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

I think tapering off gradually, although it will cause chaos, is the best possible option. We don't deserve this planet and all the creatures and plants would be much better without us. It's really not something to get too upset about.

I think people are worried because decline in white Europeans… they are scared black African will over populate the world

they have less white Europeans

Yes what I posted was a philosophical take which is what yours was too! Saying that humans deserve to go extinct is hardly a "biological" take is it. In fact it reminds me more of the Christian idea of original sin. How can humanity in general "deserve" anything? Are we inherently "bad" just for existing? Am I bad? Are you bad?

Its a good point, too. Life has thrived in the hotter climates of past eras, like the Cretaceous, and judging the "goodness" of the Earth's climate by reference to human perceptions of it (and human value-judgments) while simultaneously wishing for human extinction, does seem to fly in the face of reason.

Being optimistic about the benefits of population decline, on the other hand, is absolutely fair and sensible - but the responsible thing to do is prepare for it and mitigate the negative elements which, unless some other viable solution emerges, is likely to require an acceptance of certain societal changes (not all of which will be desirable on an individual level).

I don't disagree with any of that, except for the "who are we to judge" thing. Pretending we are unbiased and floating above it all with no subjective point of view doesn't work. It isn't in human nature. We can even acknowledge that our judgements are completely subjective and still feel exactly the same way. I can't be anything but human and I won't try. It's a well reasoned point of view, but IMO the reasoning only works as an abstract philosophical concept.

They're making the point that a green, biodiverse and climatically stable earth being a better thing, than an ecologically devastated hot house earth is a subjective judgement based upon human values about which kind of earth we prefer / are adapted to survive in. So yes, a bit like the tree in the forest thing.

It seems contradictory to want to eliminate humanity in order to preserve / restore earth as according to human ideals. If there are no humans, then human ideals (about what constitutes a better earth) cease to have any relevance. And it may as well all be radioactive deserts and cockroaches. Who are we to judge that that is inferior to beauty, diversity, abundance etc - anthropocentric ideals.

Besides which, it's all irrelevant because humans aren't likely to go extinct soon. So if we care about human suffering, we should want to address human problems including demographic collapse, also including ecological collapse. Rather than surrender to an easy kind of nihilism.

Even if you think it "deserved", there's no reason to think an extinction event is on humanity's foreseeable horizon.

Its selfish to ignore the challenges presented by the rapid decline in birthrates (which will be substantially shouldered by younger and future generations) and refuse to even entertain the notion of how we can best help navigate them, by hiding behind the false idea of an imminent and inevitable extinction.

Incidentally, I do not accept the humanity in general deserves to go extinct.

Knowledge of our adverse impact on the environmental is relatively recent, and is not universal among humans worldwide.

Some communities, particularly in developing countries that have not meaningfully contributed to the climate crisis, will suffer most greatly (and yes, its likely many will die) from the effects of climate change, despite having little little-to-no culpability for it. Do they deserve it?

So in your view, it is not legitimate for people have opinions on whether population stagnation/loss is good, bad or indifferent because the planet is not sentient? In essence, what you're also suggesting is akin to saying that a tree doesn't fall in the forest unless somebody is there to hear it.That's a line of reasoning that belongs in the realm of philosophy. What I'm talking about is biological, not philosophical. I don't think this thread can support a philosophical debate actually. It's gone into some irrelevant, unproductive cul de sacs already. But thanks for the interesting take all the same.

The planet is the basis of all life and when referred to, means the whole of that life on it.
Not caring if our species dies is not selfish at all. I have consciously not bred any more people as there was no need and I wouldn't expose anyone I had created to other people. We deserve an extinction event to happen to us.

"The planet" isn't better or worse off with or without humans. Nothing is good or bad for it without someone to observe it and judge "this is good/bad". It isn't sentient. Animals suffer and die whether humans are here or not, they often die in horrific ways particularly prey animals. Other species going extinct is only a problem when people notice that a species is going extinct and it's sad. Animals aren't aware of their own species going extinct. They won't worry about it or mourn it.
So many ridiculous replies about what's good or bad for the planet as if that has any moral value by itself.

My understanding (not a medic) is that ventilation is a brutal process and you have to be fairly robust to tolerate it. Older, frail people generally would not be so its not just a process of saying the lives of younger people are more valuable (although I'm old, and I would argue they are) it's that older people were less likely to survive ventilation. Likewise CPR. Relatives often complained about not suitable for CPR decisions on the very elderly. But CPR is also brutal, so let's say its done on a very elderly care home resident, and is successful. They then survive a few more weeks, or even months, but with all their ribs shattered.

I think humans dying out is nothing but a good thing. We are awful and have destroyed this beautiful planet.

Yes that’s what I think people should be considering and planning for.

In principle that doesn't bother me.

If you have a young person who could survive for years without, vs a 60 year old that wouldnt last a week, the immediacy of the need is obviously an important factor.

My understanding is that the NHS cannot deny treatment solely on age, but can give preference based on long-term benefit (where age is relevant).

I'm sure everyone would have their own views on individual cases and overall policy and I'd be reluctant to be too critical of how decisions are made.

I think the general point was more that ethics and pragmatism do intertwine, to the extent that (I would say) it is unethical to not be at least partially informed by pragmatic factors, when addressing people's needs and wants (particularly when there's not enough to give everything to everyone).

I do recall that, in one of the early waves of Covid, when there weren't enough ventilators to go around, some NHS hospitals triaged, in part, on the basis of age.

Some in here would call that morally repugnant. I would disagree (though, no doubt, there is ethical complexity).

Edit - appreciate the info you share, though, its a good example of the challenges inherent in providing a social service with insufficient resources.

@BoldGreenDreamer Unfortunately it can be the case that young people wait longer for transplant organs than older people.

There is no upper age limit for people to receive transplantation - it is more decided on general overall health/likelihood of benefit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66259618

In 2018, a new computer algorithm was launched to cut deaths on the waiting list.
It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.

I don’t see a fall in global population any time soon but what is a bigger issue as regards tax to provide for the elderly is AI-it will take so many jobs -there won’t be incomes to provide the tax.
See the diary of a ceo latest podcast with Geoffrey Hinton an AI developer.

They're just selfish.

Its easy to absolve yourself of responsibility towards future generations if you pretend there aren't going to be any.

Can I just point out that even private pensions need
younger people to pay them by working in all kinds of companies that then produce dividends to pay out to pensioners. Everybody not working, for whatever reason, retired, on benefits, children, or just plain rich, is supported by working people.

Ultimately, this talk of humans dying out (and the supposed merits of that) is childish.

(Well, childish is perhaps a little generous).

It's not realistically going to happen, not from climate change and not from the fertility crisis.

At warming of 3°C or 4°C, before 2100, there would be a risk of widespead societal collapse.

At 5-6°C, large areas of the planet would become all-but-uninhabitable, but extinction would remain unlikely.

Above 6°C, the theoretical risk of extinction becomes a real one.

Even if we simply continue on with current policies, to the extent they have already been implemented, the IPCC projects warming of 2.5-2.9°C.

We should absolutely be striving to do far better, but no serious person thinks extinction is even close to being on tbe agenda from climate change.

While I'm sure everybody recognizes that a drop in the global population is desirable, the demographic challenges it brings will be extremely difficult to navigate, and is something that should be confronted at the earliest opportunity to offset the worst of it. That could be by trying to manage the pace of the decline and/or through relocation of resources (including new technologies).

I suppose, though, that making ill-informed, unscientific declarations of how we're all doomed is a nice and convenient way to absolve yourself from feeling any responsibility towards any generation that is younger than you - particularly if it involves even a modicum of personal sacrifice.

Its the same brand of selfish ignorance, greed and science denialism that will almost certainly see humanity miss the best-case scenario of warming of around 1°C, but with a cherry of hypocrisy atop it.

Yeah, thoughts of the extinction of the human race does seem to put a kick in the step of some mnetters. I bet these doomsters are hard work to live with.

@BoldGreenDreamer

Please stop causing me to get notifications of multiple posts after insulting me and claiming you were done talking to me. I took you at your word and agreed to let it go, but you just won't stop. I am keeping my word and not discussing these issues with you any further as per your own suggestion. No need to respond, I'll know you have agreed when my notifications get below the double digits. Thank you for the previous discussion and have a good day. 🙂

Exactly. Acknowledging that it's great news for the planet does not mean we're in favour of the suffering that's to come. No sane person would want what's coming to us, but we asked for it and we need to accept responsibility for it.
Another heartbreaking aspect is that the other inhabitants of the planet who did nothing to cause this have to suffer and die as well. All because of us.

If you denounce something as "ethically unacceptable", people are going to take that as disagreement, and I don't think you can entirely divorce ethics and pragmatism, particularly where there are finite resources.

For example, if we accept as an absolute imperative that everyone is entitled to the same level of care, without any prioritization based on personal characteristics, you'd end up with instances where (for example) a donor heart is given to a 90 year old over a 9 year old on a first-come, first-served basis.

An argument could be made that this would be entirely ethical, and pragmatism shouldn't come into it. I would disagree, and say pragmatic considerations (how many extra years of life that replacement heart could give to each candidate) are relevant to informing ethics.

That isn't unlawful, either. Discrimination can lawfully occur where there exists a good policy reason.

Similarly, although you might think it unethical to reduce spending on retirmenet age benefits (which, no doubt, many would agree with), I think the fact that current levels of spending being unsustainable means that we need to balance the needs of this generation of elderly people with the anticipated needs of the next (and the next).

I'm not blind to the ethical issues of reducing support that, for some people, is already deeply inadequate - however, pragmatism tells me we need to also weigh our ability to meet the future needs of others (and that failing to do so would be unethical).

Given how many problems humans cause, this is great news for the planet.

Fingers crossed whatever comes after us is significantly less awful.