What if women stopped having babies?

[Whatifitneverhappened]

There was an article in the news yesterday about declining birth rates: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/09/world-needs-babies-better-rethink-what-we-need-from-mothers

What do you think would happen if women chose to stop having babies altogether? Would the human race die out? Or AIBU to think men wouldn't allow this to happen and women's reproductive choices would be simply taken away Gilead-style? Could we grow babies in test tubes to make the role of women as incubators redundant?

I think long term, very long term, it could be a good thing for the population to reduce. Shorter term it poses a lot of challenges for the economy, care, welfare and so much more until the larger group of older generations die out and the balance is somewhat restored.

Many countries are over populated and the demand for recourses is far too high, there is a date each year when the use of natural resources exceeds what can be replaced naturally, that date is getting earlier and earlier each year (I think it was something like July last year or 2019). This isn't an acceptable way to use our planet and natural resources and is not sustainable as we hurtle towards a time when these resources become so scarce there is drought, famine and natural disasters posing risk to all life on earth.

Obviously addressing inequalities and the innate sexism in our society should be high on the agenda, but that is fairly unlikely as things stand now, small steps have been made but it's never enough. In an example given above, 3 years paid maternity is great, but what happens on the woman's return to the workplace? Is she then at a disadvantage because she has been out of the loop for so long while the mans life is mostly unchanged but he gets a nice little day off once a month.

I came upon a global population site a while ago. Which gives a live update of births. It was totally alarming.

What if women stopped having babies?

Human population would die out.

Reality perhaps is declining birth rate is probably a feature of what we see as first world issues. I suspect that one of the ways it may play out is increased migration from third world to first in search of a better life with a change in the populations.

@trixies I'm sorry your life feels sad a lot..
More people should support and sign the petition for dying with dignity in the UK.
It is already being put through the seanad in Ireland for debate.

@EmeraldShamrock

The crazy part by reducing the birth rate of humans we are replacing them with domesticated pets. The canine birth rates has exploded producing meat eating animals reducing the resources and making a pet carbon footprint. Nearly every home has a pet and for the ones that don't it evens out as some have 2 or 3 domesticated animals. It doesn't make sense.

That's really interesting. Can you link to your source for that re numbers of homes having pets?

In 100 years euthanasia will be accepted as the right thing to do. In rich countries only the poor will give birth. The rich will have gone through a period of using surrogates (this is already happening to an extent for the super rich) but will have moved onto using artificial means of incubating babies outside the body. This is will definitely be viable in that time frame.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_womb

It is hardly surprising when even on MN having DC is seen as a selfish lifestyle choice. Heaven forfend you express a desire for some consideration or help from someone else (like grandparents).

@Velvian But it is a selfish lifestyle choice. People have children because they want them - not because they want to benefit society by providing taxpayers or carers for the elderly. That some of those children do go on to be taxpayers and carers is, of course, a societal benefit - but the true answer to the looming crisis of an expanding older non-working population is not to have more babies (who will then become an even bigger older non-working population, requiring even more babies... etc).

It's OK to make selfish lifestyle choices. We all do it - it's almost impossible not to in a capitalist system. But we need to be aware of the consequences and try to work out a way to mitigate the effects, rather than delude ourselves by seeing having children as a selfless act with no implications for the global population.

The age at which women have their first DC is as important as the number of children

Delaying children until mid thirties means you lose generation for every two, compared to a society where women have their first DC at 20.

This absolutely terrifies me the thought of my children not being able to have baby’s

It may be a better thought than your children bringing babies into an uninhabitable world. Not having children isn’t the worst thing that can possibly happen to a person

I’d like to think it would be the trigger for a proper examination of the ways that women are economically, politically and socially held back by being the default caregiver, and changes being made to even it out. I think that would be more likely than a Gilead situation, even though I’m generally quite pessimistic about the future. But the reality is as others have said, the situation won’t ever arise. The vast majority of children, definitely in Europe and North America, are born because their mothers want them. Motherhood is the single biggest factor in women’s inequality and lack of freedom, and the majority of women still choose it. I can’t see that changing.

www.healthdata.org/news-release/lancet-world-population-likely-shrink-after-mid-century-forecasting-major-shifts-global
world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100—about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates [1], according to a new study published in The Lancet.

ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-un?country=~OWID_WRL

This has a nice map showing the world and declining number of children per woman since 1950.

I'm not sure there huge amount of evidence that any government policies have any long term effect on increased brith rates

How do countries fight falling birth rates?

I don't we'd ever get to no children -without something really bad happening -but we have been seeing increasing amount of women wanting no children coupled with smaller family sizes - with economic reasons playing a role in that as well as education.

I think most developed countries would either turn to immigration or tech I suppose highly authortarian governments could try following Ceaușescu example.

I think the next thirty years will see the development of artificial wombs so that women will not have to be pregnant to have a child.www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-50056405

I think falling birth rates is the best thing we can possibly do for the planet. I know it might create short term problems but we'd just have to cope. The logical solution for countries with too few people is to open the doors to immigration from high unemployment countries.

@Joinedjustforthispost This absolutely terrifies me the thought of my children not being able to have baby’s

This is the reality for 1 in 8 couples right now.

Money is the first incentive if you can provide it, free or cheap childcare too.

If it were say a British thing, then there would just be a mass import of immigrants willing to have babies for a "better life".

In certain countries then I think forced pregnancy by rape or insemination would become the thing. Prison for anyone who has a miscarriage / still birth until they have a healthy pregnancy.

Children potentially raised institutionally so they can be brainwashed into procreation again with them "encouraged" to have babies young.

Some counteries would look into artificial foetus growth but there's a massive burden once they're at gestation. Who is going to feed and care for them?

That’s interesting. If women decided to have babies grown in a tube or some kind of incubator it would completely change the dynamic as maybe then both parents would be more equal in terms of all the choices that come with having a child.

This is my view that men and woman will never have equality while one half of humanity is condemned to suffer pain and indignity to bear the children of all humanity. Plus all the baggage that goes with it like periods, the menopause, responsibility for childcare etc.

No doubt there will always be women who opt for "natural" childbirth even when the necessity for such is removed.

Nearly every home has a pet and for the ones that don't it evens out as some have 2 or 3 domesticated animals.

really interesting. Can you link to your source for that re numbers of homes having pets
My eyes are the source on this one - I'll see what data i can find. My proof is on the school run, neighbours homes, the booming pet grooming industry, high demand for new puppies, extortionate prices increasing breeding rates, the criminal interest increasing breeding rates even faster.
We're cutting down on DC and over breeding pets?

We're cutting down on DC and over breeding pets?
OMG, BOSS BABY IS RIGHT!!!!!!

I believe that it's highly possible this happening in our lifetime. I don't think woman will stop knowingly I think it will be a natural thing. Like the pollution and the low quality of food that is sold expensive. The want for a baby will always be there.

Have you looked at population trends? The worldwide population has increased from 2.5billion to 7.5 billion since 1950. The world would be fine if even 50% of women stopped having babies. The population coul decline significantly over a couple of centuries before the human race was at risk.

I don't think women will suddenly declare an industrial fertility action. However, I do think that having children and working will gradually become more and more mutually exclusive, and women will generally separate into career mothers (with a "medieval" number of children, 8+), and working childless women.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Chinese friend. She said if she got married, she’d be expected to look after her husband, her child (if they had one), her parents and her husband’s parents. 6 people in total. Then they wonder why so many women in China are opting not to get married and have children... I’d rather get a really pampered chihuahua.

The problems of the world have so little to do with the numbers inhabiting it, it is more about the unequal distribution of resources, the way capitalism and corporatism funnel profit towards a very few, power, greed, all dressed up in a superficial lip service to "the greater good".

It's not a case of either/or, and I get a bit frustrated that everyone who cares about the problem of distribution and concentration of power also insists that there is no overpopulation.

The global birth rate may be falling, but our population has grown so much from 2 billion to 7.5 billion over the last hundred years that it can keep growing when people have fewer children.

I remember reading a breathless article about an amazingly large population of seals -- the biggest population of large mammals excepting humans, their pets, and the billions of animals we breed to slaughter and eat. This excitingly huge population of seals was six million. There are 7.5 thousand million humans. We really do exist in disproportionate numbers.