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

Personally, I think unhealthy lifestyles, obesity, etc., will cause a reduction in average life expectancy anyway, so to some extent the problem is already being solved, at least in the Western developed countries that are currently living on processed foods, takeaways, fast foods, "pinged" ready meals, etc. If people, on average, start to live for shorter lifespans, there'll be reduced costs of pensions, care homes, NHS costs, etc, especially if people start to die sooner of heart attacks etc rather than linger for decades with dementia etc.

I was saying that kind of attitude is anthropocentric simply because that's what it is. It was not a slur towards you, just a descriptor.
Not sure what being a historian and your taste in documentaries has to do with it. Presumably many historians can and do care about the health of the planet above all.
Do you not understand the connectivity of an ecosystem? When toads die off as per your example, noxious bugs like mosquitos proliferate, as do the diseases they carry. So it is actually in your personal interest that toads should live. I doubt you'd be thinking the Sistine Chapel makes it all worth it if you were dying of West Nile virus.
This is why I say your view is misguided. It goes beyond just being anthropocentric.

I will not be having any DCs.

Unblessed be my fruit.

It hasn't balanced itself out. The percentage of GDP spending on retirement age benefits is ever increasing, with that trend expected to not only continue but accelerate.

We either need more young people, or slash state spending on older people.

I don't revel in the latter, I just think people need to accept the huge societal problems of a falling birth rate, particularly those who embrace the idea of a shrinking population.

There are certainly merits to having far fewer humans, I don't argue that, but it will require huge sacrifice, particularly for the elderly.

@Valeriekat I imagine you lived in a similar way to me when younger - with boring food, cold damp houses, no holidays, very little consumer goods and limited access to healthcare.

Yet we still survived.

I do not expect young people's opportunities to live a basic life - basic housing, opportunities for work and a family life to be made more difficult so that I can have a longer life or go on holidays they could never afford.

We ALL have to have less - there is less money about in the UK, so everyone is going to have to reduce their living standards.

We should not be allowing the older population to live a better standard of living than the working population, when they have greater resources and less to do.

I would love to somehow see Britain before humans impacted it

Robots and ai would have progress a long way to maintain all of the infrastructure that we have and meet the caring needs of the vulnerable.

It's one thing to churn out a product but meeting the basics of keeping society going will fall on increasingly fewer shoulders and we'll have less spare talent for much needed innovations - so we can cope with climate change and other challenges.

75 million died in ww2 and we bounced back. I m not concerned at all. Between AI and the forthcoming most educated generation ever, we will find ethical solutions.

I think we need to get real about quality of life for the elderly and when it becomes cruel to sustain life but not quality of life.

While it's understandable to feel frustrated about intergenerational inequality and the burden placed on younger taxpayers, we need to be careful not to overgeneralize or assign blame to "the elderly" as a monolithic group. There are several important factors to consider when evaluating the role of older generations in the wealth distribution conversation.

1. Not All Elderly Are Wealthy

It's a misconception that most elderly people are sitting on vast stores of wealth. Many retirees live on modest pensions or fixed incomes, and a large portion of their "wealth" may be tied up in illiquid assets like a primary residence—which they still need to live in. Policies that assume all elderly individuals should be compelled to use their homes or savings to pay for care risk pushing vulnerable older people into poverty or homelessness.

1. We Already Ask a Lot of the Elderly

Many elderly people do contribute to the system: through taxes, through caring for grandchildren (which allows younger people to work), and through voluntary or community roles. Means-tested programs already reduce or eliminate state support for wealthier pensioners. It’s not accurate to say they are universally “given more” regardless of their wealth.

1. Intergenerational Solidarity, Not War

Positioning this as a zero-sum conflict between young and old undermines the necessary solidarity for long-term solutions. Older generations paid into the system too, under the assumption of a social contract: that society would care for them in old age just as they contributed in their working years. Breaking that contract now would be both unethical and politically dangerous.

1. Focus on Structural Wealth Inequality

You're absolutely right to highlight the role of the ultra-wealthy and multinational elites who hoard capital across borders and contribute relatively little back. That is where the real distortion in the economy lies—not in average retirees holding modest savings. Wealth inequality isn’t just about age—it’s about the structural ability to accumulate and protect capital regardless of contribution.

1. Baby Shortage and Sustainability

Suggesting that we “shouldn’t have more babies” to avoid supporting an aging population oversimplifies the issue. Declining birth rates can lead to shrinking workforces, reduced innovation, and social instability. Societies need a balanced demographic structure. While we shouldn't exploit younger generations, encouraging a fair, supported lifecycle for all—young and old—is crucial to long-term prosperity.

In conclusion: It is fair to demand that the wealthy, including wealthy elderly individuals, contribute more. But let’s not punish or scapegoat the entire older generation, many of whom are not affluent. Let’s redirect our energy toward tackling systemic inequality, tax avoidance, and the concentration of capital, rather than targeting intergenerational wealth transfer in principle—which, when done fairly, can be a key tool for social mobility.

The top 10% of PAYE earners are already paying over 60% of the total tax receipts in this country.
The UK is a total basket case and taxing the only people who are net contributors until they bleed out is stupid.
A wealth tax would simply destroy ambition and future wealth creation.
I fundamentally disagree with taxing wealth. It destroys the notion that you ever truly own anything as technically the government can come and place a burden on any asset you own. This is fundamentally wrong.

I'm married, two children and late 30s. Lawyer. US law firm. On £300k per year plus discretionary bonus which works out net around £50k once a year. Work in London and live outside of London. I work from 9 to 9 five days a week. My family survived through centuries relying only on farming and royal armed forces to survive.
Both my husband and I trained (and paid ) for many years to be able to do our jobs which BTW not only add value to the fabric of society and economy but also we pay whopping big taxes to the government who in turn support those that need it - who do you think funds the NHS/welfare payments?

I just assumed robots and AI would fill the gap for workers.

I’m sceptical of this issue because the likes of Elon Musk go on and on about it. Is the problem just ‘oh no I need more minions’?

The world had far fewer people in the past, and things seemed to plod along just fine? Of course people live longer now, but they work longer too and pay taxes for longer, so it might all balance itself out?

Okay, so, what do you propose?

Maintain the current path of passing a huge economic crisis down to the next generations? Or would you be willing to forego state support in retirement (or even forego retirement at all)?

Or, (and I'm sorry this isnt meant to sound as hostile as it may come accross) - would the most moral thing that you could do, given your mindset, be ending your own life?

@smallglassbottle, well we'll just have to disagree on all of that, won't we.

It is of course a seeable but seemingly ignorable car crash in the making with consequences across all aspects of our lives with national and international instability incoming. I expect the denialists and the anti-natalists are hoping robots and ai will save them in their old age - which seems as desperate as hoping your parents kick the bucket before your inheritance is spent at the care home.

@BoldGreenDreamer
I think we're on the same page.

Animals can create and have inner lives and feelings just as much as us. It's their planet as well. Personally, no amount of Sistene Chapels can compensate for the cruelty, suffering and destruction of habitat that humans cause. Every lifeform has its role to play on earth. Animals aren't mindless automata.

Human population has absolutely rocketed in the last 100 years. See attached chart.

@MuckFusk, I am a historian. I don't find David Attenborough documentaries as interesting as Simon Schama or Kenneth Clarke. Call me anthropocentric if you want.

I think most people on this thread are viewing the issue through UK eyes and a modern lens.

The world is global, anyone from anywhere can go anywhere (in practical terms, perhaps not political terms), just like when tribes travelled over from Africa and Asia and Europe and vice versa, all over the world.

So there isnt a lack of people, there are too many people still overall and in 100s of years or 1000s of years the way the world functions will be very different. Just like it was different 1000s of years ago.

Humans are relatively modern.

Yup, and the biodiversity crisis.

I'm not unaware.

I just dont know why you think that your generation deserves to continue to receive significant state support, even if it means completely fucking over every younger generation.

You demand empathy for old people of your generation, even tough it will increase the suffering of the next.

That isnt empathy, if self-centred greed.

What’s the alternative? Keep popping out kids, using more of the world’s resources. In the even more immediate future the populations are going to be hurt by climate change. It’s happening now, and will get worse: flooding, drought, food shortages. Mass suffering. The whole economic model will change with climate change anyway.

Ridiculous article.

Adults knowing they don’t need to have children due to societal pressures of just because is huge. My grandmother and mother knew nobody that chose to not have children, half my friends have chosen to be child free, as has my brother and his wife and two of my SIL’s.

Extreme costs of living, daycare, more grandparents needing to stay in employment which removes a lot of the village structure (my generation were all watched by our grandparents), climate change, threat of war, and on and on and on.

A lot of families also try and really invest in their parenting and 2 is our absolute limit. More families are prioritizing their mental health and not having more kids just because. A lot of the world is set up for 2 children, 2 parents. A lot of people cannot afford children, or more than 1-2.

I get no help with my children ever and 2 is our limit.

Thank you for clarifying your position. So it's anthropocentrism then. A misguided viewpoint IMO, but you're not going to change it, so it's pointless to discuss it further. I can see why you might feel that way even though I don't agree.

I need that laughing reaction back

I (unfortunately) think, the logical (not moral or pleasant) conclusion to this issue, in the UK at least, is that we are going to have to stop funnelling huge amounts of state money into elderly care both social and health. That when you get to 80 odd, you’ve got dementia and physical problems and you’re costing the state tens if not hundreds of thousands per year, that the state will not intervene.

They may offer a painless medicated death to avoid suffering (the comment re ill homeless elderly on the street as per previous poster) but will not continue to pour scant recourses from a shrunken tax revenue into ailing old people with poor life quality and high costs, when that money could achieve more good to a greater number of young people, eg schools, maternity and child heath services, or actually just services like road maintenance, bin collections, etc boring but vital.

It’s not a vote winner! But, perhaps, in conjunction with immigration, might reduce the crash of civilisation/society that otherwise will be inevitable when you have an inverted triangle of old to young people.