What do you think would happen if all women just suddenly decided to stop having babies?

[FortunesFave]

Some would still be born through rape but if the entire world population of women said "No" to procreation...what would happen to the world?

DGRosetti yes that's already a thing isn't it.

Obviously not as extreme as your scenario, but in SK and Japan the birth rates are plummetting because so many women have basically opted out of motherhood. This is in large part due to the fact that young Korean and Japanese women want careers and independence, and motherhood tends to deprive them of both in their societies. There's a huge push to encourage women to have more - or any - children but it hasn't been very successful because the disincentives to child bearing remain.

But I agree with posters above that if women en masse were to refuse to have children, a grim Gilead scenario would materialise sooner or later.

I'm convinced that a large number of anti-abortionists are more concerned with controlling women than the rights of the foetus. If they were so concerned about babies they would be campaigning for better early years help and making sure no child grows up in poverty

In the space of twelve months a woman can only conceive, carry, and deliver one pregnancy.

In that same space of time a man could theoretically impregnate 365 different women based on a rate of one a day.

Controls on contraception and abortion are absolutely about controlling women otherwise the focus would be on the men in this scenario.

I'm convinced that a large number of anti-abortionists are more concerned with controlling women than the rights of the foetus.

To be honest, I never thought any differently. You can't have a brain and think any other way.

Tbh I've never known a man who admitted to actively wanting children

I think there is a difference between not wanting children at all and wanting children but not wanting to spend money on them or do the donkey work of changing, feeding, cleaning, raising, etc.

I know lots of men who fall into category two and very few in category one.

@Augustseemsbetter

Anyway, why has noone come up with the Brave New World incubator scenario?

Or have I misremembered that after 40 years?!

Not misremembered at all, August. I think that because the infertility was a voluntary thing rather than state-mandated, it never entered our/my head/s

But I think this would probably be a possibility even now - or at least very soon.

I think as a species we really need to reduce our numbers, though - and yes, for at least one generation (mine) possibly two, (and my children's) it would be awful! But after that a much more stable situation in terms of sustainability would result.

Trouble is - many nations would claim to be reducing numbers, but would actually be quietly increasing them in the hope of (if you will pardon the expression) "world domination".

Being in category two becomes less of an issue once you have women forced into doing the actual work of birthing and raising them.

And as a PP said, there would be an insidious smear campaign against women as the architects of everything shitty in the world.

Less nappies, more sleep

Well put, GanCanny

It is indeed control of female sexuality and reproductive capability.

We'd stop being too overpopulated, better for the environment.
I'm hoping more women start saying no to having kids tbh.

It’s already increasingly happening. Birth rates have gone right down in nearly every country.

Men would make the women have babies.

We might get a world like The Handmaid's Tale, where men capture women to force them to procreate.

@Paintedmaypole

I find some of the replies a bit weird. The implication is that only men would want to reproduce 0and would treat women like a herd of cows or sex slaves to that end. Women on te other hand are seen as having no urge to reproduce and only having children to serve men I think a large proportion of women want to have children of their own volition. It also suits both men and women to limit the size of their family. Does no one enjoy being ,a mother and does everyone really prefer the time they spend at work? (I didn't )

Why are the replies weird when the question was very specifically what would happen if all women decided to stop having babies?

This is why traumatic birth stories are hushed up and anyone suffering mentally of physically from birth are told to shut up, all that matters is everyone is there. Fucking Davina Macall goes round telling women to only offer positive birth stories. It’s all a matter of breathing through the twinges.

My feelings are men would basically somehow to contrive to set up breeding farms where women were forced to have babies (probably under some “good for society” banner.

As many people have said, it's happening in slow motion at the moment.

We also have real-life insight into what happens when numbers of fertile females decline. China's one child policy (now relaxed) plus sex-selective abortion have led to a defecit of women in the population. The response? Trafficking unwilling women across the border from neighbouring countries, industrial rape and forced marriages.

It would be fascinating I think to see a breakdown of what women actually wanted for themselves, in the absence of social or economic pressures/coercion. My hunch is that you'd get some sort of distribution within the female population where the majority wanted 2 children, with minorities either side who wanted either none (or occasionally just one), and minorities who wanted more than 2 (with most of those wanting just 3, but a few wanting very large families). I suspect that overall, left to their own devices (and able to afford families of whatever size they chose, plus continuing with jobs where they wanted to/stable relationships to provide a financially secure environment where they wanted to be SAHM), overall the female population would settle of its own accord somewhere round about replacement level (2.1 children per individual on average).

But I don't think any country in the world provides this absence of coercion/economic pressure. Italy, for example, has low birth rates because housing is so expensive couples can't afford to set up house together and end up staying in the parental home into their thirties. End result - couples finally get an appartment of their own, then have 1 child because that's all they can afford. I'm not sure, talking to Italian friends, that this is what they want, more what they feel constrained to do by economics. Germany has huge social pressures making it (relatively speaking, for a western European country) unacceptable to be a WOHM of pre-school children (women who do this are referred to as "raven mothers"), so I guess there are maybe more young German women who feel there's a choice to be made between career and motherhood.

Italy, for example, has low birth rates because housing is so expensive couples can't afford to set up house together and end up staying in the parental home into their thirties. End result - couples finally get an appartment of their own, then have 1 child because that's all they can afford. I'm not sure, talking to Italian friends, that this is what they want, more what they feel constrained to do by economics

Housing in Italy isn't particularly expensive by Western European standards. Also, how do we define 'afford'? Would middle class Italian couples be unable to feed or house more than 1 child? I doubt it. Not to mention that generally, wealth and fertility have an inverse relationship - birth rates tend to go down rather than up with increased wealth.

So I think low birth rates in Italy, and in Spain (where the situaiton is similar) have deeper reasons than not being able to 'afford' more than one child.

We also have real-life insight into what happens when numbers of fertile females decline. China's one child policy (now relaxed) plus sex-selective abortion have led to a defecit of women in the population. The response? Trafficking unwilling women across the border from neighbouring countries, industrial rape and forced marriages.

History. Sabine women. Once again, look back and you can see forwards ...

Don't know if anyone has mentioned Romania under caecescu?

A real life example.

@FortunesFave

Some would still be born through rape but if the entire world population of women said "No" to procreation...what would happen to the world?

In countries with some of the highest populations women don’t truly have reproductive freedom. Even in places like middle class India and China women who don’t want to marry / have kids may still be forced down that route as social opportunities don’t really exist for women without kids.

I'm convinced that a large number of anti-abortionists are more concerned with controlling women than the rights of the foetus. If they were so concerned about babies they would be campaigning for better early years help and making sure no child grows up in poverty

I think that is really unfair

Dont think its unfair at all. Funny how this concern for the child ends at birth. Then it becomes solely the mothers responsibility. Child living in poverty? The answer is not wefare and support (ie my taxes). The answer is personal responsibility - if you cant pay for a larger family dont have one.

I wonder how many pro lifers are pro personal responsibility? And anti government intervention (ie through their taxes) to end child poverty...

@AuntieStella

You might enjoy this novel:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_Men

set in a world where sudden mass infertility strikes the globe

I was just going to mention children of men!

In developed countries, children don't bring any financial value to the economy or provide any meaningful contribution to society...in fact, they are a drain.

You’re underestimating the money spent on children by parents. Food, eating out, entertainment, clothing, trips, bigger homes, bigger cars, toys, technology etc.

@NiceGerbil

Don't know if anyone has mentioned Romania under caecescu?

A real life example.

A name we need to remember. I can recall his being dragged out (with his wife) and shot against a wall. And then dragged out again and shot again for the TV cameras to get a better take. An interesting collision of old world and new.

1989 ?

Just in case people thought European bloody revolutions are a thing for dusty history books.

A few of my friends have already started musing that Covid might pave the way for a universal basic income (those working in the welfare sector) or strengthen and improve minimum wage conditions to bolster the intent of workers to return. I find it very interesting as they are two sides to the same coin and I suspect that governments will err on the side of capitalism and the urge will be to ensure the flow of workers (with punitive measures as required) and not to ensure that everyone is safe, fed, and able to bring up families with basic standards being met.
It’s definitely an opportunity in terms of a reduction in population and a forced economic pause to rethink some of the basic tenets of society. (Or it could be - language too strong there!
I know the conversation was really about bottom up population control rather than the Covid factor, but it’s interesting.
I’ve read some of the books mentioned - does anyone have a really good collated list? I’m in need of my next lockdown reading list
(oh has anyone read Calamity Leek? Sort of Atwood-esque easy read)
DGR - is there a good signpost for the post Black Death social reforms? History not entirely my bag but that’s where my mind has been wandering in a sort of ‘silver lining’ direction... and I’d love to read more.
(I’m also fascinated that researchers are noting a reduction in premature births during Covid, and are looking for causation. I can see that this could be used to limit the participation of carrying vessels in the economy - for their own protection, the protection of the unborn, and the protection of vital NHS resources, you understand....)