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
Luggagerackistopheavy · 22/06/2025 18:17

EasternStandard · 22/06/2025 18:13

It hasn’t proved your point though. Most agree the population going up still causes its own problems.

Which I think you’re overlooking.

Yup. This! The OP only wants to hear one side.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 18:16

Myrobalanna · 22/06/2025 18:13

"Birth rates have fallen so quickly in most countries that pensions & elderly care will no longer be provided by the state in our lifetime. Just think about what that means- your DCs starving & dying in cardboxes on the pavements."

🙄

Can I cynically point out that if the population decline were to be reversed, there would be more of us dying in unpleasant circumstances in future, because of massive and seemingly intractable inequality and climate change. Not that it doesn't matter that there are fewer people heading for that fate potentially, but rather: we need to sort out wealth distribution and the environment. Those are the issues, not how many kids a woman chooses not to have.

Exactly.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 18:15

UniqueRedSquid · 22/06/2025 18:10

I think the OP is overly sensationalist.

The changing make up of demographics is going to cause issues in lots of counties. Japan is one example that is ahead of the curve there.

For example, in the UK, we probably won’t have enough working people to sustain benefits like the state pension.

But the idea this is a terminal decline is for the birds. Countries will adopt policy to encourage births.

The idea that the current population is sustainable is also not really the case. We are consuming everything. It could easily be a couple of billion less. It will be a bumpy road getting there.

Yes, there could be measures like the province of Quebec here in Canada did when they noticed falling birthrates decades ago. They started giving out bonuses for each child and huge child tax credits.

UndermyShoeJoe · 22/06/2025 18:14

But you can’t just keep expanding and expanding the population to keep propping up the higher amount of aging people. You run out of resources. Food space clean safe water.

Then as expected people turn on people more than we currently have fighting for what little there is left or you let the balance work itself out where there is a few years of oh shit old people cost more than they ever paid without enough younger to fully fund and then a new normal begins.

Myrobalanna · 22/06/2025 18:13

"Birth rates have fallen so quickly in most countries that pensions & elderly care will no longer be provided by the state in our lifetime. Just think about what that means- your DCs starving & dying in cardboxes on the pavements."

🙄

Can I cynically point out that if the population decline were to be reversed, there would be more of us dying in unpleasant circumstances in future, because of massive and seemingly intractable inequality and climate change. Not that it doesn't matter that there are fewer people heading for that fate potentially, but rather: we need to sort out wealth distribution and the environment. Those are the issues, not how many kids a woman chooses not to have.

Serencwtch · 22/06/2025 18:13

There's definitely too many people on the planet & climate change shows that we cannot sustain the population we have now (which is still growing)
A decline in fertility is probably a good thing.

EasternStandard · 22/06/2025 18:13

plantsdieinmyhouse · 22/06/2025 18:09

I’ve never had my point proved so quickly on Mumsnet.

‘fertility’ in the context of demography means ‘the number of births per woman per lifetime’ not ‘ability of one woman to get pregnant’. Sorry for the confusion on that.

Birth rates have fallen so quickly in most countries that pensions & elderly care will no longer be provided by the state in our lifetime. Just think about what that means- your DCs starving & dying in cardboxes on the pavements.

But this is a global problem. Do you realise China’s population will drop to 700m during your DCs life?

Immigration won’t save any country when all countries are declining.

You can’t compare the upcoming drop to 5BN you remember as it will be a disproportionately elderly global population not the disproportionately working age 5BN we had.

All economies are built on the assumption of more workers than dependents. For the first time in human history this won’t be the case & we aren’t prepared for it.

It hasn’t proved your point though. Most agree the population going up still causes its own problems.

Which I think you’re overlooking.

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 18:13

plantsdieinmyhouse · 22/06/2025 18:09

I’ve never had my point proved so quickly on Mumsnet.

‘fertility’ in the context of demography means ‘the number of births per woman per lifetime’ not ‘ability of one woman to get pregnant’. Sorry for the confusion on that.

Birth rates have fallen so quickly in most countries that pensions & elderly care will no longer be provided by the state in our lifetime. Just think about what that means- your DCs starving & dying in cardboxes on the pavements.

But this is a global problem. Do you realise China’s population will drop to 700m during your DCs life?

Immigration won’t save any country when all countries are declining.

You can’t compare the upcoming drop to 5BN you remember as it will be a disproportionately elderly global population not the disproportionately working age 5BN we had.

All economies are built on the assumption of more workers than dependents. For the first time in human history this won’t be the case & we aren’t prepared for it.

All true and it's our own damn fault. What do you suggest we do about it?

KimberleyClark · 22/06/2025 18:11

Birdsinginginthetrees · 22/06/2025 17:30

And how will you feel if it’s one of your children who experience the heartbreak of infertility when they are older? I’ve experienced it and it was awful.

I’ve experienced infertility,never had a child, survived and am now thriving.

SixteenClovesOfGarlic · 22/06/2025 18:11

Who do you think proved your point OP? It seems no one agrees with that nonsense 'article' or that the planet needs more humans.

UniqueRedSquid · 22/06/2025 18:10

I think the OP is overly sensationalist.

The changing make up of demographics is going to cause issues in lots of counties. Japan is one example that is ahead of the curve there.

For example, in the UK, we probably won’t have enough working people to sustain benefits like the state pension.

But the idea this is a terminal decline is for the birds. Countries will adopt policy to encourage births.

The idea that the current population is sustainable is also not really the case. We are consuming everything. It could easily be a couple of billion less. It will be a bumpy road getting there.

DarkForces · 22/06/2025 18:10

I know @Myrobalanna. We're being lectured about turning the heating up enough to stay warm while the world is being blown to pieces by a few rich men. I hate to imagine what it's doing to the planet

MuckFusk · 22/06/2025 18:10

Overpopulation is still very much an issue, even more so because of climate change. If the human race dies out it will more likely be because of that, not infertility. I think we messed up this planet and we're getting what we deserve for it. All the toxins we put in the environment may well be the reason for lower fertility. I would not say YABU though. You feel the way you feel and that's okay. It is a legit concern.

orlamug · 22/06/2025 18:09

A drop in population is probably a good thing for the planet, however because of how our society is set up, its need for tax payers it will be a difficult transition.

plantsdieinmyhouse · 22/06/2025 18:09

I’ve never had my point proved so quickly on Mumsnet.

‘fertility’ in the context of demography means ‘the number of births per woman per lifetime’ not ‘ability of one woman to get pregnant’. Sorry for the confusion on that.

Birth rates have fallen so quickly in most countries that pensions & elderly care will no longer be provided by the state in our lifetime. Just think about what that means- your DCs starving & dying in cardboxes on the pavements.

But this is a global problem. Do you realise China’s population will drop to 700m during your DCs life?

Immigration won’t save any country when all countries are declining.

You can’t compare the upcoming drop to 5BN you remember as it will be a disproportionately elderly global population not the disproportionately working age 5BN we had.

All economies are built on the assumption of more workers than dependents. For the first time in human history this won’t be the case & we aren’t prepared for it.

OP posts:
Myrobalanna · 22/06/2025 18:07

I think we are forgetting that mass suffering is a result of the concentration of resources in the hands of very few - certainly deranged - people (men). Pretty sure the population could decline gently (or not) with no suffering at all if they would behave.

Genevieva · 22/06/2025 18:07

*total not royal

NeedAnyHelpWithThatPaperBag · 22/06/2025 18:06

Perhaps the powers that be are more concerned that fewer humans = fewer consumers = less profits?

notanothersummercold · 22/06/2025 18:06

DarkForces · 22/06/2025 17:17

Well I'm certainly not having another baby to save mankind. Dealing with dd's teen emotions has killed any remaining broodiness

Same
🤣

Genevieva · 22/06/2025 18:06

I’m not worried about royal population. There is no shortage of people. I am worried that only religious nutcases have children and that this will drag us away from liberal democracy and light-touch religion towards a world torn apart by religious fanatics. This is at the extreme end of all religions, but if we take the Abrahamic faiths, you can see that the extreme versions all limit women’s choices snd opportunities. Then you have the Shia Muslim extremists who run Iran and believe that it is necessary to eradicate all Jewish people to bring about the coming of the Mahdi. By contrast there are extreme Jews who believe that the messiah will not come until the Islamic mosques are removed from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which would obviously bring about conflict and loss of life. Obviously there is no guarantee that the children of religious extremists grow up to believe the same extreme things, but there’s a strong correlation.

Bridport · 22/06/2025 18:05

Myrobalanna · 22/06/2025 18:01

What an absolutely insane conclusion she has drawn from decade upon decade of documented sociological findings that if you educate women, make financial stability and employment possible for them, you get a lower birth rate.

Exactly. This is what the whole thing boils down to.
Other options for women and reliable contraception are absolutely central to this.

That's why I get very twitchy when you hear politicians and the press banging on about birthrate. It's to do with economic growth and control of the (female) population for them - it really isn't about their concern about who is going to wipe our bums when we're in nursing homes.

Onetwosix · 22/06/2025 18:05

Look at the amount of human suffering, over consumption of resources, world wars, environmental damage. A bit of population decline overall would be a good thing. The problem is that we end up with a bulge of older people and a lack of younger people to look after them.

EasternStandard · 22/06/2025 18:04

Yoinkk · 22/06/2025 17:44

How convenient to champion human extinction when you won’t be around for the fallout. It’s not enlightened—it’s cruel. The human race 'dying out' is not a peaceful fade-out; it's crumbling systems, suffering elderly, and a lonely, decaying world for the last generations. That’s maybe three or four generations from now—not some distant future, so maybe the grandchildren of today's kids. You’ll be long gone, having probably died with medications, doctors and care so you get to feel smug now while others inherit the collapse.

Advocating for mass suffering you won’t experience isn’t just immoral—it’s ignorant.

I agree. I mean I don’t want the population to keep going up but wishing collapse on next generations seems awful. Idk how far in advance the pp means, but out dc or their’s. And even then we tend to care about the next generation if we have dc.

chachahide · 22/06/2025 18:04

Why do you care? Honest question.

There are 8 billion people and plenty of countries that are so over populated they struggle to feed themselves. It’s good this is slowing down? Surely?

CranfordScones · 22/06/2025 18:01

Global crisis? - Africa's population is projected to double by 2070. Expect to hear a lot more about the African diaspora.

Swipe left for the next trending thread