Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU The global fertility crisis is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced?

542 replies

plantsdieinmyhouse · 22/06/2025 17:14

We’re in a ‘global fertility crisis’.

I’m astounded that global (even UK/European) fertility decline to below the replacement rate of 2.1 (thought to have happened now) isn’t in the forefront of most people’s radar. There are barely even any politicians acknowledging it let alone devising policies to tackle it.

Thee are even people who still think we’re in the 70s/80s/90s and ‘overpopulation’ is still an issue.

Once everyone who’s alone now is dead the human race will be in terminal decline.

Nothing else matters if there’s none of us left!

Even on a personal level a large proportion of women don’t have the number of DCs they expect to.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/43a9bd63-25c9-4941-bc99-fc9f7e42c12a?shareToken=29bf27cb9dafe9af7a006bc25355e411

We’re in a ‘global fertility crisis’. Does this woman have a solution?

Countries across the world are fretting about falling birthrates. Now one academic believes she’s discovered the cause – and has a plan to address it

https://www.thetimes.com/article/43a9bd63-25c9-4941-bc99-fc9f7e42c12a?shareToken=29bf27cb9dafe9af7a006bc25355e411

OP posts:
Thread gallery
13
Womblingmerrily · 22/06/2025 21:44

@MuckFusk I would absolutely be behind taxes that balance wealth inequality to help with this, although with the ever growing costs of health care and new drugs we still need to apply limits

Wealth tax, land tax, property taxes - bring them all on

Not sure any of the current political parties are up for that though - hoped Labour might be brave, but they are proving cowardly.

IsawwhatIsaw · 22/06/2025 21:43

Overpopulation is a huge issue. I believe quality of life was better when the UK population was 56 million, now we’re nearer 68 million. It contributes to water shortages, climate change, pollution, stress.
Endlessly increasing the population is a Ponzi scheme.

Jumpupjumphigh · 22/06/2025 21:43

Womblingmerrily · 22/06/2025 21:38

@MuckFusk I totally disagree that the elderly have paid their share.

Some have paid nothing at all, most have paid too little, some have paid enough.

The amount that their retirement and health care is costing is far far above what was expected when they started working life - and far above what they paid to the generation above them.

Personal care should be paid by individuals - it's no different to child care and is entirely predictable that it is needed as you age. It simply replaces the things you can no longer do.

Pensioners in the UK are the wealthiest groups in the UK - they have the capacity to pay for what they take out, to make up for what their group has not paid.

They don't want to do this and bitterly complain - they want to take health care resources, benefits, state pension and receive free personal care with some other person paying for it who is likely to be poorer than them and never receive anything similar in their own life time. They want to keep their own 'wealth' which is almost entirely unearned - simply the rise in house prices that now means the young cannot own housing.

That is unfair. It is unfair for one group to be given so much and demand more whilst others will never have the same.

There's a very simple solution to this though, which is for young people to get off their arses and VOTE in the numbers that old people do. We can argue the problems and limitations of that, but until they at least take that step it's hard to have much sympathy for them.

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 21:42

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:22

It would do no good unless millions of others killed themselves as well and most people aren't willing to do that to their loved ones. Full disclosure; I've been deeply suicidal in my time (PTSD) but I still couldn't do that to my family. Thankfully I still had some control over myself even in the depths of it.
I'm actually surprised you would even ask somebody that question.

Edited

I suffer from suicidal ideation myself, so I did try and frame as gently as I could.

My problem, with those whose sole response to the demographic crisis is "good, humans should die out" is that it ignores the suffering that'll be placed on the subsequent generations. Its extremely trite, and akin to those people who dont care about the climate crisis because they "wont be around to see it".

Its just selfishness, particularly if you still want to cling onto a long life, supported by working age people, while telling them you dont give a flying fuck and it'd be great if they all died.

Jumpupjumphigh · 22/06/2025 21:39

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 20:41

People are unwilling to adjust to a lower standard of living, though. They want to punt an even-bigger crisis onto the next generation.

Again, even means testing the winter fuel allowance was so unpopular it needed to be rolled back.

People wont make the personal sacrifies need for a gradual adjustment, they'd rather let the whole system collapse (expecting that they wont be around to see it).

I think it's more that people just don't get it. And that's kind of understandable, given just how radical and unprecedented a change of mentality is required.

For pretty much all of human history, the one all-consuming issue has been "getting more". Having enough to eat and live (still a challenge for plenty of people in the developing world) or, since agriculture made it possible to amass surpluses for the future, having ever greater wealth as an insurance policy against that future.

Now that very same drive is literally killing us - destroying the very Earth that sustains us. At the same time, the technology of the developed world is getting to a point where, with the right approach to social and political organisation, it really should be possible to support people materially with a greatly reduced number of working hours and a greatly reduced consumption of energy.

I earn less than the average wage and will probably not have paid off my mortgage by the time I retire. But I'd gladly accept a lower standard of living imposed as part of a genuine national (or better, international) plan to turn this around. WTF use is the value of my house going to be when my children are dying of heatstroke?

It astounds me that people on six figure incomes, or sitting on amassed wealth far beyond what they need for the practicalities of life, can't get their head around the fact that the materialist drive is killing us, and needs to be abandoned for a different set of priorities. To be that intelligent and capable to earn that kind of money in the first place, and yet that stupid...

Womblingmerrily · 22/06/2025 21:38

@MuckFusk I totally disagree that the elderly have paid their share.

Some have paid nothing at all, most have paid too little, some have paid enough.

The amount that their retirement and health care is costing is far far above what was expected when they started working life - and far above what they paid to the generation above them.

Personal care should be paid by individuals - it's no different to child care and is entirely predictable that it is needed as you age. It simply replaces the things you can no longer do.

Pensioners in the UK are the wealthiest groups in the UK - they have the capacity to pay for what they take out, to make up for what their group has not paid.

They don't want to do this and bitterly complain - they want to take health care resources, benefits, state pension and receive free personal care with some other person paying for it who is likely to be poorer than them and never receive anything similar in their own life time. They want to keep their own 'wealth' which is almost entirely unearned - simply the rise in house prices that now means the young cannot own housing.

That is unfair. It is unfair for one group to be given so much and demand more whilst others will never have the same.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:34

Papyrophile · 22/06/2025 19:51

Dearest Muckfusk, thank you for debating sensibly. Yes of course I understand ecosystems and their connectivity with wellbeing. I am reasonably well educated and thoughtful, or I like to think I am. But on the infinite debate between history, geography and natural history, I tend to take a position on the side of humanity.

Understood and I thank you for a civil debate as well. I didn't mean to suggest you were uneducated. We can't know everything though, can we, and I have found that plenty of educated people don't realize how crucial to our survival the survival of others species is. I'm sorry if my comment came across badly.

ImNunTheWiser · 22/06/2025 21:34

Weird article. I thought it was pretty much accepted that with the emancipation and education of women, the birth rate falls. But she’s decided it’s all down to smartphones?
And as for ‘Are we entertaining ourselves into oblivion?’ Roger Waters was more eloquent with This species has amused itself to death….

Lillygolightly · 22/06/2025 21:33

chaosmaker · 22/06/2025 20:33

What drugs are you taking @plantsdieinmyhouse ? Human population globally is out of control. The earth will breathe a sigh of relief when ai kills us all.

Human population is not out of control due to new births, that’s the point!! It’s due to people living much longer into old age. Take Japan for instance which has a very unbalanced population something like 30 percent of the population is over 65 while roughly just 11 percent are under 18.

Whilst I see so many are happy for the population to decline, and don’t get me wrong I’m not blind to the benefits to nature and the planet etc, but population decline in the nature that we are facing now has never happened before. This is not a decrease due to war or plague etc this is ever decreasing circles of humanity and that is something worth sitting up and seriously taking notice of if for no other reason than to simply acknowledge it.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:26

Dingalingalong · 22/06/2025 20:23

Well I would if/when I feel the time is right. I come from a country where euthanasia has been legal for a long time, and it is something that I will state very clearly I want in certain circumstances. I have no desire to be living as long as possible, and/or with zero independence (physical and intellectual), zero pleasures in life, and being a burden to those I love the most and to society. I see no point at all in living this way myself (I would never dictate or judge anyone for doing so or for having elderly family members who do).

Agree. Voluntary euthanasia is a valuable thing and I hope to be able to make use of it myself when the time comes. If it becomes mandatory and involuntary, it's not euthanasia, it's very obviously murder.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:22

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 20:15

Its hard to phrase this right, without making it sound like a hostile suggestion, but honestly - a genuine question.

Based on your above comment, why not kill yourself?

It would do no good unless millions of others killed themselves as well and most people aren't willing to do that to their loved ones. Full disclosure; I've been deeply suicidal in my time (PTSD) but I still couldn't do that to my family. Thankfully I still had some control over myself even in the depths of it.
I'm actually surprised you would even ask somebody that question.

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 21:18

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:09

There are countries with more progressive taxation, but AFAIK there are no countries which tax the wealthy at the rate they would need to pay in order to fix the eldercare crisis. It needs to be a sweeping change, not a tweak, if it's to make a difference. I do take your point though.

I'm all for a more radical solution, I just don't expect voters to support it (at least, not pre-emptively - people seems unwilling to act to mitigate a future crisis, we probably have to wait until current systems abruptly collapse, and the resulting suffering is enough to make people accept a change it needed).

It'd be nice if that didnt happen but, as with the climate crisis, people are too selfish to voluntarily make meaningful sacrifices.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:15

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 21:09

A contribution that was largely determined on age demographics stabilizing, not getting exponentially worse, now requiring the next generation to make bigger contributions (which further exacerbates the issue, through increased cost of living).

Irrelevant, since it still doesn't mean cutting off care is the appropriate response. The principle remains that if you pay into a service you should be able to use that service. It's not the taxpayer's fault that governments failed to account for a shift in demographics.

Cososom · 22/06/2025 21:15

SausageShop · 22/06/2025 21:09

I'm a midwife, and it certainly doesn't feel like the population is declining when our 58 bed maternity ward is full to bursting every single day with not enough midwives to look after the amount of birthing women coming through the doors!

I know you're being slightly tongue-in-cheek, but those issues are because of a) not enough midwives (as you say) and b) too many inductions / rising c-section rates meaning women are stuck on the ward for longer. The birth rate in the UK is undoubtedly declining!

SammyScrounge · 22/06/2025 21:14

SwirlingAroundSleep · 22/06/2025 20:47

We have 5 and constant comments about having too many. You just can’t win can you.

It's nobody's business but yours and your partner's. A handful of children makes for a happy house.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:12

AirborneElephant · 22/06/2025 20:51

And what is the “fair share” for the wealthy? The top 10% already pay over 60% of all tax, while generally receiving fewer benefits. At the end of the day you need to keep the support of the net contributors.

I assume you mean in the UK.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/

UK Still Taxes the Poorest More Than the Richest - Equality Trust

New data from the Office for National Statistics shows that the poorest 10% of households in the UK are still paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest.

https://equalitytrust.org.uk/news/press-release/uk-still-taxes-the-poorest-more-than-the-richest/

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 21:09

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:05

A contribution they've already made by a lifetime of paying their taxes.

A contribution that was largely determined on age demographics stabilizing, not getting exponentially worse, now requiring the next generation to make bigger contributions (which further exacerbates the issue, through increased cost of living).

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:09

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 20:51

I'm entirely up for it, but it doesn't solve the problem. Countries with more progressive taxation have the same issues: low birth rates, population decline and an increased spend on retirement-age benefits.

I do think more progressive taxation would be a huge societal good, it's just that available evidence suggests it does little or nothing for the aging population and demographic crisis.

There are countries with more progressive taxation, but AFAIK there are no countries which tax the wealthy at the rate they would need to pay in order to fix the eldercare crisis. It needs to be a sweeping change, not a tweak, if it's to make a difference. I do take your point though.

SausageShop · 22/06/2025 21:09

I'm a midwife, and it certainly doesn't feel like the population is declining when our 58 bed maternity ward is full to bursting every single day with not enough midwives to look after the amount of birthing women coming through the doors!

Jennps · 22/06/2025 21:09

It seems like this is the next bandwagon that the enlightened progressives will use to drive their own agenda and line their own pockets. The next thing to cause mass hysteria about. After all, the climate bandwagon is starting to fizzle out. The DEI one is almost dead.

Jennps · 22/06/2025 21:07

There is no fertility crisis. Women can have babies if they want to. And will if they need to. Human race isn’t going extinct anytime soon.

Just as there is no climate crisis. The climate is changing and incompetence and corruption from governments causes adverse impacts on people. They then gaslight the public further to rip us off even more by blaming it all on climate change.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 21:05

Bridport · 22/06/2025 20:59

You are suggesting the elderly should contribute more and take less out.
That money.

A contribution they've already made by a lifetime of paying their taxes.

BoldGreenDreamer · 22/06/2025 21:05

Bridport · 22/06/2025 20:59

You are suggesting the elderly should contribute more and take less out.
That money.

I'm not suggesting they should contribute more? Unless you mean by extending their working life and reducing their retirement? Which is what subsequent generations would also have to do.

We either share the burden of the demographic crisis, or greedily maintain current standards and increase suffering for future generations.

I expect greed will win out until it forces a dramatic collapse.

plantsnpants · 22/06/2025 21:04

Wouldn’t this be the best thing for the world / nature etc? Surely the worst thing to happen to the planet was over population / pollution etc

BleatingHEAP · 22/06/2025 21:04

What is WFA?