For those who keep arguing we need to stop having children.

[BabyLlamaZen]

BBC News - Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521

Any better?

I was berated like crazy for saying the odd woman having 3 or 4 in the uk shouldn't be constantly called selfish and hideous. They are the rarity. I still stand behind this!

I find it really interesting the change as well - how Asis is currently dominating population (China and India) and how it'll be African countries like Nigeria in years to come.

Anyone want to swap my 2.1 children allowance for extra DDog allowance?

The issue is ratio young:old, we will need a lot of robot health care in the future!

What the heck happened there??! I tried to write young : old but managed to make an emoji appear

"We humans" only need expanding populations in order to fuel economic growth.

But without the economic growth, what do we do with all the people who are now here doing nothing. The state cant support them all so we must have more economic growth, which needs more people, which fuels growth, that requiresmore meat for the grinder...and so and and so forth...

The planet definitely doesnt need expanding populations.

This is brilliant. Absolutely worth a watch for anyone worried about population growth.

It's not the decisions of individuals that matter at all.

It's going to pose some big challenges in the future but overall I am glad that more and more women are getting a good education and are able to choose how many children they have. If 2 or fewer is the number of children most women want then we will just have to find a way to work with it.

I fail to see what the problem is. Fewer humans is a good thing for the planet. So societies have to restructure. Things aren't sustainable the way they are so whats the issue?

@ShesMadeATwatOfMePam

I fail to see what the problem is. Fewer humans is a good thing for the planet. So societies have to restructure. Things aren't sustainable the way they are so whats the issue?

Who will be working, to pay tax, to provide your pension? This is resolvable in theory, but without serious political thought there isvrisk of extreme poverty for the elderly.

So long as at the same time we stop berating mothers of only children for being selfish and bringing up lonely maladjusted brats, and berating women who choose not to have children at all. Women get criticised whatever they do.

The problem is that whole system is built on a concept of growth. A business that doesn't grow is failing. A person who failed to secure a pay rise feels they have failed. People need to buy more stuff to keep the economy going, and it's only be running the economy in that way that we can ensure society holds together with food on the table and wages for the nurses. We need lots of young people paying small amounts of tax each to pay for pensions and social care.

So someone is going to have to work out how we motivate good behaviours and hold society together without bribing us all with shiny new things. Ditch the rat race and replace it with something more people and planet centric

And OP, I agree. Someone having 3-4 children (or even more) doesn't actually matter a jot, as long as the overall fertility rate stays low enough. And that happens naturally as women choose not to have children (you sort of have to count it by women because if you count it per person, it gets confusing due to people having stepchildren etc), contraception/abortion access improves, infant mortality improves etc.

The world doesn't need a constantly expanding population but it's highly likely it won't continue to expand forever. And there is no need to castigate individuals nor claim the choice to have children is "selfish" - somebody needs to have children! What we probably need to be less selfish about is space and the idea that it's morally right to restrict access to space depending on where a person is born.

labyrinth : o without space is the shortcut for :o. :)

Yes it is true that population growth has slowed to less than 2% globally. The slow down has been going on since the 1950s. It is projected that by 2100 growth will stop/stabilise at 9 billion people or even reverse. This will occur as areas that do not have women’s rights and easily available birth control will gain them. It will more than offset longevity gains.

So there is no need for women in any western country to stop having kids altogether to “save the planet”. But I am sure that 80yrs from now child free movements/people will be claiming credit for making it happen even though this is a trend already 70yrs old.

Agree with this!

I’m fine with it too. Migration will become more important.

YY too to berating mothers of one child! Why? Having one child leaves "space" for people who want larger families to do that. Likewise somebody who chooses to have no children.

Who will be working, to pay tax, to provide your pension? This is resolvable in theory, but without serious political thought there isvrisk of extreme poverty for the elderly.

Robotics and automation are the biggest threat to elderly pensions and out of work benefits lacking funds. This is why I think robots/automation should be taxed based on however many human workers they replace. So, say you buy a robot bricklayer that then puts 3 bricklayers out of work. The company must still pay NI and other employment taxes for 3 workers to the government. As it stands now, companies get all the costs savings as profit. But the result is not a savings to society.
The end goal of robots/automation is for humans to work fewer hours or not at all. We are already seeing many jobs disappear due to this. But people still need an income to eat. Benefits, pension, all come from income taxes. So the only way to transition to a society with a universal income is to start taxing every robot or automation based on the number of human workers it is replacing.

The uncomfortable truth is the birthrate is not really the issue...the 'problem' is that people are living too long.

Populations aren't falling, the fertility rate is. At the end of the century there will still be far more people than there are now.

Overpopulation is a massive issue. Much better to deal with the problem of an aged society than the environmental horror that overpopulation will bring.

Work will need to become a kinder place, with more part time options so that people can work longer into older age.

Robotics and automation are the biggest threat to elderly pensions and out of work benefits lacking funds. This is why I think robots/automation should be taxed based on however many human workers they replace

So agree with you PlanDe. I’d start taxing those self service tills in supermarkets.

@NoToast

Populations aren't falling, the fertility rate is. At the end of the century there will still be far more people than there are now.

True, population is still growing, but the rate of growth is between 1-2% globally. The slow down in population growth rate has been going in since the 1950s. The trend is such that if things do not change, population growth is projected go to zero around 2100. As in the world population will stabilise at around 9 billion people. This is without any massive policy changes, no new technologies, no change in behaviour. I’ll try and find the study I read and post a link.

trend is such that if things do not change, population growth is projected go to zero around 2100.

I like the thought of this even though will be long gone

I do wonder how long it will be before some sort of euthanasia program will become reality tbh. On a personal level I'd prefer it as I don't want to while away the last years of my life in pain and incontinent or having lost control of my faculties. A relative spent 17 years in a care home with dementia they were just a shell, I'm more of a Dignitas woman.

Overpopulation is bad but an ageing population also comes with significant problems. There's no easy solution to this.