… as the family dissolves.

[rickyrickygrimes]

I listened to an FT podcast today about demographic change, which was fascinating and quite 😱. One phrase that caught my attention was : ‘“There is a huge vulnerability that I don't have an answer for, and that's what happens as the family dissolves, as the family evolves. I don't know what fits into that space.”

The interviewer asked him to explain what he meant by this, and it was basically: when so few women are having children, and the generational family structure that humans have evolved to rely on for thousands of years essentially ceases to exist, what will replace it? And where will people find meaning in life, when family doesn’t exist? And an answer to loneliness?

I can see this playing out in my own family, with 5 out of 6 grandparents now entering their 80s, with only 3 grandchildren between them. My sister chose not to have children, my SIL has only 1. All for reasons that are very valid on an individual level - but at a population level the consequences are huge and will impact everyone. And I choose to live outside the UK - I’m not on hand to provide any kind of care for my own parents - again for valid personal reasons but which will have big consequences at a societal level.

What do you think will replace the family structure, as it dissolves?

From The Rachman Review: Our shrinking and ageing world, 24 Jul 2025
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rachman-review/id1504048545?i=1000718767539&r=1001
This material may be protected by copyright.

I hate to say it, but I feel this mostly applies to white people who have always mostly focussed on the nuclear family (and even then can be quite harsh) and why it is an issue. Other cultures have a much more deeper sense of family as well as a much larger community

My mother was a caregiver for the eldery. Most had family who never bothered to visit (they didn't live abroad, just didn't care)

@BunnyLake there are so many poor quality men out there because they can get away with it.

It starts with parenting, either role models or not checking what they are up to as they grow into teens and questioning their influences or ethics, then other male peers celebrate dreadful behaviour amongst themselves, "yeah jack was a legend this weekend got so drunk was dancing on a table" (that's not what legend means Dave), then girlfriends and wives who treat them as princes from a very low bar of them being treated like a princess.

We all wouldn't mind getting away with being a bellend if we could act and do exactly what we wanted, by just us putting in the minimal, and everyone around us hopping around to try and keep us happy and not upset us!

This is part of the reason female's rights are being pulled away all over the place, because a fair number of men can't trap one into giving them unpaid domestic labour, sex, children, looking after everyone's parents hence saying the man time and money and he gets to keep any inheritance. So instead of men being told that it's different now and you have to up your game it seems it's better to get women back trapped in those old fashioned roles.

Which is why this harking back to yesteryear is very dangerous for females.

It's fine to question how society has changed and what could be done by all to make it easier, or more enjoyable, for all, but to think that turning back the clock and getting women back in the home is the answer is dangerous. And it's not going to happen. Look at the group of females online in America, as their reproductive freedoms have been removed they have all gone, fine no sex at all then. Some even going as far as tubes tied. And I don't blame them. There aren't laws that enforce men have to support any baby that comes into this world. So what all the risk of pregnancy, ALL the risk, falls on the females. It's the 21st Century FFS.

Personally I would rather take my chances in old age, and save accordingly, to look after myself than subject the younger generation back into these expected, unappreciated, unpaid, thankless roles.

If you do the maths though it should be 2 children for every member of the family (because children have 2 parents). 9 is good but there needs to be 10 to keep the generations equal as the grandkids have 2 parents and 4 grandparents.

On my mums side my grandparents had 5 kids, 8 grandkids and currently 0 great grandkids. There should be 16!

On my dads side there are 3 kids, 3 grandchildren and 5 great children so doing better but it’s still quite scary if you look at how the generations are shrinking.

I don't know about this practically. The thing with family is they are always there through the good, the bad and the ugly because they are family. They accept you and love you. Friends love you too, but they come and go. Some may love you unconditionally, but some will not. You generally have to be better behaved with friends I think.

And it works if everyone is in it together, if men get called out for not providing, if all siblings do their share, if you get help with kids when working and then look after olders when they age. Sharing the load, with everyone doing their bit. EVERYONE.

I am not sure all communities benefit everyone in them, or that there is the choice for some within them either. Particularly if you are female, you are born you are expected to be part of the caring for the family. You are male you work to support everyone who can't. Expectations can destroy everyone, especially as now one wage doesn't go as far.

I think that's it though. I don't think other communities are as bothered when roles are different, let's face it usually the men who get it easy, because they're still well supported and generally happy. I'm not saying it's all roses, but I'd say most people would pick that over the insular lives others have.

I don’t see this around me personally. Lots of completely traditional families with children, parents and grandparents. Everyone seems to be reproducing in completely expected ways.

The only thing I do see specifically in our families is generations who are estranged. My aunts and uncles were NC with their parents (my grandparents) and each other, though no one called it ‘no contact’ back in the 80s and 90s. I am NC with my mum and we have limited contact with MIL.

Our generation is close to siblings and cousins and chosen family (we’re in our 40s). But looking at our families, the one before us (now in 60s and 70s) is pretty isolated. Not close to siblings (too much pain and water under that bridge that no one wants to deal with) or with children and grandchildren. Largely due to abuse, neglect, substance abuse, mental health issues.

I think we will see a re-invention of family. The people in their 60s/70s who I know that are most supported have actually been those who are childfree. They have cultivated a network for themselves, rather than just expecting it. I hope in my own family that my children won’t experience the same trauma we did and won’t have parents with the issues that ours have and we will have broken that cycle. But I think there will also be more intentional creation of families that go beyond biology.

I think that depressing UK model would suit many posters on here!

Some of this I agree with, some I don’t. Mostly we live a lot longer these days, and that causes all sorts of issues, but fundamentally it is a good thing; I’ve no wish to live past about 80 but the vast majority of people 80 plus are in fact doing fine (this is not denying the difficulty when they aren’t - speaking as a regular on the Elderly Parents board). Again, the fact that we don’t have an entire group of people who are (un) educated to believe they will spend a lifetime as servants living in other peoples houses and dying young is also a good thing - and in fact that system was effectively breaking down by at least 1870, if anyone thinks it should come back. My great grandmother was an enthusiastic eugenicist/ pro natalist and had 6 kids, but one was institutionalised as a small child with Downs Syndrome and she then had a breakdown and was institutionalised herself for several decades. The siblings remained in touch but it was rather noticeable that they lived many miles apart and only spoke rarely. None of this looks better than what we have now to me.

We are where we are - with longer lives, lots of wonderful technology that genuinely can prolong capability and reduce the kind of work that kills people, and the right to education and the delaying of having kids. Sure it brings problems, but if you told me I had to live any time except now, I’d be horrified.

But I think there will also be more intentional creation of families that go beyond biology.

i just can’t see this, not in any meaningful scale: maybe I read the Selfish Gene at an impressionable age. What I’m prepared to do for or sacrifice for my children, my siblings, my parents and other relatives - I’m not doing that for anyone else except in very exceptional circumstances.

There would need to be massive legal changes too: our entirely legal system is based on the family structure.

I have a slightly different take.

Family is what you make it - you don't have to have blood ties to have that closeness.
Also, you don't (or rather shouldn't) have children with the purpose that they'll look after you in later life. To me, that's selfish and placing a burden on people. Obviously it's great if they want to/are able to, but they shouldn't be obliged to.

On a larger scale, the planet is overpopulated. There aren't the resources long-term to sustain the population as it is. Literally. There won't be enough water, enough land, enough food. So lowering the birth rate across nations is ultimately a good thing. Given the fact that we seem to be in a society that reviles women, doesn't support mental health issues, disabled people, or anyone who doesn't fit a binary ideal; that jobs are in the main exploitative; that the divide between rich and poor is ever widening; and that we seem to be on the verge of conflict between nations that could be fatal - it's not really a good time to be having children.

It feels as though different issues are being conflated. Having a support network and a community that cares doesn't equate to families being larger and the children looking after elderly adults/parents babysitting grandchildren.

I’m so confused as to what you mean? People will either have a family or not, as they always have. Those who don’t will make their family elsewhere.

what is different to before? If no one has children the human race will die out and it won’t matter

My parents had 3 kids and four gc. The gc are all young adults and all in steady relationships and they are the ones who will have to think long and hard if children are a possibility. Not because they don’t want them but whether they could a) afford them and b) what sort of future will they have when everything seems to be going to pot (AI taking over jobs, skeleton staff for human jobs, homes too expensive, uni too expensive, childcare too expensive, wages low). If I were a young adult now I wouldn't have children, at least not in the UK if I had a choice.

Yes, so true about the lack of organised entertainment!
There are also state subsidised summer day camps (« centre aéré ») that are quite cheap.
Affordable nurseries is also great, and I seem to remember that the price is based on household earnings.

And you also pay less taxes when you have children! The calculation is per household, with each adult counting for one share and each child for 0.5 share.

How does France pay for all this, I’m not sure, but a few things that I know of:

• maternity leave is shorter (a lot of women take 3-6m).
• if on benefits, mothers will be expected to look for work way earlier than in the UK. Basically, you are a SAHM only if you can afford it.

Bit insulting (and ignorant) to say her investment in society stops with her.

Presumably if she and her dh earn enough to have a big house and all these luxuries they are paying a lot of tax, which is subsidising all the people who do have children. Not to mention they aren't using the country's resources with their birth costs, children's health costs, childcare entitlements, child benefits, schooling....

You haven't specified their careers but would you be saying a childfree teacher or social worker is not "investing in society?"

I would argue they are investing a lot more in future generations than someone who either doesn't work or works part time and claims top up benefits (as they are entitled to) but has had a couple of kids.

Most childfree families are going to be net financial contributers to the state (and therefore society) whereas most families with children are going to, overall, be receiving more from the state than they put in, at least for 18 years or so. Just to educate one child costs over £8k per year - i doubt most parents are paying that much extra tax per year, let alone everything else.

Not to mention lots of people without children still volunteer, have interest in and care for nephews, nieces, friends kids etc.

I think people forget that populations can implode, it will happen slowly and then all at once- a bit like bankruptcy.

Previous generations didn’t have to care for such frail people for so long, though. Pneumonia was ‘old man’s friend’ for a reason. Full on personal care to an incapacitated person wasn’t the norm, or at least not across multiple years. I don’t think previous family structures could have dealt with this either.

Lovely freedom. The "traditional family unit" was a burden and a pain for a lot of people, especially women. If you want those ties then fine. I prefer to be with people out of choice.

I don’t have children. I haven’t had to take maternity leave or claim child benefit. I invest in society in other ways and am not having children just to keep the family alive. It wouldn’t be the right decision for me and I am not on this planet just as a baby making machine.

Your sisters life sounds great to me.

Honestly the older I get the more dizzy with gratitude I feel to have been born in an era when I have been able to pick my own life. Having children looks totally awful, from pooey nappies to mum mum mum mum mum to taxi service for one thousand different clubs and activities to sullen teens mugging you off in your own house to fucking off and woah you're left in the rubble of your own life trying to remember who you are. Not to mention the physical and romantic damage.

Yeah I didn't have kids because as an individual it would suck but I'm very happy for everyone else to do the same if they want. Society is what we want it to be.

But what does having loads of cousins achieve? I’ve lots , my daughter has none.

I have no desire to speak to any of mine, no idea where they live and I’m sure they’d say the same. What I do have and what my child has is good friends, godparents who care and who are interested. Surely better to have people who are in your life through choice, theirs and yours? Suppose it’s all down to how you view family and your experience?

The suggestion that one is somehow carrying out a selfless act or investing in society by having children strikes me as insane. It’s a selfish act , partly borne out of a biological drive. Let’s not kid ourselves.

When I was young many families had a grandparent living with them, both my best friend's and my husband's among many others, and they stayed there until they died. Many of them kept an eye on the grandchildren, some helped around the house and cooked (while they could) so it was largely mutually beneficial. But yes it was the women of the family who looked after them when they were sick or dying. And as a pp said with modern drugs extending people's lives to the point where they have dementia or are bed bound for years, this family dynamic just doesn't work any more. I have 5 dc and I am not sure any of them will ever have children, if they do its likely to be quite a while into the future, and I will probably be too old to be much use to them, even if they still live nearby. It's sad, but it's the way of the world now.

What do you mean by "white people"? Are you american? Because this concept doesn't make sense from a European point of view: are southern european peoples (there are several of them, even within different states) considered "non-white"? They certainly have a very different understanding of the family than here on the UK, more similar to what you are describing. But saying they are not white is absurd. Skin pigmentation has nothing to do with family culture, in the european context. I personally believe that religion is a far more determining factor: you just have to look at the catholic/protestant cultural divide.