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?

Civilizations rise and fall. Whats so special about ours?

@Paintedmaypole

DG Rossetti It's possible that richer more powerful countries could try to steal people away from third world countries though.

Possible ? What do you think the official policy of the UK has been since Thatcher ? Downgrade education to ensure only the privileged few can actually benefit from it, and then ship in the skilled workers we need who - conveniently - can't vote and can be shipped out if they start to cause trouble. With the added bonus they pay a shit load of tax and get fuck all for it. (Mind you, we all know that one now).

Job done.

Anyone who thinks this is going to change for anything is - as with Covid - naive.

The only significant change in the past 5 years has been to make it even easier for the government to control the process with visas, now they've nailed that pesky Freedom of Movement which risked undermining decades of careful planning.

I have the cynic meter ticking over 3-4 at the moment. I can go higher ....

@DGRossetti

I really hate this divisive mentality which insists that people cannot have a credible alternative way of looking at the world from oneself, but must just be brainlessly stupid.

I didn't quite say that. I just judge by what people do, not what they say. By that token, I've not seen a single person who says they believe in the divine right of the unborn child do any more about it than try to bully and terrorise pregnant women (who are themselves divine children by that logic)

if anti abortionists set up hostels for unwanted babies, and devoted their own lives to bringing them up and alleviating the poverty that comes with unwanted births, then I'd have a different view.

If anti abortionists change their actions, I could change my view. Until then, it's just hypocrisy of the highest order.

And the weirdest thing is I have repeatedly ducked out of trying to have a view on abortion. Personally I'm not a massive fan, but at the end of the day it's not and will never be my body. So as far as I am concerned, it's a debate which doesn't need my input. Like so many that involve women.

I agree, Rosetti

For many anti-abortionists, the sanctity of life ends when the baby is born. They don't give a damn whether the mother is unable to care for the baby die to being very young, or depressed, or coping with other children and a dreadful relationship, or whether they just can't afford to feed and clothe another child, or whether she may have been raped, and not be able to face having to hold the child of the man who assaulted her - especially if he is someone known to her, who will insist on having parental rights.

Keep the foetus alive until birth, then it's "bye-bye, your problem, Mum!"

I firmly believe that the only person who should have rights over the continuation of a pregnancy is the woman involved.

Who knows what would happen but the Aus government is worried about it lol

In one ministers words this morning, "we want to create an economy where women want to have children"

Aka, we want all the men out working and the women home as brood mares

As women tend to live longer than men, I could see it being really rough on older women when there’s a dearth of younger people to assist us as we age. Imagine trying to make a doctor’s appointment when there aren’t any 20-40 year- olds to take the place of the previous generations. It’s hard enough now!

As PP’s have said, I think the world would tick along well for about 25 years with women forging ahead in many fields, but then we’d suddenly hit a crisis point due to a lack of young ‘uns. Life expectancy would fall as older people would would die of neglect and lack of basic services
(many would probably commit suicide); schools and universities would close due to lack of pupils so research would grind to a halt. Then there might be a backlash and a sudden spate of women having babies.

Of course, women may decide not to and then we’d die out. It would be hellish for the final generation, but it would be their choice.

@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

The Quiet at the End of the World by Lauren James is a good read too.

I think they'd just make more test tube babies.

Possible ? What do you think the official policy of the UK has been since Thatcher ? Downgrade education to ensure only the privileged few can actually benefit from it, and then ship in the skilled workers we need who - conveniently - can't vote and can be shipped out if they start to cause trouble. With the added bonus they pay a shit load of tax and get fuck all for it. (Mind you, we all know that one now).

Sounds like another bonkers truther theory to me if I'm honest.

And to be fair, more people are now going to uni than ever before...

I think they'd just make more test tube babies

You do realise that 'test tube babies' aren't gestated entirely in an actual test tube don't you?

For those mentioning The Children of Men, have you also read Greybeard by Brian Aldiss en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greybeard He was more laid back about the similarities than many authors who've resorted to law.

@Zilla1

For those mentioning The Children of Men, have you also read Greybeard by Brian Aldiss en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greybeard He was more laid back about the similarities than many authors who've resorted to law.

Good shout. Always enjoyed his very prescient short stories.

See the big downside of fascism is they realise in a couple of generations that they've killed off all the women who want to breed and made it too difficult for the poor to afford it.

If every woman decided to stop it would be seen as a political act and governments would become involved as eventually the decision would threaten the economic status quo.

There would probably be incentives to encourage poorer women to give up their decision and return to having babies, creating a rift between the wealthier women who could stand by their decision and the poorer ones who could not. Governments would use divide and conquer tactics to split the unilateral decision apart, and it would work.

@AmICrazyorWhat2

As women tend to live longer than men, I could see it being really rough on older women when there’s a dearth of younger people to assist us as we age. Imagine trying to make a doctor’s appointment when there aren’t any 20-40 year- olds to take the place of the previous generations. It’s hard enough now!

As PP’s have said, I think the world would tick along well for about 25 years with women forging ahead in many fields, but then we’d suddenly hit a crisis point due to a lack of young ‘uns. Life expectancy would fall as older people would would die of neglect and lack of basic services
(many would probably commit suicide); schools and universities would close due to lack of pupils so research would grind to a halt. Then there might be a backlash and a sudden spate of women having babies.

Of course, women may decide not to and then we’d die out. It would be hellish for the final generation, but it would be their choice.

Society may well decide to go for Midsummer style suicides at a certain age just to add to the craziness of things.

Problem solved re not having enough young people to ok after the elderly.

@Immigrantsong. I wouldn’t actually being able to pull the plug at a certain age, getting older (80+) can be really hard as the health issues increase. But that’s just me, I wouldn’t advocate it as a govt. policy!

[quote AmICrazyorWhat2]@Immigrantsong. I wouldn’t actually being able to pull the plug at a certain age, getting older (80+) can be really hard as the health issues increase. But that’s just me, I wouldn’t advocate it as a govt. policy![/quote]
Sorry I was attempting a wee joke, as Midsummer was a film and we have been quoting some films here. It didn't go the way I was aiming as it was entirely lighthearted based on a very scary film.

I thought it was a film reference but I haven’t seen it. I’m a complete coward with scary films, I lie awake thinking something’s under the bed/in the wardrobe if I watch anything remotely scary.🤣

@AmICrazyorWhat2

I thought it was a film reference but I haven’t seen it. I’m a complete coward with scary films, I lie awake thinking something’s under the bed/in the wardrobe if I watch anything remotely scary.🤣

Same and this has scared me for life. It is quite scary.

m.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/

Logan's run 70s film everyone expected to euthanise at 30

Also an episode of star trek TOS where instead of having actual casualties of war, the computers decided who would be killed by the virtual missile strikes and the people would have to euthanise.

carousel, Gerbil?

@formerbabe

I think they'd just make more test tube babies

You do realise that 'test tube babies' aren't gestated entirely in an actual test tube don't you?

"Where's the fetus going to gestate? In a box?!"

There is quite a lot of work being done on artificial wombs being done at the moment TBF. It’s at early stages, but in the scenario we’re talking about, if you threw the sort of resources and priorities that the world is throwing at COVID-19 at it, you’d probably get something useable in a couple of decades, in time to stave off complete extinction. If you needed to replace female human eggs as well, using human DNA in, say, a gorilla’s egg then again it’s a huge challenge but probably achievable in a couple of decades if you threw the world’s resources at it.

Not as cheap and scaleable as the Handmaid’s Tale version of course.

More succinct than I was upthread

Not as cheap and scaleable as the Handmaid’s Tale version of course

And remember what Ms Attwood said about The Handmaid's Tale when people started calling her a "speculative fiction" writer: that everything in the book had happened recently (1980s) in the world.