s a very bad thing.

There will be fewer people on Earth than there are now. That’s already assured. The question now is - can we prevent it declining to zero?

A very bad thing? Only for humanity. The rest of the species on the planet will breathe a massive sigh of relief (what's left of them by then).

Helar · 23/06/2024 22:34

Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 22/06/2024 10:17

Claiming that the population has to endlessly increase to look after old people is wrong in so many ways.

For a start, children and many adults with particular needs also have to be looked after, and the young people get old, so the ever-increasing population obviously has ever-increasing needs.

World population is getting beyond the level the planet can support. England is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world: that’s England, not the whole of Britain or the UK, which include much less densely populated areas (though also not underpopulated).

We don’t need an ever-expanding economy. We need more thought about how to live with our overburdened environment, and more action to protect it.

The population isn’t going to endlessly increase. It’s going to nosedive from about 2050. The realistic question is whether we can slow the decline to give time to adjust. And long term whether we can halt the decline before humans go extinct.

Helar · 23/06/2024 22:31

Drfosters · 22/06/2024 09:57

But that’s the thing. I can think of a million reasons why a declining birth rate is a good thing. I can only think of one which makes it is a bad thing which is economic, ‘who is going to pay our pensions?’. I honestly think with the way technology is moving, we just don’t need as many people on the planet, there just won’t be the resources and the jobs to pay for them so there will ultimately (50 years from now) be a huge amount of economically inactive people who need to be paid for. Pensions will be the least of the country’s problems. A slow gradual managed decline with incentives to keep families small with extra intervention to help level up those children that need it is the way forward.

If the birth rate doesn’t get back to 2.1 then humanity will die out in the next few hundred years. I think that’s a very bad thing.

There will be fewer people on Earth than there are now. That’s already assured. The question now is - can we prevent it declining to zero?

CrispieCake · 22/06/2024 13:23

Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 22/06/2024 10:17

Claiming that the population has to endlessly increase to look after old people is wrong in so many ways.

For a start, children and many adults with particular needs also have to be looked after, and the young people get old, so the ever-increasing population obviously has ever-increasing needs.

World population is getting beyond the level the planet can support. England is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world: that’s England, not the whole of Britain or the UK, which include much less densely populated areas (though also not underpopulated).

We don’t need an ever-expanding economy. We need more thought about how to live with our overburdened environment, and more action to protect it.

I agree to some extent, but then we need a plan to deal with the care needs of older people.

Seedsnnut · 22/06/2024 10:43

Yeah we don’t need to keep this ponzi scheme going and it’s funny there’s another thread on here suggesting people who have more than 3 kids should get tax breaks which does actually happen in many countries.

I don’t think that people realise they’re usually not net contributors, they’re already getting more than their moneys worth for the share of tax they pay compared to say a child free person.

And tax incentive is a terrible motivation to have a child and would only attract the wrong sort of parents.

Hairyesterdaygonetoday · 22/06/2024 10:17

Claiming that the population has to endlessly increase to look after old people is wrong in so many ways.

For a start, children and many adults with particular needs also have to be looked after, and the young people get old, so the ever-increasing population obviously has ever-increasing needs.

World population is getting beyond the level the planet can support. England is already one of the most densely populated countries in the world: that’s England, not the whole of Britain or the UK, which include much less densely populated areas (though also not underpopulated).

We don’t need an ever-expanding economy. We need more thought about how to live with our overburdened environment, and more action to protect it.

Drfosters · 22/06/2024 09:57

inamarina · 10/06/2024 14:43

Agree, yet these threads pop up every month or two, and it’s the same comments again and again: “But our planet is overpopulated!, “Surely a declining birth rate is great?” and so on.
No matter how often people explain why a declining birth rate is worrying and what negative consequences it would have.

But that’s the thing. I can think of a million reasons why a declining birth rate is a good thing. I can only think of one which makes it is a bad thing which is economic, ‘who is going to pay our pensions?’. I honestly think with the way technology is moving, we just don’t need as many people on the planet, there just won’t be the resources and the jobs to pay for them so there will ultimately (50 years from now) be a huge amount of economically inactive people who need to be paid for. Pensions will be the least of the country’s problems. A slow gradual managed decline with incentives to keep families small with extra intervention to help level up those children that need it is the way forward.

Neurodiversitydoctor · 10/06/2024 20:58

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 10/06/2024 14:17

It's also less common to live near extended family these days. I don't have children, but if I did I wouldn't be able to use my or DH's parents for childcare because they all live too far away.

Also - the age at which people have children is relevant. 50 years ago, it was fairly normal to have you first children in your early 20s. Which meant a grandmother (who back then often didn't need to work full time to live) might be age 50-60 when childcare was needed, and would have the energy and stamina to provide that care.

Nowadays the average age of a first time mum is 30.9yrs. So a grandmother (who is also more likely to need to work more hours these days), is both older and more likely to have their time and energy taken up by work, so they are less likely to have the energy to provide care for small children.

(I've referred to grandmothers because somehow it almost always is the grandmothers who actually provide the childcare support.)

There are lots of factors at play, and I don't think calling boomers selfish is the answer.

My parents are boomers, I am eternally grateful for the help and support they provided when I had young children (DCs are now 17 &20) my parents will have not 1 but 2 generations below them to help out when and if needed (they are 73 & 75), don't tar all boomers with the same brush. I also work with women in their 50's and 60's providing weekly grandparental care.

CrispieCake · 10/06/2024 17:03

People have a bloody cheek telling women that they're "part of a wider society" and need to do their bit by having more children, when maternity care is an underfunded shit shows, mothers are left to pick up the pieces when fathers walk out with derisory CM, under-5 childcare is extortionate, wraparound and holiday care expensive and unreliable, mothers are frequently in the shit at work because of their caring responsibilities, care, education and respite for SN children is crap or non-existent, grandparents aren't expected to help because "they've done their time", children are largely unwelcome in public places, and if any woman has the temerity to complain or struggle, she's told " they're your kids, you chose to have them, you need to deal with them".

Where is this "society" when mothers need it?

TarantinoIsAMisogynist · 10/06/2024 16:33

inamarina · 10/06/2024 14:58

No one is telling anyone to become a “breeding machine”.
People can live their lives, but they’re also part of the society, where we all depend on each other to a certain extent.
Nothing wrong with realising that big societal changes like a declining birth rate will have consequences.

If current trends continue, I wouldn't assume that no-one will be telling women to become breeding machines...

Look through history - governments of all stripes have a habit of imposing whatever rules they need to achieve their aims.

The Handmaid's Tale might be sci-fi, but it gives an example of the direction a society in desperate need of young people might go in. The world is entering a time of increasing conflict and instability, nothing is certain.

yumyumyumy · 10/06/2024 15:24

ItsNotAShopItsAStore · 10/06/2024 15:04

Hopefully when we all get old there’ll be an AI machine to wipe out bums for us

Hopefully. Less humiliating and hopefully not 2k a week!

inamarina · 10/06/2024 15:15

Helar · 10/06/2024 10:04

It’s their choice to have children.

I think this attitude is part of the reason for the low birth rate. We see ourselves as individuals rather than a community, a human family, whose fates are intertwined.

Everyone in the community benefits when there are enough children and young people in the group. We need each other.

Agree.
Some people on here seem shocked and disgusted by the idea that children might be needed to keep the (future) economy running, but what alternatives do they envision I wonder?

Swipe left for the next trending thread